CAR_Public/180531.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, May 31, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 109



                            Headlines


AARON'S INC: 3rd Party Administrator in "Korrow" Begins Payments
AARON'S INC: District Court Reinstates Invasion of Privacy Claim
AECOM INC: Faces "Tafoya" Suit in C.D. California
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Connecticut Class Suit Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing

AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty in Discovery
ALKERMES PLC: Faces "Gagnon" Class Action Suit
AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Remanded to California State Court
AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Narrows Claims in "Miller" Wage & Hour Suit
AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Faces Two Class Suits in Mexico

AMYRIS INC: California Securities Suit Dropped
ANTHEM INC: Report in Cyber Attack Suit Due This Month
ANTHEM INC: Defendants to Seek 11th Circuit Appeal
APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over PowerBeats Headphones
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Suit by St. Louis Heart Center Dismissed

AV HOMES: Bid for Class Cert. in Solivita-Related Suit Pending
AVINGER INC: Earmarks $1.76 Million for Litigation Settlement
BAI BRANDS: Justin Timberlake Among Defendants in Class Action
BEHR PROCESS: Court Extends Status Report Filing in "Rose"
BELLE GLADE: Faces "Monroe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BLUE STAR: Court Awards $7K Attorney' Fees in "Martinez"
BMW BANK: Foley & Lardner Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
BOFI HOLDING: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
BOFI HOLDING: June 15 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Mandalevy" Suit
BRAVO BRIO: Faces "Dagenbach" Shareholder Class Action

BRIGHT HOUSE: Judgment on Pleading in "Sliwa" TCPA Suit Denied
BRISTOL MYERS: Faces Suit Related to Checkmate -026 Trial
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit in Works
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Class Action Expected to Move Forward This Year
CANADIAN SOLAR: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Action

CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Automall Suit Consolidated in MDL
CELGENE CORP: Kessler Topaz Announces Class Period Expansion
CELLULAR SALES: Can't Compel Production of Communications
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Continues to Defend "Kater" Class Action
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Witness Deposition in Suit vs CCSD Extended

COLGATE PALMOLIVE: New York Class Suit Remains Pending
COLORADO: Homeless Sweep Class Action Attorney Faces Challenges
CONCHA Y TORO: Appeal in California Class Suit Still Pending
CONTROLADORA VUELA: New York Class Action Concluded
CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in "Henderson" Suit Approved

CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in "Witt" Suit Approved
CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend "Feliciano" Class Suit
CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend "King" Class Action
CORNING INC: Court Denies Certification in Modern Holdings' Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Arbitration Bid

CREDIT UNION: Court Allows Amendment to "Nichols" TCPA Complaint
CSK AUTO: June 25 Deadline to Respond to Pleading in "Aguilar"
CYAN INC: Recent Supreme Court Ruling Resolves SLUSA Issue
DEL MONTE: Court Approves $904,872 Settlement in "Bruce"
DEUTSCHE BANK: Certification of Certificate Holders Class Denied

DIRECTV LLC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Valdez"
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Cal. High Ct. Uses ABC Test in Drivers' Suit
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Ruling Hailed as Game Changer for Gig Economy
EL PASO, CO: Judge Grants Class Action Status in Immigration Case
ELETROBRAS: To Pay US$ 14.75-Bil. to Settle US Class Action

EPIC SYSTEMS: Employment Lawsuit Awaits Supreme Court Ruling
EQUIFAX INC: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity-Related Suits
ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Under Appeal in 3rd Circuit
ERIE INDEMNITY: Bid to Drop "Ritz" Suit Ongoing
ESSENDANT INC: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement

EXTENDICARE: Class Action Alleges Negligence at Nursing Homes
FACEBOOK INC: Canadians Sue Over Cambridge Analytica Scandal
FACEBOOK INC: User Agreement May Create Grounds for Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Parties Agree to Settle Class Suit over IPO
FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

FCA US: Court Dismisses "Bledsoe" Dodge Ram Emissions Suit
FIRST COMMUNITY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Strike in "Lavigne"
FITCHBURG GAS: "Bellermann" Class Action Still Ongoing
FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Power Outages
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: "Fernandez" & "Cryer" Suits Consolidated

GAME SHOW NETWORK: Faces "Bell" Suit in W.D. Washington
GATEWAY ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Pedranti Sues Over Steering System Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: NY Judge Nixes Advance Successor Liability Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Petitions for Rehearing and En Banc Review Denied

GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends 3 Airbag Inflators Class Suits
GNC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling to Pennsylvania High Court
GNC HOLDINGS: Bid for Class Decertification Filed in "Naranjo"
GOOGLE INC: Ballard Spahr Discusses Cy pres Settlement Ruling
GOOGLE LLC: Says Would-Be Workers Can't Sue Together

GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HENRY SCHEIN: Kaskela Files Shareholder Class Action
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Ink Cartridge Suit
ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in "Koss" Medicaid Suit
IMPERIALCARS.COM: "Cohen" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020
INPUT CAPITAL: Famers File Class Action Over Unfair Contracts
IQ FORMULATIONS: Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action Lawsuit
JONES MOTOR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Daley" ICWA Suit

K12 INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Securities Class Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
LG CHEM: Lithium Batteries Settlements Obtain Final Court Nod
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Fober"
MANNA 2ND: "Jara" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. State Court
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denies "Arias" Class Certification Bid
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Claims in Ritz-Carlton Club Suit Narrowed
MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Partial Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Granted

MDL 2099: Stanford Securities Litigation Pending
MDL 2179: Court Denies Bid for Supersedeas Bond
MDL 2827: "Burton" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
MDL 2828: United Food Suit Transferred to Oregon
MDL 2828: "Ferrer" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon

MDL 2828: "Mechri" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon
MDL 2828: "Park" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Justice Highwall Workers Included in Class
METHODIST DALLAS: Meal Break Suit Granted Class Action Status
MICROSEMI CORP: Multiple Merger-Related Suits Pending in Calif.

MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Arbitration in "Maher" Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Suit Underway in British Columbia
MICROSOFT CORP: Summary Judgment Filed in Gender Bias Suit
MSR 804: Families of EgyptAir Crash Victims File Suit
NEW LINK: Court Dismisses "Nguyen" Securities Fraud Suit

NEW YORK: Dismissal of Dormant Commerce Clause Claims Affirmed
NEW YORK: Averts Female Crossing Guards' Class Action
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
NISSAN NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in Defective TCTS Suit
NYU LANGONE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Sgarlata" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Public Prosecutor's Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Class Action vs. Unit Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: "Blais" Class Action vs. Unit Still Pending

PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in "Kunta" Case to Pursue Another Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Pending in "Adams"
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit Stayed Pending "Adams" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Complaint Still Not Properly Served
PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Suit Remains Dormant
PHL VARIABLE: Sued in New York Over Excessive COI Increase
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Four Class Suits in the U.S.
PRATT & WHITNEY: Judge Rules Against Expanding Lawsuit

PURDUE PHARMA: Sued Over Rising Health Insurance Premiums
PURDUE PHARMA: 3 Law Firms File Opioid Epidemic Class Actions
QUEENSLAND: To Pay $30-Mil. in Palm Island Class Action
QUINSTREET INC: June 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
RIPPLE LABS: Hit With Class-Action Suit Over 'Never Ending ICO'

RITE AID: "Wilson" Merger Class Action Remains Pending
RITE AID: Plaintiff Balks at Motion to Dismiss "Hering" Suit
RITE AID: Indergit Administrator Has Disbursed Settlement Funds
RITE AID: Trial in "Hill" Suit Continued to June 15
RODAN + FIELDS: Hit With Suit Over Eyelash Enhancer

ROSETTA RADIOLOGY: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
ROTHMAN EVANS: Faces "Wheeler" Suit in N.D. New York
RYB EDUCATION: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
RYB EDUCATION: "Qian" Class Action Pending in California
SEATTLE GENETICS: Still Defends CD33A Class Action

SEATTLE GENETICS: "Kim" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SERVICE CORP: Settlement in "Allard" Finally Approved
SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit Under Appeal
SERVICE CORP: "Urofsky" Class Action Pending in E.D. Pa.
SILICON LABORATORIES: Defending "Noyes" Class Suit

SINA CORPORATION: Unit's Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
SIRIUS XM: "Buchanan" TCPA Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suit over Biometric Info
SIX FLAGS: Suits over Credit & Debit Card Info Still Ongoing
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Woods to Facilitate Class Action Negotiations

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces "Campbell", "Neal" & "Mott" TCPA Suits
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Kincaid TCPA Class Action Still Ongoing
SYSTEM DYNAMICS: "Mullally" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TARGET CORP: Up & Up Toddler Wipes Settlement Has Prelim OK
TIGER BRANDS: South Africa Gold Producers, Miners Reach Deal

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Still Stayed
UNION PACIFIC: Palestine Woman Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Houstounians File Claims v. Corps of Engineers
UNITED STATES: Forest Service Faces Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
UNITYPOINT HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Court Tosses Cold-FX Case Appeal
VICTORY PARK: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in N.D. Texas
VIDEOTRON LTEE: Settlement Negotiations in "Benabu" Suit Ongoing
WAGEWORKS INC: Kaskela Files Shareholder Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Settles Fake-Accounts Lawsuit for $480MM

WELLS FARGO: Union Investment Achieves Recovery for Shareholders
WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Policy
XUNLEI LTD: Faces Securities Class Suit Related to OneCoin

* Jackson Lewis Issues Class Action Trends Report
* Oil Sector Hot Bed of IC Misclassification Class Actions


                            *********


AARON'S INC: 3rd Party Administrator in "Korrow" Begins Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the third party in Margaret Korrow, et al.
v. Aaron's, Inc., has begun issuing payments to consumers after
final settlement was paid.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable
in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the
Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006
purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes.

In December 2016, a class notice was mailed to certain
individuals who were customers of Company-operated stores in New
Jersey from March 16, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The parties
participated in a settlement conference and reached tentative
settlement terms in March 2017. On September 15, 2017, the
parties submitted the final comprehensive settlement agreement to
the Court for approval, which the Court approved during the first
quarter of 2018.

The final settlement was paid to a third party administrator in
the first quarter of 2018. That third party began issuing
payments to consumers and will continue payment distributions
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions. It operates through three segments:
Progressive Leasing, Aaron's Business, and DAMI. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.


AARON'S INC: District Court Reinstates Invasion of Privacy Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the District Court has granted plaintiff's
motion to reconsider the prior dismissal of the Wyoming invasion
of privacy claim.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way
Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs
allege the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated
plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought
certification of a putative nationwide class.

Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software
program called "PC Rental Agent." Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, asserting claims under the ECPA, common law invasion
of privacy, seeking an injunction, and naming additional
independently owned and operated Company franchisees as
defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as
injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and
abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification. On September 26,
2017, the District Court again denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Plaintiffs have filed a petition with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit for permission to appeal the denial
of class certification. The Company is opposing this petition,
and a decision remains pending. In March 2018, the District Court
granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider the prior dismissal of
the Wyoming invasion of privacy claim. That claim is now under
evaluation for class certification.

Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions. It operates through three segments:
Progressive Leasing, Aaron's Business, and DAMI. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.


AECOM INC: Faces "Tafoya" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AECOM, Inc. The
case is styled as Issac Tafoya, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AECOM,
Inc. and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04113
(C.D. Cal., May 16, 2018).

AECOM, Inc. provides building engineering, transportation, and
environmental consultancy services in the United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Connecticut Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting a court
decision on the appeal made by the plaintiffs in a Connecticut
class action against the company and Trilegiant Corporation.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a
putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated two additional lawsuits
making substantially similar allegations that were filed against
the Company, Trilegiant, and numerous other defendants. An
additional lawsuit, which was identical in all respects to these
cases, was also consolidated on March 28, 2014.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2014,
the court entered orders granting in part and denying in part the
motions to dismiss. After the motions, claims under the ECPA and
CUTPA and for unjust enrichment remained pending against the
Company and Trilegiant. On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on the claims of the remaining named
Plaintiffs. On August 23, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion for Summary Judgment as to all remaining claims against
the Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeals held
oral arguments on October 27, 2017. A decision has not yet been
issued.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership
and Package. The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut by a former member of Webloyalty's
membership programs.

On August 27, 2010, a former member of Webloyalty's membership
programs filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients, and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut (the "Connecticut District Court").

The Plaintiff alleged that Webloyalty's enrollment of the
Plaintiff using debit card information obtained from a third
party via data pass, and not directly from the Plaintiff, was
deceptive. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of
consumers whose credit or debit card data was transferred to
Webloyalty via data pass on or after October 1, 2008.

The complaint, which was amended several times, asserted, among
others, claims for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act ("EFT"), the ECPA, and CUTPA as well as other common law
claims.  On October 15, 2015, the Connecticut District Court
entered judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. The
Plaintiff appealed that judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").

On December 20, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the District
Court of Connecticut's dismissal in part, but reversed and
remanded the dismissal of claims against Webloyalty and its
former client under CUTPA and the EFT. The District Court of
Connecticut held a scheduling conference on March 23, 2017, but
discovery has not yet commenced. The defendants have answered the
complaint and denied any liability.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership
and Package. The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the class action suit against
Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California is now in discovery.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (the "District Court of S.C."). After filing
several amended complaints, the Plaintiff asserted a variety of
claims, including claims under the EFT, the ECPA, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. (the
"CBPC"), CUTPA, various privacy statutes, and common law.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers
whose credit or debit card information was obtained by Webloyalty
via data pass, and had their credit or debit cards charged on or
after October 1, 2008. On June 22, 2015, the District Court of
S.C. entered judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's federal claims
with prejudice, and his state claims without prejudice. The
Plaintiff appealed that judgement to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit").

On March 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the Plaintiff's ECPA and privacy-based state law claims, but
reversed and remanded the dismissal of other claims, including
the Plaintiff's claims under the EFT, CBPC, and CUTPA. On
September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which asserts the claims that were remanded by the Ninth Circuit.
Webloyalty has answered the complaint and denied all liability.
The matter is now in discovery.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership
and Package. The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


ALKERMES PLC: Faces "Gagnon" Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------
Alkermes Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc,
et al.

On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:17-cv-09178.  The complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the
period of February 24, 2015 to November 3, 2017, and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's marketing
practices related to VIVITROL.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages for
alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet
medical needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the
United States, Ireland, and internationally.  It was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Remanded to California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District
California remaned the case captioned MARIA RAMOS, Plaintiff, v.
AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-01842-TLN-AC, (E.D.
Cal.), to the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.

The Defendant removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to the
general removal statute. Days later, the parties stipulated to
its transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

The general removal statute permits the removal to federal court
of any civil action over which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction. Removal is proper under
Section 1441 only if the district court could have exercised
jurisdiction over the action had it originally been filed in
federal court.

This case is only in federal district court because the Defendant
has removed it. That is, the Defendant is the proponent of this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, it is the Defendant's
burden not the Plaintiff's to show this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction. Crediting the Defendant's argument as to standing,
without deciding that it is correct, the Defendant plainly has
not carried its burden to show this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction. Accordingly, remand to state court is appropriate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available https://tinyurl.com/y9vv8rk5 from Leagle.com.

Maria Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger --
gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law, Prescott W.
Littlefield -- pwl@keameylittlefield.com -- Kearney Littlefield,
LLP  -Richard David Lambert -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com,
Stonebarger Law & Thomas A. Kearney -- tak@keameylittlefield.com
-- Kearney Littlefield, LLP.

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


AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Narrows Claims in "Miller" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Amazon.com, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations in the case
captioned JASMINE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03488-MMC. (N.D. Cal.).

In its Motion to Dismiss, Amazon asserts the following:

   (1) The First Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Regular
Pay/Minimum Wages -- is subject to dismissal, as plaintiff fails
to allege facts showing that there was a given week in which she
was entitled to but denied minimum wages or regular wages.

   (2) The Second Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Overtime
Premium Pay -- is subject to dismissal, as plaintiff fails to
allege facts showing that there was a given week in which she was
entitled to but denied overtime wages.

   (3) The Third Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Meal
Periods and/or Meal Period Premium Pay -- is subject to
dismissal, as plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to
support a finding that Amazon failed to provide her a meal period
or periods.

   (4) The Fourth Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Rest
Periods and Rest Period Premium Pay -- is, for the reasons stated
with respect to the Third Cause of Action, subject to dismissal.

   (5) The Fifth Cause of Action -- Failure to Reimburse for
Necessary Expenditures Incurred -- is not subject to dismissal,
in light of plaintiff's allegation that she was required to carry
and use her personal cell phone for scheduling purposes and
maintaining communication with dispatch and the warehouse all
without any reimbursement of any kind.

   (6) The Sixth Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements and Keep Accurate Payroll Records -- is, as
pleaded, derivative of the First through Fifth Causes of Action.

   (7) The Seventh Cause of Action -- Failure to Timely Pay Wages
Owed -- is subject to dismissal, as plaintiff does not allege
facts to support a finding that Amazon's asserted failure to
timely pay wages due plaintiff upon termination of her employment
was willful.

   (8) The Eighth Cause of Action -- Failure to Provide Adequate
Contracting Compensation -- is subject to dismissal.

   (9) The Ninth Cause of Action -- Violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law -- is subject to dismissal.

Motion to Strike

In light of the Court's dismissal of the majority of the claims
asserted in the operative pleading, and plaintiff's opportunity
to amend her dismissed claims, the Court will deny Amazon's
motion to strike the class allegations, without prejudice to
refiling after plaintiff has amended, or, alternatively, decides
not to do so.

Amazon's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part,
as follows: the First through Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes
of Action are dismissed in their entirety; the Sixth Cause of
Action is dismissed to the extent it is based on the First
through Fourth Causes of Action; the Ninth Cause of Action is
dismissed to the extent it is based on the First through Fourth,
Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action, and to the extent it is
based on the portion of the Sixth Cause of Action that is subject
to dismissal.  In all other respects, the motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available https://tinyurl.com/ybvltpkq from Leagle.com.

Jasmine Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill,
Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan Khoury and
Singer, Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Isam Charles Khoury, Esq., at
Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Amazon.com, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Brian David Fahy -- brian.fahy@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John S. Battenfield, Esq. --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Theresa C. Mak -- Theresa.Mak@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Faces Two Class Suits in Mexico
---------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.'s principal brand in Mexico for
wireless voice and data services, Telcel, continues to face class
action lawsuits regarding the brand's quality of service,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Federal Consumer Bureau (ProcuradurĀ”a Federal del Consumidor,
or "Profeco") initiated a proceeding before Mexican courts in
2011 on behalf of customers who alleged deficiencies in the
quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer
agreements. In June 2017, this proceeding was resolved in favor
of Telcel, as Profeco failed to prove any breach by Telcel of the
standard contract form executed by Telcel's customers.

Telcel is also subject to two class action lawsuits initiated by
customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service and
wireless and broadband rates. The Company does not currently have
enough information on these proceedings to determine whether any
of the class action lawsuits could have an adverse effect on the
Company's business and results of operations in the event that
they are resolved against Telcel. Consequently, the Company has
not established a provision in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements for a loss arising from these proceedings.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications
services in Mexico and internationally.  The Company sells its
products and services through a network of retailers and service
centers to retail customers; and through sales force to corporate
customers. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 2000 and
is based in Mexico City, Mexico.


AMYRIS INC: California Securities Suit Dropped
----------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that an order of dismissal has been entered on
the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice
on the securities class action complaint filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In April 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, and CFO, Kathleen
Valiasek, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class that would comprise all individuals who
acquired the Company's common stock between March 2, 2017 and
April 17, 2017.

The complaint alleged securities law violations based on
statements made by the Company in its earnings press release
issued on March 2, 2017 and Form 12b-25 filed with the SEC on
April 3, 2017. On September 21, 2017, an Order of Dismissal was
entered on the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice.

Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its
industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily
yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable
ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


ANTHEM INC: Report in Cyber Attack Suit Due This Month
------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the special master's report and
recommendation in a class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court by May 2018.

Anthem said, "In February 2015, we reported that we were the
target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers
gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birth dates,
healthcare identification/social security numbers, street
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment
information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence
that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test
results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained,
although no assurance can be given that we will not identify
additional information that was accessed or obtained. "

Upon discovery of the cyber attack, the company took immediate
action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a
cybersecurity firm to evaluate its systems and identify solutions
based on the evolving landscape. The company had provided credit
monitoring and identity protection services to those who have
been affected by this cyber attack. The company continued to
implement security enhancements since this incident. The company
incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate
and remediate the matter and expect to continue to incur expenses
of this nature in the foreseeable future. The company recognizes
these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred.

Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against the company on
behalf of current or former members, current or former employees,
other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or
other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack.

Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators,
state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of
Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are
investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how
it occurred, its consequences and the company's response.

In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market
conduct and financial exam. In connection with the resolution of
the matter, the NAIC requested the company to provide, and the
company agreed to provide, a customized credit protection
program, equivalent to a credit freeze, for the company's members
who were under the age of eighteen on January 27, 2015. No fines
or penalties were imposed on the company. Although the company is
cooperating in these investigations, the company may be subject
to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect
on how the company operates its business and an adverse effect on
its results of operations and financial condition.

With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or the
Panel, in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel
in May 2015. In June 2015, the Panel entered its order
transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the U.S. District
Court. The U.S. District Court entered its case management order
in September 2015. The company filed a motion to dismiss ten of
the counts that were before the U.S. District Court. In February
2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion, dismissing three counts
with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three
counts to proceed.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and
the company subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May
2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion, dismissing one count
with prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific
named plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their
individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to
proceed.

In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which
the company answered in August 2016. Fact discovery was completed
in December 2016. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and trial plan in March 2017. The company filed its
opposition to class certification, motions to strike the
testimony of three of the plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in
April 2017. Prior to those motions being heard, the parties
agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide basis for a
total settlement payment of $115.0 and certain non-monetary
relief. In June 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement and a motion to continue all case
deadlines. In July 2017, the U.S. District Court granted the
motion to continue all case deadlines. The U.S. District Court
issued an order of preliminary approval in August 2017. The U.S.
District Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for final
approval and class counsel's fee petition in February 2018.

A special master was appointed to review class counsel's fee
petition. The special master's report and recommendation must be
filed with the court by May 2018. No further dates have been set.
Three state court cases related to the cyber attack are presently
proceeding outside of this multidistrict litigation. There remain
open regulatory investigations into the incident that are not
directly impacted by the multidistrict litigation settlement.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other. The company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small group, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets. Its managed care plans include
preferred provider organizations; health maintenance
organizations; point-of-service plans; traditional indemnity
plans and other hybrid plans, such as consumer-driven health
plans; and hospital only and limited benefit products. The
company is based in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Defendants to Seek 11th Circuit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the defendants have filed a motion for
certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), requesting the
District Court to amend its order to allow an appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Anthem said, "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were
initially filed in 2012 against the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association or BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees, or Blue plans, across the country. The cases were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, or the Court."

Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans
have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard and
National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, or Sherman Act, and related state
laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes
of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.

Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated
amended complaints in July 2013. Consolidated amended subscriber
complaints have been brought on behalf of putative state classes
of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been
consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013. In June
2014, the Court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that
plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at that stage of the
litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the
subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber
and provider plaintiffs in 2014, and again in November 2016 and
April 2017 adding new named plaintiffs and new factual
allegations, the company filed its answers and asserted its
affirmative defenses in December 2014 and May 2017, respectively.

In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion
for summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine, finding
that the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are
barred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion to
reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to raise the issue at a later date.

In April 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment
action, Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et
al., that the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a
subset of putative provider class members were released a decade
ago by class action settlements in In re Managed Care Litigation.
In June 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
certain of the claims in provider plaintiffs' latest consolidated
complaint. Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the
claims asserted under the Sherman Act, or standard of review,
commenced in July 2017. In August 2017, provider plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment against Anthem on the basis of
collateral estoppel on several issues discussed in United States
v. Anthem, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017). That motion
was heard in October 2017, and is pending.

An order regarding the standard of review and the single entity
defense was issued in April 2018. The order granted subscriber
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the
application of the per se rule as the standard of review. It
granted in part and denied in part provider plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
standard of review and quick look claims and denied subscriber
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on defendants'
single entity defense.

The Court found that defendants' aggregation of geographic market
allocations and output restrictions are due to be analyzed under
a per se standard of review. The BlueCard program and other
alleged Section 1 Sherman Act violations are due to be analyzed
under the rule of reason standard of review. Finally, there
remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants
operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the
Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks.

Also, in April 2018, the defendants filed a motion for
certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), requesting the
Court to amend its order to allow an appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. No dates have been set for either the
pretrial conference or trials in these actions.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other. The company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small group, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets. Its managed care plans include
preferred provider organizations; health maintenance
organizations; point-of-service plans; traditional indemnity
plans and other hybrid plans, such as consumer-driven health
plans; and hospital only and limited benefit products. The
company is based in Indianapolis, Indiana.


APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over PowerBeats Headphones
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Apple will remain on the hook for a class action lawsuit
claiming its Powerbeats headphones stop working when they come
into contact with sweat or water, a federal judge ruled on
May 17.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg green-lighted fraud-based
claims related to the headphones' battery life while dismissing
fraud-based claims related to water resistance with leave to
amend.  He tossed a negligence claim.

Judge Seeborg further ruled the plaintiffs have standing to seek
a court order blocking Apple from marketing the headphones as
water-resistant and capable of lasting six to 12 hours on one
charge.

"Not only have plaintiffs established an inability to rely on
Powerbeats' advertising, but several have actually averred that
they replaced and/or purchased the product multiple times,
believing that the defects would be fixed," Judge Seeborg wrote
in his 18-page order.  "It is difficult to imagine what more
Apple expects plaintiffs to allege in order to establish that
they have lost faith in their ability to rely on Powerbeats
marketing. For these reasons, plaintiffs may seek injunctive
relief."

Seven plaintiffs sued Apple in September 2017 on behalf of
nationwide and state classes in California, Florida,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana and Texas.  They claim Apple's
wireless Powerbeats 2 and 3 headphones malfunction and fail to
hold a charge when used while sweating during exercise.

Apple acquired headphone-makers Beats Music and Beats Electronics
in May 2014, and released the Powerbeats 2 headphones the
following month.  Powerbeats 3 followed two years later.
Cleveland Cavaliers basketball player LeBron James co-created the
headphones, according to the summary of the case in Seeborg's
order.

In its product advertising, Apple states that the Powerbeats 2
headphones have a "6 hour rechargeable battery," and the
Powerbeats 3 headphones "Up to 12 hr battery life."  According to
the complaint, the company implies the headphones are suitable
for exercising with the phrase, "Sweat and water resistance
provides the necessary durability for strenuous workouts and
weather."  Apple's television commercials feature both
LeBron James and tennis star Serena Williams wearing Powerbeats
while surfing, spraying themselves with water or "drenched in
sweat" while working out, the complaint says.

Christopher Bizzelle, one of the plaintiffs, says he bought the
Powerbeats 2 headphones for $139 because the packaging promised a
six-hour battery life and sweat resistance, featuring images of
Lebron James "glistening with sweat." He claims the headphones
stopped charging five months after he bought them and eventually
stopped switching on, according to Seeborg's order.

Apple sent Mr. Bizzelle five replacement pairs, but each pair
broke, according to Mr. Bizelle.  He says a pair of Powerbeats 3
and two replacement pairs likewise stopped working.

Another plaintiff, Deonn Morgan, claims she also bought a pair of
Powerbeats 2 headphones for $139 after seeing commercials
featuring LeBron James using the headphones while exercising and
reading statements on the box guaranteeing they were sweat and
water-resistant.  Within six months, the headphones
malfunctioned, as did a replacement pair, according to the order

"Had Ms. Morgan known Powerbeats were not 'sweat & water
resistant,' did not have a battery that would last 6 hours,
and/or were not 'built to endure,' she would not have purchased
them or would have paid significantly less for them," the
complaint states.

Apple did not respond on May 17 to an email seeking comment.

In his ruling, Judge Seeborg found that the battery-life fraud
claims had been pleaded sufficiently, but that the sweat and
water-resistance fraud claims had not been because the plaintiffs
had failed to specify whether they had "even sweated during
exercise," Judge Seeborg said.

He went on to call the plaintiffs' negligence claim "fatally
deficient."  The plaintiffs attempted to establish a "special
relationship" between consumers and Apple permitting monetary
recovery, but Judge Seeborg found such a relationship only exists
when a manufacturer markets a product to a specific customer, not
to the general public.

But Judge Seeborg advanced the plaintiffs' state Consumer Legal
Remedies Act claim, finding that their allegations that Apple
knew or should have known about the defective headphones due to
customer complaints and a "constant stream of returned
Powerbeats" were sufficient to warrant discovery into what Apple
really knew.

Express warranty claims based on Apple's one-year warranty were
dismissed with leave to amend, but water-resistance and battery-
life express warranty claims will proceed, as will implied
warranty claims.

Hassan Zavareei with Tycko & Zavareei in Washington represents
the plaintiffs, and Michelle Doolin with Cooley in San Diego
represents Apple.

Neither could be reached for comment on May 17.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Suit by St. Louis Heart Center Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri has dismissed the lawsuit by St. Louis Heart
Center, Inc. based on the parties' joint stipulation of
dismissal.

On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was filed by St. Louis
Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition alleges that
the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Following service, the company removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215. After filing the company's
answer in the case on March 8, 2016, the company moved for and
obtained a stay of the action pending a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring
Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234, regarding the validity of a
regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission,
or FCC, relating to the claims asserted in the petition.

On March 31, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision, invalidating the FCC regulation in question.
On April 7, 2017, the company notified the federal court of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais
Yaakov. On joint motion of the parties, the federal court on May
9, 2017 reinstated the stay, pending any further appellate review
of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov. On September 5,
2017, a petition for a writ of certiorari as to the D.C.
Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov was filed with the United
States Supreme Court, which the Court denied on February 20,
2018.

On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri lifted the stay. On March 23, 2018,
the District Court ordered the case dismissed based on the
parties' joint stipulation of dismissal.

Athenahealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
network-based medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services for medical
groups and health systems. The company is based in Watertown,
Massachusetts.


AV HOMES: Bid for Class Cert. in Solivita-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AV Homes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, in a class action suit filed in
the 10th Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida.

On April 26, 2017, the company received notice of a Class Action
Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 10th Judicial
Circuit, Polk County, Florida, generally alleging that the
collection of club membership fees in connection with the use and
enjoyment of the club facilities located within the Solivita
community is illegal in that it violates, among other laws,
Florida's Homeowners' Association Act ("FLHOA") and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). It also
generally alleges that certain other actions by us have violated
FLHOA and FDUTPA.  The complaint seeks relief in various forms
including recovery for the prior payment of club membership fees
and an injunction to prohibit the future collection of club
membership fees.

AV Homes said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on June 9, 2017, the company filed
an amended motion to dismiss this matter, which was heard on June
13, 2017.  On August 8, 2017, the judge issued an order denying
in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs
were provided leave to amend the FDUTPA claims and filed an
amended complaint on September 15, 2017.  The Company filed its
amended answer on September 29, 2017 along with certain
affirmative defenses. The amended complaint also contains
counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract and
tortious interference with contractual relations, among other
claims. On October 5, 2017, the Company also filed a motion for
summary judgment.

The motion for summary judgment was heard on December 8, 2017,
according to the Company's recent report.  On January 23, 2018,
the court ruled, granting the company's motion for summary
judgment in part and denying it in part.

Importantly, the court ruled that the company's club operations
in Solivita constitute commercial property under the FLHOA, that
the club facilities are not common areas of the homeowners'
association and that nothing in the FLHOA prevents a developer
from owning club operations for profit, as is the case in this
instance.

As a result of the foregoing ruling, it is the company's
continuing contention that every count of the plaintiffs' class
action lawsuit must ultimately fail as each is without merit and
rely, directly or indirectly, on an interpretation of the FLHOA
rejected by the court.

On April 6, 2018, the court heard arguments relative to the
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification pursuant to
which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "persons who
currently own, or previously owned, a home in Solivita, who have
paid, or have been obligated to pay, a Club Membership Fee under
the Club Plan Declaration on or after April 26, 2013." The court
has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

AV Homes, Inc. is engaged in the business of homebuilding and
community development in Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona and
Texas. The company also engages to a limited degree in other real
estate activities, such as the operation of amenities and the
sale of land for third-party development. The company manages its
business through four reportable segments: Florida, the
Carolinas, Arizona and Texas. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


AVINGER INC: Earmarks $1.76 Million for Litigation Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avinger, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company has included $1.76 million
for litigation settlement within accrued expenses and other
current liabilities as of December 31, 2017.

Between May 22, 2017 and May 25, 2017, three purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo ("State Court"), against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's January 2015 IPO.

The actions were captioned Grotewiel v. Avinger, Inc., et al.,
No. 17-CIV-02240, Gonzalez v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-
02284, and Olberding v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02307.

These lawsuits allege that the registration statement for the
Company's IPO made false and misleading statements and omissions
in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock in
and/or traceable to its IPO. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, rescission,
and attorneys' fees.

On June 12, 2017, defendants removed these actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
("Federal Court"), where they were captioned Grotewiel v.
Avinger, Inc., No. 17-cv-03400, Gonzalez v. Avinger, Inc., No.
17-cv-03401, and Olberding v. Avinger, Inc., No. 17-cv-03398, and
where the actions were related and assigned to the same judge.

On October 11, 2017, the Federal Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved the selection of a lead counsel in the Grotewiel
action ("Federal Action"). An amended complaint in the Federal
Action is due on November 21, 2017. On June 22, 2017, and June
23, 2017, plaintiffs Olberding and Gonzalez moved to remand their
cases to the State Court. Defendants opposed these motions.

On July 21, 2017, the Federal Court granted the motions to remand
the Olberding and Gonzalez actions to the State Court. On August
9, 2017, the State Court consolidated the Olberding and Grotewiel
actions under the caption Gonzalez v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No.
17-CIV-02284 ("State Action"). On September 22, 2017, an amended
complaint was filed in the State Action. On October 31, 2017, the
parties in the State Action stipulated to a stay of proceedings
until judgment is entered in the Federal Action. On November 2,
2017, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the State Court
entered an order staying proceedings in the State Action until
judgment is entered in the Federal Action.

The Company and its directors believes that the foregoing
lawsuits are entirely without merit; however, in the interest of
avoiding the cost and disruption of continuing to defend against
these lawsuits, on February 8, 2018, the Company participated in
a mediation to explore whether a settlement could be reached.

While a settlement was not reached then, the parties continued
discussions and they ultimately reached agreement. On March 19,
2018, the Company entered into a binding memorandum of
understanding to settle the securities class actions pending
against the Company and several of its officers and directors.
The settlement is for a total of $5 million and, if approved by
the court, will result in a full release of claims against all
defendants. The settlement is subject to final documentation,
notice to class members, and approval of the court.

The Company's total contribution to the settlement fund is $1.76
million. As such, the Company included $1.76 million for
litigation settlement within accrued expenses and other current
liabilities as of December 31, 2017.

Avinger, Inc., a commercial-stage medical device company,
designs, manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based
systems used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral
arterial disease (PAD) in the United States and Europe. The
company is based in Redwood City, California.


BAI BRANDS: Justin Timberlake Among Defendants in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Goldblatt and Ryan Naumann, writing for Blast, report that
Justin Timberlake is being sued as part of a class action lawsuit
against Bai claiming the beverage company deceived consumers by
saying their drinks are all-natural when they actually are not.
A California-based man named Kevin Branca filed suit in April
against Bai Brands, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Dr. Pepper
president Larry Young and Bai founder Ben Weiss.  The original
lawsuit did not name Timberlake as a defendant, but an amended
complaint added him.

According to the lawsuit, Bai's labeling is false and misleading,
saying they contain only natural ingredients and are flavored
only with natural ingredients when they actually contain
undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal
law.

The suit says all the products contain a synthetic chemical
flavoring compound identified as "malic acid," which is an
inexpensive synthetic chemical used in processed food products to
make the taste like tangy fresh fruit.

Timberlake came on board as an investor in 2016, according to
Fortune. He has the title of Chief Flavor Officer of Bai Brands
and said at the time, "This partnership was created from a shared
desire to help people put better ingredients in their bodies
without sacrificing taste."

According to the lawsuit, Justin Timberlake's "monetary
assistance, creative inputs and marketing of Bai helped elevate
the better-for-you and name-recognition of the brand."

The lawsuit claims Timberlake was a knowing participant in the
alleged fraud, saying, "Defendant Bai and Defendant Timberlake
knowingly entered into a single agreement and/or multiple
agreements to commit fraud and other unlawful acts by agreeing to
promote artificially flavored beverage products as if they were
solely naturally flavored without synthetic chemical
ingredients."

Furthermore, the lawsuit claims "Timberlake aided this scheme by
agreeing to promote the Products and their ingredients on a
nationally aired commercial advertisement during the 2017 Super
Bowl, which reached millions of consumers, which was an essential
tool to carry out the fraudulent sales and marketing of the Bai
Products."

The suit is seeking an order requiring Bai Brands and Timberlake
to disgorge any money received from the result of the improper
and misleading labeling, advertising and marketing along with
punitive damages. [GN]


BEHR PROCESS: Court Extends Status Report Filing in "Rose"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, at Seattle, in the case captioned LINNE ROSE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., BEHR PAINT CORP., MASCO CORP.,
THE HOME DEPOT, INC., and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants,
No. 2:17-cv-01754-MJP (W.D. Wash.), extended the time for parties
to submit the Joint Status Report in light of the pending
imminent nationwide settlement, to conserve judicial resources
and to promote efficiency.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yarmrd2u from Leagle.com.

Linne Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick M. Wallace -- pat@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Riley Nusser --
eric@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Behr Process Corp., Behr Paint Corp. & Masco Corp., Defendants,
represented by Elliot C. Copenhaver -- copenhaver@carneylaw.com -
- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Emilia L. Sweeney -- Sweeney@carney.com
-- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Kathleen P. Lally --
kathleen.lally@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice & Jason
M. Kettrick -- kettrick@carney.com -- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

Home Depot Inc. & Home Depot USA Inc., Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey Douglass -- jdouglass@mmmlaw.com -- MORRIS MANNING &
MARTIN, pro hac vice, John T. Fetters -- jfetters@millsmeyers.com
-- MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING, Robert Alpert -- ralpert@mmmlaw.com --
MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN, pro hac vice & Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen
-- cjorgensen@millsmeyers.com -- MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING.


BELLE GLADE: Faces "Monroe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stefondra Monroe, and all others similarly situated v. Belle
Glade Chevrolet Buick Cadillac, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-80523-RLR
(S.D. Fla., April 20, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Belle Glade Chevrolet Buick Cadillac, Inc. owns and operates a
car dealership company in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


BLUE STAR: Court Awards $7K Attorney' Fees in "Martinez"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(5), relating to their successful motion to compel
discovery in the case captioned RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE STAR FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00681-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.).

This is an action brought by migrant and seasonal agricultural
workers who harvested blueberries for the defendants between 2011
and 2013.  They allege that the defendants employed approximately
140 workers each season to pick blueberries on the defendants'
460-acre fields. The Court has certified this as a class action,
defining the class as follows: All migrant and seasonal
agricultural workers employed at Blue Star Farms to harvest
blueberries in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' second motion to compel
discovery. The Court ordered the defendants to produce to the
plaintiffs all W-4 and I-9 forms previously withheld from
employee files responsive to the plaintiffs' document request.
The Court also ordered the defendants to produce to the
plaintiffs applications from all employee files for blueberry
harvesters who worked during the 2011, 2012, or 2013 seasons, and
those employees who submitted declarations in this case, to the
extent these documents have not already been produced.

The Court held plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys'
fees and costs associated with the second motion to compel in
abeyance pending the show-cause hearing. The Court conducted the
show-cause evidentiary hearing on November 21, 2017.

With respect to possible sanctions, the Court noted, "I've heard
nothing here that would remotely justify the failure to produce
those documents.  The only thing that remains is for me to
determine the appropriate sanctions, and there will be
sanctions."

The Plaintiffs seek $11,805.00 in fees and $192.60 in costs. The
Defendants object generally to the award of expenses, as well as
to the amount sought by the plaintiffs.

The record demonstrates plainly that the plaintiffs had
sufficiently attempted a resolution of the discovery disputes
before seeking the Court's intervention, and the defendants'
positions regarding the discovery disputes were not substantially
justified. The Plaintiffs' first motion to compel was filed some
six months after serving their discovery requests. The
Plaintiffs' actions in this regard can hardly be described as
precipitous.

Accordingly, the Court will award the plaintiffs reasonable
attorney's fees and expenses that were incurred in bringing their
motion to compel. The award of costs is the norm, rather than the
exception.

The Court having found a sufficient basis for awarding fees and
costs, the only remaining issue is the reasonableness of the
amount sought. The Supreme Court has explained that the most
useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable
fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation
multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.

The Defendants' failure to produce discovery caused the
plaintiffs' counsel to expend time in making the motion to
compel, but the questions presented in that motion were neither
novel nor complex. Even assuming plaintiffs are correct in their
characterization of the nature and complexity of the case
overall, the Court must consider the novelty and difficulty of
the questions presented in the motion to compel, and the skills
needed to perform that legal service properly.

There is nothing about the motion to compel that required
specialized expertise that was unavailable in the Grand Rapids
legal market; nor is there any reason to believe counsel from
Migrant Aid lacked the resources to handle that motion. The
Plaintiffs have competent local counsel in this case. The
Plaintiffs were, of course, free to choose which counsel to
assign to the motion to compel in this case and they have
expressed valid reasons for their choice. The point is, however,
that it was a choice, not a need, to use Chicago counsel to take
the lead on the motion to compel. There is no basis for invoking
an exception to the community market rule.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs
$7,130.10 as reimbursement for their reasonable expenses in
bringing their motion to compel discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
https://tinyurl.com/y8chrwu5 from Leagle.com.

Ricardo Martinez, individually & Yolanda Garrido, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, plaintiffs,
represented by Teresa M. Hendricks -- thendricks@mmlap.com --
Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project, Inc., Mariza Gamez-
Garcia, Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project, Inc., in Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Marni Joy Willenson -- marni@willensonlaw.com -
- Willenson Law, LLC & Benjamin O'Hearn, Michigan Migrant Legal
Assistance Project, Inc.

Janeth Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Pedro Guadiana, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated & Edgar Guadiana, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin
O'Hearn, Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project, Inc. & Marni
Joy Willenson, Willenson Law, LLC.

Blue Star Farms, Inc. & Anthony Harry Marr, defendants, are
represented by Brion Bannon Doyle, Esq., and Jeffrey David
Koelzer, Esq., at Varnum Riddering Schmidt & Howlett LLP, in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.


BMW BANK: Foley & Lardner Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaikaran Singh, Esq. -- jsingh@foley.com -- and John J. Atallah,
Esq. -- jatallah@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, wrote that when the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in City Select Auto
Sales Inc. v. BMW Bank of North America, Inc., in the middle of
last year, many interpreted the decision as significantly
lowering the bar to certification of class actions.  By
recognizing, for the first time, the use of affidavits as a
legitimate method of identifying class members, some wondered
whether City Select was a shift away from the "administrative
feasibility" requirement for ascertainability consistently upheld
by the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits.  Two recent district
court decisions in In re Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig. and Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, demonstrate that
the "administrative feasibility" requirement -- a requirement
that to certify a class its members must be capable of being
readily identified through an administratively feasible process -
- remains alive and well in the Third Circuit.

In City Select, the Third Circuit reversed the district court's
denial of class certification of a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on lack of ascertainability
grounds.  The plaintiff, a car dealership, filed a class action
case against BMW's financing arm, BMW Bank of North America
(BMW), alleging that BMW, along with one of its vendors
(Creditsmarts), had violated the TCPA by repeatedly sending
unsolicited fax advertisements to several thousand dealerships
across the country.  The plaintiff sought certification of a
nationwide class described as "auto dealerships included in the
Creditsmarts database on or before December 27, 2012," and moved
to compel production of the same database.  The district court in
New Jersey denied the dealership's motion to compel, and further
denied class certification, explaining that the plaintiff had
failed to demonstrate that class members could be identified
using administratively feasible means.

On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded for two
reasons:

First, our ascertainability precedents do not categorically
preclude affidavits from potential class members, in combination
with the Creditsmarts database, from satisfying the
ascertainability standard. Second, because the Creditsmarts
database was not produced during discovery, plaintiff was denied
the opportunity to demonstrate whether a reliable,
administratively feasible method of ascertaining the class exists
based, in whole or in part, on that database.

Put another way, the Third Circuit determined that the plaintiff
had been unfairly disadvantaged by Creditsmarts' refusal to
produce the very database that could potentially have been used,
in combination with class member affidavits, to demonstrate an
administratively feasible method of identifying class members.

Some observed that by allowing class representatives to rely upon
affidavits to identify class members, City Select marked a
notable departure from prior Third Circuit decisions where the
court expressed class member identification concerns with the use
of affidavits.  While not entirely ruling out the use of
affidavits to identify class members, the Third Circuit's
decision in City Select acknowledged that "[a]ffidavits from
potential class members, standing alone, without 'records to
identify class members or a method to weed out unreliable
affidavits,' will not constitute a reliable and administratively
feasible means of determining class membership."  City Select
therefore clarified that the same standards previously applied by
the court in assessing ascertainability for class certification
remained in effect in the Third Circuit.

Two recent New Jersey District Court decisions demonstrate that
City Select did not alter the "heightened" ascertainability
requirement in the Third Circuit.  On January 22, 2018, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey issued its decision
in In re Tropicana, denying class certification for lack of
ascertainability, among other grounds.  In that case, the
plaintiffs alleged that Tropicana had violated common law and
state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale of
orange juice.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that
"[d]espite Tropicana's '100% pure and natural' claim, Tropicana's
[not from concentrate] juice is heavily processed, colored, and
flavored -- it is neither 100% pure nor 100% natural orange
juice."  In support of their class certification motion, the
plaintiffs proposed a methodology for identifying class members
whereby their expert would create a computer program to reconcile
bulk retailer loyalty card data against the identifying
information submitted by putative class members.  The same expert
would then create a second computer program to "cross-check" the
results and ensure that putative class members had been properly
identified.

The district court in Tropicana engaged in a lengthy
ascertainability analysis, ultimately concluding plaintiffs had
failed to show that their proposed methodology for identifying
class members employed a "reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism," as required under the Third Circuit's decision in
Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc.  To the contrary, the court opined, "Dr.
Narayanan's methodology assumes that the retailer data exists and
contains the necessary information required to properly 'cross-
check' against putative class members' claim forms.  It further
assumes that all retailers will produce their consumer data to
him in a useable electronic format."  The court further found
that the plaintiffs' proposed methodology would necessarily
exclude persons for whom retailer data was unavailable,
explaining, "class member will still be bound by any judgment on
the merits emanating from this Court.  That defies one of the
principal rationales of ascertainability -- identifying persons
bound by the final judgment -- and simply cannot be permitted."

The Third Circuit, in City Select, had recognized that "[t]he
determination whether there is a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism for determining whether putative members fall
within the class definition must be tailored to the facts of the
particular case."  Adopting that rationale and distinguishing the
case against Tropicana from City Select, the district court
instead drew a parallel to the Third Circuit's 2013 decision in
Carrera v. Bayer Corp., which similarly involved products
distributed to consumers through a broad variety of retail stores
unaffiliated with the defendant.  In Carrera, the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's order granting class certification
and remanded for further consideration on the grounds that the
plaintiff's exclusive reliance on affidavits from potential class
members was not a sufficiently reliable means of identification.
Likewise, in In re Tropicana, the district court concluded that
the plaintiffs' proposed method for identifying class members
would run afoul of the two critical rationales underlying the
ascertainability requirement: "facilitating opt-outs and
identifying persons bound by the final judgment."

More recently, on February 28, 2018, the New Jersey district
court issued its decision in Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, another
case involving the denial of class certification on
ascertainability grounds.  In Hargrove, a group of former
delivery drivers for Sleepy's, LLC, a New York-based mattress
retailer, filed a complaint under the Employee Retirement and
Income Security Act (ERISA), alleging that Sleepy's had
misclassified them as independent contractors, rather than
employees, and thereby denied them base and overtime wages due
under New Jersey state law.

In its opinion and order denying class certification, the
district court concluded that the plaintiffs were unable to offer
a methodology by which individuals falling within the class
definition could be identified in a reliable and administrative
feasible manner.  The court found instead that, even following
the deposition of the paralegal at the plaintiff's firm who was
primarily responsible for reconciling driver rosters, gate logs,
and pay statements to identify class members, the several "gaps"
in the record "would make assessing the size, as proposed by the
[p]laintiff, tenuous or speculative."  In other words, because
the records available to the parties did not enable an
administratively feasible identification of class members, the
plaintiffs had run afoul of the prohibition on "specific fact-
finding as to each individual" previously set forth in the Third
Circuit's decision in Marcus v. BMW of North America.

Taken together, In re Tropicana and Hargrove demonstrate that the
administrative feasibility requirement remains a prime
consideration in class certification proceedings within the Third
Circuit.  While City Select clarified that in certain limited
circumstances, class member affidavits might find their place in
ascertaining class membership, the overarching requirement is
that class members be identified accurately and without the need
for individualized fact-finding. [GN]


BOFI HOLDING: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a notice of appeal has been filed in the
consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "First Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The First Class Action complaint was amended by a
certain Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11,
2016. On September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the First Class
Action, with leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti,
Paul Grinberg, Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court
denied the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Company and
Gregory Garrabrants.

On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), which includes the previously dismissed defendants.
On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss such Second Amended Complaint. On May 23, 2017,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants;
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 28,
2017, the Company and other defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending.

On December 1, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave. On December 22, 2017, the putative class action plaintiff
filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"). The Second and Third Amended Complaints allege that
the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a
wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13,
2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result the Company's
statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions
of its financial statements, were false and misleading. On
January 19, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss such Third Amended Complaint. On March 21, 2018, the
Court entered a final order granting defendants' motion and
dismissing the Third Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and
time deposit accounts.


BOFI HOLDING: June 15 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Mandalevy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a hearing for the motion to dismiss in the
putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding,
Inc., et al., is scheduled for June 15, 2018.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Mandalevy Case").

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy
Complaint") alleges a class period that differs from that alleged
in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March
2017 media article.

On June 2, 2017, lead plaintiff motions were filed on behalf of
three members of the putative class and on July 17, 2017, the
Company and other defendants filed an opposition to such motions.
On February 20, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a class action
amended complaint, enlarging the class period, setting forth
additional allegations and adding defendants. On April 6, 2018,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action amended
complaint. A hearing for the motion to dismiss is scheduled for
June 15, 2018.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the Mandalevy Case, and
are vigorously defending against the Mandalevy Complaint.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and
time deposit accounts.


BRAVO BRIO: Faces "Dagenbach" Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April
26, 2018, that the company is facing a purported shareholder
class action suit entitled, Jon Dagenbach v. Bravo Brio
Restaurant Group, Inc. et al.

On April 23, 2018, Mr. Jon Dagenbach filed a purported
shareholder class action against the Company and the individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors (collectively, the
"Company Board") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

The case is captioned Jon Dagenbach v. Bravo Brio Restaurant
Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00375-ALM. Mr. Dagenbach's
lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of March 7, 2018, by and among the Company, Bugatti
Parent, Inc. and Bugatti Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Merger
Agreement"). Mr. Dagenbach alleges that the Company's proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 18, 2018 contains certain material omissions and
misstatements and is seeking to enjoin or rescind the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and requests
attorneys' fees and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 24, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and on April 25, 2018, Mr.
Dagenbach filed a motion to expedite proceedings relating to its
motion for a preliminary injunction.

Bravo Brio said, "The defendants believe these claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims."

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates Italian
restaurants in the United States. It operates full-service
Italian restaurants under the BRAVO! Cucina Italiana brand name;
Italian chophouse restaurants under the BRIO Tuscan Grille brand
name; and full-service American-French bistro restaurant under
the Bon Vie brand name. The company's restaurants primarily offer
Italian food and wine. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio.


BRIGHT HOUSE: Judgment on Pleading in "Sliwa" TCPA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned STEPHAN H. SLIWA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC and ADVANCED
TELESOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor, Case No. 2:16-cv-235-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff has filed a five-count Amended Class Action
Complaint against Bright House and Advanced Telesolutions, Inc.
(ATI) alleging violations of, and seeking money damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to, the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fla. Stat. Section 559.55 et
seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.

Bright House's Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense alleges
generally that as applied, the TCPA violates the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution. For example, the TCPA imposes
content-based restrictions on speech that fail to withstand
strict scrutiny.  An asserted right to have the Government act in
accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer
jurisdiction on a federal court. It is clear from the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, however, that Bright House's concrete
and particularized First Amendment injury is the fact that it is
being sued and may be required to pay a money judgment for
violating a statute that itself violates the First Amendment.

The Court held that while Bright House has standing to raise a
First Amendment defense to the Plaintiff's TCPA claims, Bright
House is not entitled to a judgment on those claims, since in
light of the severability of the Government-Debt Exception a
finding that the anti-robocall provision is unconstitutional
would have no effect on Bright House's exposure to liability
under the TCPA.  Because, in turn, this affirmative defense is
insufficient, the Court strikes it under Rule 12(f)(1).

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya6azms5 from
Leagle.com.

Stephan H. Sliwa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen,
The Consumer Protection Firm,4060 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Fl,
33629,  Amy L. Wells -- AWells@Keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD,
pro hac vice, Donald L. Sawyer -- DSawyer@KeoghLaw.com -- Keogh
Law, LTD, pro hac vice, Stephen J. Stanley, Stephen J. Stanley,
Attorney & Counselor at Law, William Peerce Howard, The Consumer
Protection Firm, 4060 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Fl, 33629 &
Keith J. Keogh -- Keith@KeoghLaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac
vice.

Bright House Networks, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ryan D.
Watstein, Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP & Nathan David Chapman, Kabat
Chapman & Ozmer LLP.

Advanced Telesolutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
J.J. Collinson -- acollinson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, Justin M. Penn --  jpenn@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & Ruel W. Smith --
rsmith@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.


BRISTOL MYERS: Faces Suit Related to Checkmate -026 Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squib Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, related to CheckMate -026 clinical
trial in lung cancer.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern
District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief
Financial Officer, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The case in California has
been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate -026 clinical
trial in lung cancer.

Bristol-Myers said, "The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in this litigation."

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop
and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases. The company is based in New York.


CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit in Works
---------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa  Citizen reports that a law firm is encouraging victims in
a sex abuse case to be part of a lawsuit against the man
convicted of the crimes and the Calgary Stampede Foundation.

On May 2, Philip Heerema was sentenced to 10 years after earlier
pleading guilty to charges that included sexual assault, sexual
exploitation, luring and making child pornography.

The six victims were youths between the ages of 15 and 17 who
attended The Young Canadians School of Performing Arts.

In a statement of claim filed last year and amended in January,
JSS Barristers is seeking court approval to launch a class action
lawsuit against Heerema and the foundation, which operates the
school.

The claim alleges Heerema, who worked for decades with the
school, breached his duty as an educator by sexually abusing the
students and alleges the foundation is vicariously liable because
it was aware of his conduct.

Statements of claim contain allegations that have not been proven
in court.

"The Young Canadians had actual knowledge of Heerema's
inappropriate conduct, allegations of sexual assault and sexual
exploitation with respect to some of the class members as a
result of one or more complaints made by one or more faculty
members of the Young Canadians," reads the claim.

Foundation officials were not immediately available for comment.

Earlier this year Warren Connell, CEO of the foundation, told
Global News it had no knowledge of the some of the allegations in
the lawsuit and refuted others.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified, is seeking general
and special damages to be determined by the court.

The Young Canadians school works with students between the ages
of 11 and 18. Their training in dance, voice and performance
culminates with grandstand shows during the Calgary Stampede
every July.

During Heerema's trial court heard that he identified, targeted,
relentlessly pursued and groomed the teen boys.

The judge said Heerema manipulated and preyed on their
vulnerability in abusing his position of trust.

JSS Barristers said it represents victims of the abuse and in a
release on May 3 urged others to join the lawsuit.

"A number of our clients have been utterly devastated, and they
have ongoing needs for support that haven't been met," said the
release.

"JSS Barristers encourages Mr. Heerema's victims to come forward
confidentially to be part of the class action against Mr. Heerema
and the Calgary Stampede Foundation."

Lawyer Carsten Jensen, Esq. -- jensenc@jssbarristers.ca -- said
the firm expects the class action lawsuit certification
application will be heard later this year.[GN]


CALGARY STAMPEDE: Class Action Expected to Move Forward This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Meyer, writing for 660 News, reports that now that the
criminal process has run its course regarding former Young
Canadians School of Performing Arts staffer Philip Heerema,
lawyers representing families of victims hope the potential class
action lawsuit against the Calgary Stampede will move forward
this year.

On May 2, Philip Heerema was sentenced to 10 years in prison for
multiple sex offences against former male students in the school,
with crimes ranging between 1992 and 2013 and a judge calling the
actions "morally despicable."

The school includes students aged 11 to 18 and puts on the
Stampede Grandstand Show every summer.

While Mr. Heerema was charged in June of 2015, lawyers acting on
behalf of several former students filed a statement of claim last
April, alleging the Stampede failed to act on knowledge of
Mr. Heerema's inappropriate conduct.

With the sentence, a lawyer with the firm -- Jensen Shawa Solomon
Duguid Hawks LLP -- says it hopes a certification hearing for the
suit will happen this year.

Kajal Ervin said they are preparing materials and it's possible
that with the sentence being handed down, others could join the
class action.

Stampede CEO Warren Connell reiterated the organization's
previous statement that when it first became aware of
Mr. Hereema's action, he was removed from the grounds within half
an hour.

"We continue to maintain that stance and we have nothing contrary
to dispel that," he said, adding their internal investigation
remains ongoing.  "Us supporting the Prosecutor's Office and the
Calgary Police Service is obviously finished, but obviously we're
waiting to see what comes to light with respect to some of the
allegations that were contained in the lawsuit."

Nothing has been proven in court.

At first, Mr. Heerema pleaded not guilty with his lawyer cross-
examining witnesses on their credibility, but he eventually pled
guilty mid-trial to eight sex abuse charges, including sexual
assault, sexual exploitation, child porn and luring.

"We had faith in the criminal justice system and I think justice
was served," Mr. Connell said.  "I don't think this is about
closure for the Stampede."

"Our programs are all about continual improvement, you don't
reach a plateau and then stop, you continuously try and improve
those programs."

But a mother of one of the victims wasn't satisfied with Young
Canadians leadership.

"The Young Canadians family as they like to call themselves, they
have done nothing to support him (her son) at all, not a thing,"
she said after the sentence.  "He was still in the Young
Canadians when he reported this and as he said in his victim
impact statement, he felt like he was involved in a scandal."

"The majority of the Young Canadians family stood behind Phil and
made him feel like he was, that he was an awful person, that he
had the nerve to make these kind of accusations against the great
Phil Heerema."

Upon hearing the parent's words, Mr. Connell said he could only
speak to what his organization has done.

"We've been very open and transparent with the parents themselves
as well as the students and right from the beginning," he said,
adding they've offered counselling services, group and individual
meetings.  "We have reached out to all of the families with
respect to the Young Canadians." [GN]


CANADIAN SOLAR: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a
class action lawsuit in Ontario over its allegedly misleading
financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010.

Six class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and
another class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the California case.
The New York cases were consolidated into a single action in
December 2010. On January 5, 2011, the California case was
dismissed by the plaintiff, who became a member of the lead
plaintiff group in the New York action. On March 11, 2011, a
Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect to the New York
action.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges generally that the Company's
financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or
misleading; asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and names the Company,
its chief executive officer and its former chief financial
officer as defendants.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss in May 2011, which was
taken under submission by the Court in July 2011. On March 30,
2012, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint with leave
to amend, and the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint against the same defendants on April 19, 2012. On March
29, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice a class action
lawsuit filed against the Company and certain named defendants
alleging that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009 and
early 2010 were false or misleading and in violation of federal
securities law. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege a securities law violation and granted the
Company's motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants
with prejudice. On December 20, 2013, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
order dismissing such class action lawsuit.

In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges
generally that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009
and 2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the
shareholders' relief provisions of the CBCA, Part XX III.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent
misrepresentation.

In December 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no
jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced by the
plaintiff. The court dismissed the Company's motion on August 29,
2011. On March 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the
Company's appeal with regard to its jurisdictional motion. On
November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Company's application for leave to appeal the order of the
Ontario Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff's motions for class certification and leave to
assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities
Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled for
argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013.
However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the
plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling the Company to
file additional evidence on the motions. On July 29, 2013 the
Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence. On
September 24, 2013 the plaintiff's application for leave to
appeal from the July 29 order was dismissed. In September 2014,
the plaintiff obtained an order granting him leave to assert the
statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act for
certain of his misrepresentation claims.

In January 2015, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice obtained an order for class
certification in respect of certain claims for which he had
obtained leave in September 2014 to assert the statutory cause of
action for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act,
for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression
remedy claims advanced under the CBCA. The Court dismissed the
Company's application for leave to appeal and the class action is
at the merits stage. The Company believes the Ontario action is
without merit and the Company is defending it vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Canadian Solar Inc. is one of the world's largest solar power
companies and a leading vertically-integrated provider of solar
power products, services and system solutions with operations in
North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East,
Australia and Asia. The company is based in Ontario, Canada.


CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Automall Suit Consolidated in MDL
-------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the suit filed by Teterboro Automall, Inc.
d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
consolidated or coordinated for pretrial proceedings as part of a
Multi-District Litigation proceeding.

Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
("Teterboro") brought a putative class-action suit against CDK
Global, LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds. Teterboro's suit was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on October 19, 2017. Since that time, several more
putative class actions have been filed in a variety of Federal
District Courts, with substantively similar allegations.

As of February 1, 2018, the class action suit and other antitrust
lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as part of a Multi-District Litigation
proceeding ("MDL").

Currently, the parties to the MDL are engaged in preliminary
proceedings. Each of these lawsuits seeks, among other things,
treble damages and injunctive relief.

CDK Global, Inc. provides integrated information technology and
digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail and other
industries worldwide. The company operates through Retail
Solutions North America, Advertising North America, and CDK
International segments.


CELGENE CORP: Kessler Topaz Announces Class Period Expansion
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
it has filed an expanded securities fraud class action complaint
against Celgene Corporation (Nasdaq: CELG) ("Celgene" or the
"Company") on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's
securities between January 12, 2015 and February 27, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Witchcoff
v. Celgene Corp., et al., Case No. 18-08785 was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and
is related to a previously filed action, City of Warren General
Employees' Retirement System v. Celgene Corp., et al., Case No.
18-4772 (D.N.J.) ("City of Warren").

Pursuant to the notice published on March 29, 2018, in connection
with the filing of the first-filed City of Warren action, as
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors who purchased Celgene securities during the Class
Period may, no later than May 29, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/celgene-corporation-
2018#join

Celgene is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily
in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies
for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. Among the
Company's core Inflammation and Immunology products is OTEZLA --
a drug approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis. Two of the Company's leading development-
stage Inflammation and Immunology products during the Class
Period were ozanimod -- a drug being developed for the treatment
of relapsing multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's
disease -- and GED-0301 -- a drug being developed for the
treatment of Crohn's disease.

The Class Period begins on January 12, 2015, which coincides with
the Company's announcement of its 2015 and long-term financial
outlook. Among other things, Celgene announced that it expected
2017 revenues from OTEZLA to be between $1.5 billion and $2.0
billion, and that it expected 2020 revenues from the entire
Inflammation and Immunology division to exceed $3.0 billion.

On October 19, 2017, Celgene shocked the market by announcing
that it was ending all ongoing trials of GED-0301, would no
longer be pursuing GED-0301 as a treatment for Crohn's disease,
and would be recording a $1.6 billion impairment charge based on
this decision. On this news, the price of Celgene common stock
fell $14.63 per share, or nearly 11 percent, from a close of
$135.96 per share on October 19, 2017, to a close of $121.33 per
share on October 20, 2017.

On October 26, 2017, the Company shocked the market again by
announcing that OTEZLA sales in the third quarter of 2017 were
only $308 million -- representing a 12 percent year-over-year
increase -- and that it was lowering 2017 OTEZLA net product
sales expectations to "[a]pproximately $1.25B." On this news, the
price of Celgene common stock fell $19.57 per share, or more than
16 percent, from a close of $119.56 per share on October 25,
2017, to a close of $99.99 per share on October 26, 2017.

More recently, on February 27, 2018, the Company stunned
investors a third time by announcing that it had received a
Refusal to File letter from the FDA regarding its New Drug
Application ("NDA") for ozanimod. On this news, the price of
Celgene common stock fell $8.66 per share, or more than 9
percent, from a close of $95.78 per share on February 27, 2018,
to a close of $87.12 per share on February 28, 2018.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically: (i)
Defendants failed to disclose known trends that were negatively
impacting sales of OTEZLA; (ii) Defendants overstated the
prospects of FDA approval for ozanimod to treat relapsing
multiple sclerosis; (iii) Defendants overstated GED-0301's
commercial prospects as a treatment for Crohn's disease; and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
OTEZLA, ozanimod, and GED-0301 were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Celgene investors may, no later than May 29, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Contact:
         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: 888-299-7706
                    610-667-7706
         E-mail: info@ktmc.com
                 jmaro@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com [GN]


CELLULAR SALES: Can't Compel Production of Communications
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York denied Defendant's Motion to Compel Production in the case
captioned JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN MOFFITT, JUSTIN MOFFITT,
GURWINDER SINGH, JASON MACK, WILLIAM BURRELL, and TIMOTHY M.
PRATT, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. CELLULAR SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, and
CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC, Defendants, No. 1:12-CV-584
(NAM/DJS)(Lead Case)(N.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants have filed a Letter-Motion with the Court to
compel, inter alia, production of communications between
Plaintiff Jan Holick and several other opt-in or potential opt-in
Plaintiffs, as well as Facebook communications with Shane
Baringer, William Burrell, and Jason Mack.

A few of the documents do relate to communications between
Plaintiff Jan Holick and others concerning the existence of the
class action lawsuit and their ability to join it, as well as the
contact information for the Plaintiff's attorneys, but once again
none of these communications are relevant to the disputed facts
of this case. As a result of the in camera review, the Court
concludes that the requested communications are not
proportionally relevant and, in some cases, privileged, and
therefore will not compel their production.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7bryjq8 from Leagle.com.

Jan P. Holick, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Steven Moffitt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Justin Moffitt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Gurwinder Singh, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jason
Mack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Timothy M. Pratt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & William Burrell, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
A. Jacobs, Gleason, Esq., Ronald G. Dunn, Esq., and Christopher
M. Silva, Esq., at Gleason, Dunn Law Firm, in Albany, New York.

Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Carbo, III -- larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com --
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, Joseph M. Dougherty, Hinman,
Straub Law Firm, Julie R. Offerman --
julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Ryan O. Cantrell --
ryan.cantrell@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Benjamin M. Wilkinson, Hinman, Straub Law
Firm.

Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Carbo, III, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Joseph M. Dougherty, Hinman, Straub Law Firm, Julie R.
Offerman, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac vice & Ryan O.
Cantrell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac vice.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Continues to Defend "Kater" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit entitled, Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs
Incorporated.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater
v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was
filed in the United States District Court, for the Western
District of Washington alleging, among other claims, that the
Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's then-wholly
owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games violated Washington
law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by
facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games
(namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered
through Big Fish Casino), and seeking among other things, return
of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

On November 19, 2015, the District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to the
Purchaser pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of
November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish and the
Purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement,
the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser for the losses and
expenses associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games,
which is referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the
"Primary Specified Litigation."

On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on Plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the District Court's dismissal of the complaint
against the Company.

Churchill Downs said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the
Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the District
Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the Company
believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses
against Plaintiff's allegations and requests for relief."

                      Update in Soileau Suit

Meanwhile, Churchill Downs said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the district
court has entered an amended judgment in the case John L.
Soileau, et al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No.
14-3873), to correct a deficiency.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the
"District Court"). The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff
class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have
won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in
New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S.
27:438 and specifically since 2008.

The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C.
("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw
poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements
and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to
thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred
horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those
supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition
requested that the District Court declare that Fair Grounds
violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory
injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements
due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to
pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably
represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted
the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to
the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the
Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
request for supervisory review of the Judgment. On August 24,
2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs
did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Appeal
of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of Action in
the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana Racing
Commission's ruling. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their
brief with the District Court and Fair Grounds filed its brief on
August 12, 2016. A hearing was held at the District Court on
September 15, 2016 and the District Court affirmed the Louisiana
Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with
the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7,
2016. By Order dated August 23, 2017, the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal without
prejudice because the District Court's Judgment did not contain
the necessary decretal language. To correct this deficiency, the
District Court entered an Amended Judgment on September 19, 2017.
The plaintiffs have advised they intend to appeal the Amended
Judgment.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, TwinSpires, and Other Investments
segments. The company is based in Louisville, Kentucky.


CLARK COUNTY, NV: Witness Deposition in Suit vs CCSD Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
issued an Order to Continue Expert Witness Depositions and
Dispositive Motion and Deadlines in the case captioned JOHN and
JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE I, a minor,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
JOHN and JANE DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a
minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated; Plaintiffs, v. JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT; DOES 1 through 20; DOE 1 through 20; ROE CORPORATIONS 1
through 20; Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL (D. Nev.).

Alleging abuse of students by a former CCSD teacher, Jeremiah
Mazo, and bringing claims under Title IX against CCSD and state
tort claims against all defendants.

The parties request the extension to allow the depositions of the
parties' expert and rebuttal expert witness depositions. The
parties have diligently engaged in discovery and request an
extension to allow for the foregoing outstanding depositions to
take place. Namely, the parties have been working together to
schedule expert depositions, and are exploring the possibility of
bringing many, if not all of them, to Las Vegas, Nevada for their
depositions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycu83g2s from Leagle.com.

John Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem,
Joann Doe I, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, John Doe II, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe II &
Joann Doe II, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Ford,
Eglet Prince, Artemus W. Ham, IV, Eglet Prince, Richard Hy &
Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince, Robert T. Eglet Advocacy Center.

Jeremiah Mazo, Defendant, represented by John G. George

Clark County School District, Defendant, represented by Kara B.
Hendricks -- hendricksk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark
E. Ferrario -- ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, Michelle
R. Schwarz, Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea L. Katz --
katzmer@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Steven T. Jaffe,
Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, & Whitney Welch --
welchkirmsew@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.

Clark County School District, Cross Claimant, represented by Kara
B. Hendricks, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark E. Ferrario, Greenberg
Traurig, Michelle R. Schwarz, Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea
L. Katz, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Steven T. Jaffe, Hall Jaffe &
Clayton, LLP.

Jeremiah Mazo, Cross Defendant, represented by John G. George,
John George.


COLGATE PALMOLIVE: New York Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Colgate Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the Company continues to defend a
class action lawsuit in New York.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the "Plan")
did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. This action has been certified as a class action.

The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Company is
contesting this action vigorously.

Colgate Palmolive said, "Since the amount of any potential loss
from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the
range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued
liabilities does not include any amount relating to the case.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet
Nutrition. The company is based in New York.


COLORADO: Homeless Sweep Class Action Attorney Faces Challenges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noelle Phillips, writing for The Denver Post, reports that
minutes before a group of homeless people on May 2 walked into
Denver's federal courthouse, a woman with a bullhorn asked one
more time for those without an ID card to sign a list.

Those people would need to enter with Jason Flores-Williams, an
attorney representing homeless people in a lawsuit against
Denver.  He had filed a motion asking a judge to permit those
without IDs to come inside a building where guards typically turn
away those without it.  This time, they would be allowed to
enter, but only after Mr. Flores-Williams vouched for their
identity as they were questioned by security guards.

The lawsuit, which was granted class-action status in April 2017,
is moving closer to trial, and the May 2 routine hearing
illustrated some of the unique issues the court faces when
plaintiffs do not have homes.

"It's a challenge," Mr. Flores-Williams said.  "They're going to
have a hard time maintaining the stability necessary to come to
court."

Before the hearing, homeless advocates served a hot meal on the
sidewalk outside the courthouse.  They parked a truck with
lockers near the building so people could store their backpacks,
blankets and other gear during the hearing.  One woman asked if
she could lock up her Mace.  A man needed to stow his marijuana.

Already, Mr. Flores-Williams and his staff have had to walk
Denver's streets to find their clients, often meeting them next
to garbage bins in alleys to get them to sign papers or notify
them of appointments, he said.  Still, clients miss crucial
appointments such as deposition hearings, which gives Denver's
city attorneys an opportunity to bar them from testifying.

Flores-Williams said he must file a motion over the IDs every
time a hearing is scheduled.

Ray Lyall, the lead plaintiff, and nine others are arguing that
Denver's sweeps where homeless people are uprooted from parks and
sidewalks and where their property is confiscated are violations
of their civil rights.  He sat at a table in front of the judge
on May 2 with his salt-and-pepper hair pulled back in a ponytail
and wearing a black T-shirt that read "Be a good person."

"You can't walk forever," Mr. Lyall said.  "At some point, you
have to sleep. We have to survive. I just decided we have to do
something about this."

The next fight to protect clients' and witnesses' ability to
attend hearings will come later this spring when Mr. Flores-
Williams files a motion asking a judge to place the city's
camping ban in abeyance during the trial so those people aren't
arrested or moved far away, preventing them from attending the
trial.

"They obtain an incredible advantage when they can arrest or
sweep out our witness base," he said. [GN]


CONCHA Y TORO: Appeal in California Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Concha y Toro Winery Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that an appeal in a California class
action remains pending.

In the United States, on March 24, 2015, twenty-four wine
producers, along with the subsidiary Fetzer, were notified of a
class action lawsuit filed before the California State Court.

This claim is based on the fact that the Producers did not comply
with the obligation to notice the specific presence of arsenic in
their products under California regulations.

In March 2015, the California Court accepted to reject the
petition (demurrer without leave) without giving the petitioners
the right to continue the trial or change their claim. They
appealed to this resolution.

The Company assesses a high likelihood of having a final judgment
favorable to wine producers.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Vina Concha Y Toro S.A. produces wines in Chile and Argentina.
The Company owns and operates vineyards, vinification plants,
bottling plants, and a wine distribution network. Vina Concha
produces premium, varietal, and sparkling wines. The Company
exports its products worldwide. Vina Concha also grows and
markets fruit, and bottles mineral water.


CONTROLADORA VUELA: New York Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. said in
its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
plaintiff in a putative class action suit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
not appealed a judge's decision and the time to appeal has
expired and any right of the plaintiff to pursue the litigation
has ended.

The Company and its CEO, CFO, certain of its current directors
and certain of its former directors, as well as certain
underwriters, were among the defendants in a putative class
action commenced on February 24, 2015 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on
behalf of purchasers of ADSs in and/or traceable to the September
2013 IPO. The complaint, which also named as defendants the
underwriters of the IPO, generally alleged that the registration
statement and prospectus for the ADSs contained misstatements and
omissions with respect to the recognition of non-ticket revenue
in violation of the federal securities laws, and sought
unspecified damages and rescission. The motion to dismiss
requested by the Company and all defendants was granted with
prejudice in their favor on July 6, 2016. The plaintiff has not
appealed the judge's decision and the time to appeal has expired.
Accordingly, any right of the plaintiff to pursue the litigation
has ended.

Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. provides
air transportation services for passengers, cargo, and mail in
Mexico and internationally.


CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in "Henderson" Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that parties in Tyrone Henderson, et al., v.
CoreLogic National Background Data, have agreed to settle the
case on a class-wide basis and the settlement has been approved.

In February 2012, CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a
CoreLogic Background Data, LLC ("CBD")) was named as a defendant
in a putative class action styled Tyrone Henderson, et al., v.
CoreLogic National Background Data, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
pled a putative class claim relating to CBD's return of criminal
record data in response to search queries initiated by its
consumer reporting agency customers, which then prepare and
transmit employment background screening reports to their
employer customers.

The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis
and the settlement was approved in March 2018.

CoreLogic, Inc. is a leading global property information,
analytics and data-enabled services provider operating in North
America, Western Europe and Asia Pacific. The company's combined
data from public, contributory and proprietary sources provides
detailed coverage of property, mortgages and other encumbrances,
property risk and replacement cost, consumer credit, tenancy,
location, hazard risk and related performance information. The
company is based in Irvine, California.


CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in "Witt" Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that parties in Witt v. CoreLogic National
Background Data, et al., have agreed to settle the case on a
class-wide basis and that the settlement has been approved.

In June 2015, a companion case, Witt v. CoreLogic National
Background Data, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the same attorneys
as in Henderson, alleging the same claim against CBD. Witt also
names as a defendant CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic
Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS")) on the theory that RPS
provided criminal record "reports" to CBD at the same time that
CBD delivered reports to CBD's consumer reporting agency
customers.

The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis
and the settlement was approved in March 2018.

CoreLogic, Inc. is a global property information, analytics and
data-enabled services provider operating in North America,
Western Europe and Asia Pacific. The company's combined data from
public, contributory and proprietary sources provides detailed
coverage of property, mortgages and other encumbrances, property
risk and replacement cost, consumer credit, tenancy, location,
hazard risk and related performance information. The company is
based in Irvine, California.


CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend "Feliciano" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC
(RPS) continues to defend a class action suit filed by Claudinne
Feliciano in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In July 2017, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC (RPS) was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit styled Claudinne Feliciano, et al.,
v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The named plaintiff
alleges that RPS prepared a background screening report about her
that contained a record of a New York Housing Court action
without noting that the action had previously been dismissed. On
this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to
reports issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.

RPS has denied the claims and intends to defend the case
vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

CoreLogic, Inc. is a leading global property information,
analytics and data-enabled services provider operating in North
America, Western Europe and Asia Pacific. The company's combined
data from public, contributory and proprietary sources provides
detailed coverage of property, mortgages and other encumbrances,
property risk and replacement cost, consumer credit, tenancy,
location, hazard risk and related performance information. The
company is based in Irvine, California.


CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend "King" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that CoreLogic Credco, LLC ("Credco") continues
to defend itself in a class action suit filed by Shakeena King in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In November 2017, CoreLogic Credco, LLC ("Credco") was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit styled Shakeena
King, et al., v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The named
plaintiff alleges that Credco prepared a tri-merge report about
her which included information belonging to another person.

On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
consumers with respect to reports issued during the period of
November 2012 to present.

CoreLogic said, "Credco has denied the claims and intends to
defend the case vigorously."

CoreLogic, Inc. is a global property information, analytics and
data-enabled services provider operating in North America,
Western Europe and Asia Pacific. The company's combined data from
public, contributory and proprietary sources provides detailed
coverage of property, mortgages and other encumbrances, property
risk and replacement cost, consumer credit, tenancy, location,
hazard risk and related performance information. The company is
based in Irvine, California.


CORNING INC: Court Denies Certification in Modern Holdings' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class in the case captioned MODERN HOLDINGS,
LLC, et al., Plaintiff, v. CORNING, INC., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION. Defendants, Civil No. 5:13-cv-00405-
GFVT (E.D. Ky.).

The Plaintiffs are individuals and corporations who own land
allegedly damaged by the Defendants' operations of the facility,
and/or who allegedly experience personal injuries flowing from
the release of toxic substances by the Defendants. They identify
many hazardous substances used in the course of the facility's
operations including, but are not limited to, asbestos, mercury,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, tin, zinc
oxide and other heavy metals, thallium, perchloroethylene (PCE),
1-Trichloroethane (TCA), methylene chloride, PCB compounds,
benzene, toluene, vanadium, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,
ethylbenzene, silica, chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFC), 2-Butanone
(MEK), trichloroethylene (TCE), and ethanolamine.

The Plaintiffs allege Corning and Philips illegally dumped these
hazardous substances in nearby fields, streams, and lands now
owned by the named the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
class.

The Plaintiffs' Motion proposes that the following class be
certified in this case: all persons who at any time between 1952
and November 27, 2013, resided within the Affected Area or who
owned off-Site property within the Affected Area as of November
27, 2013.

The Court finds that the proposed class failed under Rule 23
because the overbroad class definition did not meet the
requirements for numerosity.  The Defendants have raised Article
III issues with members of the proposed class. Such lack of
standing could prohibit a finding of numerosity within the
Plaintiffs' proposed class, but the Court has already declined to
reach this issue. The Plaintiffs have identified 3,000 distinct
parcels of property to be included in the proposed class. The
number of individuals living on these properties would presumably
establish numerosity if all individuals had standing.  However,
because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the
other requirements under Rule 23, this Court need not reach the
constitutional implications of class standing and issues related
to numerosity.

This Court finds that significant individual issues outnumber
common issues, precluding the use of common answers to further
the case at trial, and barring certification of the proposed
class.  Perhaps chiefly problematic is that the named the
Plaintiffs have such an enormous variety of issues between them,
each of which presents a unique question of both actual and
proximate causation. This leads the Court to doubt the typicality
of the named the Plaintiffs' claims.

This Court also finds one enormous shortcoming in the Plaintiffs'
discussion of the commonality inquiry: Plaintiffs' abject failure
to mention Wal-Mart v. Dukes in either their initial motion or
their reply.  This evidence was insufficient to satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a), because it was overly
broad and failed to establish promotional disparities between
Wal-Mart stores.

While all potential class members allegedly suffer from balance
disorders, the named Plaintiffs have also claimed to suffer from
various other diseases purportedly caused by contamination from
various substances. The Court recognizes that the potential class
members need not share identical personal and/or medical
histories. But, the distinct nature of these numerous diseases
that the Plaintiffs attempt to link to the Defendants' alleged
acts of contamination presents too many individualized issues.
This Court finds the common suffering of balance disorders does
not cure this defect. These varied factors could affect the
claims of the named Plaintiffs' claims without addressing the
claims of the unnamed class members, a clear indicator the
proposed class lacks typicality.

In their Fourth Amended Complaint, the named Plaintiffs
identified their specific illnesses: Rosetta Ford suffers from
diabetes, a bleeding ulcer, gout, chronic bronchitis, and [atrial
fibrillation] due to a heart valve problem; Gary Ford has trouble
breathing and nerve problems in his extremities; Otis Ford was
diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2005 and had surgery in 2006 to
remove his prostate; Charles Ford was diagnosed with a brain
tumor on his pituitary gland in 2006, and, when the tumor was
removed, he lost sight in his right eye; Bobbie Lemons was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2008.

Then, the named Plaintiffs went on to complain of at least
twenty-six general illnesses, capable of resulting from exposure
to at least twenty-five substances allegedly released by
Defendants.  Interestingly, however, while Rosetta Ford claims
several illnesses, she suffers from zero of the diseases listed
in the complaint as potentially resulting from exposure to the
listed toxic substances.

Similarly, Charles Ford was diagnosed with a pituitary tumor,
Otis Ford was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and Bobbie Lemons
suffers from multiple sclerosis. While they complain of other
ailments, only these three are listed by Plaintiffs as diseases
caused by the alleged contamination. Collectively, and on the
face of their pleadings, the named Plaintiffs suffer from only
three out of twenty-six of the listed diseases, or 11.5% of the
named ailments.

The named Plaintiffs cannot be adequate representatives of the
class when they do not suffer from the injuries complained of.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb49ojo8  from Leagle.com.

Modern Holdings, LLC, Bobbie Lemons, Otis Ford, Charles Ford,
Rosetta Ford & Gary Ford, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica
Katherine Winters -- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- The Getty Law
Group, PLLC, Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Richard
A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Matthew English --
menglish@gettylawgroup.com -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Sellers and Sellers Company, Plaintiff, represented by Richard A.
Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC &
Matthew English, The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Corning Incorporated, also known as, Defendant, represented by
Donald J. Kelly -- dkelly@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant &
Combs, LLP, Joseph F. Madonia, Barnes & Thornburg, pro hac vice,
Mark L. Durbin -- mdurbin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Peter
N. Moore, Barnes & Thornburg, pro hac vice, George J. Miller --
gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP & Max
Bridges.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Johnson --
bjohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, David
Andrew Owen -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com --  Dickinson Wright
PLLC, Emma R. Wolfe -- EWolfe@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett --
MStinnett@dickinsonwright.com --  Dickinson Wright PLLC.


CREDIT SUISSE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports
that a Cahill litigation team prevailed on behalf of Credit
Suisse in obtaining an order compelling the plaintiff to
arbitrate its claims in a proposed class action challenging the
bank's alleged use of "Last Look" in foreign exchange trading.

Plaintiff brought breach of contract claims alleging that the
bank rejected or delayed certain foreign exchange trades.  On
April 12, 2018, Judge Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ruled that Plaintiff's claims
must be arbitrated pursuant to the rules of the National Futures
Association.

Credit Suisse Group AG is an international financial services
group.  The Group, led by Tidjane Thiam, David R Mathers and
Pierre-Olivier Marie Bouee, provides investment banking, private
banking, and asset management services to customers located
around the world.

Cahill advised Credit Suisse with a team including Jason M. Hall,
David G. Januszewski, Herbert S. Washer, Kathleen E. Farley,
Miles Wiley, Loryn Davis and Caroline Incledon. [GN]


CREDIT UNION: Court Allows Amendment to "Nichols" TCPA Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental
Complaint in the case captioned CATHERINE NICHOLS, Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT UNION 1, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02337-APG-
GWF (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and requests leave to allege new claims
against the Defendants and class allegations against Defendant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.  Defendant Experian
represents that it does not oppose the Plaintiff's request
supplement her complaint. Defendant Credit Union 1 does not
oppose the Plaintiff's request, but asserts that it may file a
motion to bifurcate the class action causes of action.

Upon review, the Court finds that justice requires granting the
Plaintiff's request because the leave to amend is sought in good
faith, does not cause the opposing party undue delay or undue
prejudice, and does not constitute an exercise in futility.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y96jjwmo  from Leagle.com.

Catherine Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -
- matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Sean
N. Payne -- seanpayne@spaynelaw.com -- PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC, Miles
N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC &
David H. Krieger -- davkrieg@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines &
Krieger, LLC.

Credit Union 1, Defendant, represented by Brandi M. Planet --
bplanet@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig, P.C., Brenoch R. Wirthlin -
- bwirthlin@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas & Leslie
Bryan Hart -- lhart@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig, P.C.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew J. Sharples -- asharples@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor
& Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC & Jennifer L. Braster --
jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.


CSK AUTO: June 25 Deadline to Respond to Pleading in "Aguilar"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California extended the Deadline to Respond Pleading in the case
captioned ADRIAN AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CSK AUTO, INC.,
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-04263-RS (N.D. Cal.).

The Parties agreed that, in the interests of judicial efficiency
and economy, and to avoid potentially duplicative and unnecessary
motion practice and litigation, O'Reilly's deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint should be continued for an
additional 45 days to June 25, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 7, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybceqj7a from Leagle.com.

Adrian Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carey A. James --
caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy, Brent A. Robinson,
Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Hallie Von Rock -- hvr@asmlawyers.com --
Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall Bruce Aiman-Smith --
ras@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy & Reed W.L. Marcy --
rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy.

CSK Auto, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Michael Peterson
-- peterson@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP & Edwin
Mendelson Boniske -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and
Mack LLP.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edwin
Mendelson Boniske , Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP, James Michael
Peterson, Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP & Jason Conroy Ross --
jasross@gmail.com -- Higgs Fletcher Mack LLP.


CYAN INC: Recent Supreme Court Ruling Resolves SLUSA Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Israel David, Esq. -- israel.david@friedfrank.com -- and Samuel
P. Groner, Esq. -- samuel.groner@friedfrank.com -- of Fried,
Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, in an article for Law.com,
wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Cyan v.
Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, -- U.S. --, 2018 WL
1384564 (March 20, 2018), resolved the previously-controversial
issue of whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
of 1998 (SLUSA) stripped state courts of their ability to
adjudicate class action lawsuits asserting claims only under the
Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act).  The court in Cyan held that
SLUSA does not prohibit state courts from adjudicating such
claims, and that defendants may not remove such cases to federal
court. As a result, it is likely that the recent trend of such
claims being asserted in state courts will accelerate.

What the Supreme Court did not clarify in Cyan, and what is
likely to now become an increasingly litigated issue, is the
question of precisely which provisions and elements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) apply to
state court class action lawsuits asserting claims under the 1933
Act. Court decisions and practitioner commentary are unclear on
this question, at times taking conflicting views.  This article
examines several key PSLRA provisions, including the PSLRA's
automatic stay of discovery during the pendency of a motion to
dismiss, and considers their post-Cyan applicability in the
context of state court class action lawsuits asserting 1933 Act
claims.

From the time of its enactment in 1933 until the enactment of
SLUSA in 1998, there was no question that the 1933 Act had
authorized concurrent state and federal court jurisdiction for
lawsuits brought exclusively under the 1933 Act, and that the
1933 Act prohibited the removal of such actions from state to
federal court.  See generally Securities Act Sec. 22(a), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 77v(a). This was called into question when, as part
of SLUSA, the 1933 Act's jurisdictional provision was modified.
SLUSA was enacted in response to an increased number of class
actions based on violations of state securities laws, which the
class action plaintiffs' bar began to bring in increasing numbers
after the 1995 passage of the PSLRA.  To combat the prevalence of
perceived end-runs around the federal securities laws, SLUSA
prohibited the filing of certain securities class actions based
on state law.

Left uncertain after the passage of SLUSA, however, was the
question of whether, in light of SLUSA, plaintiffs are still
permitted to bring securities lawsuits in state court that assert
only 1933 Act claims, and the related question of whether
defendants are permitted to remove any such lawsuits to federal
court.  The court in Cyan held that SLUSA does not prohibit state
courts from adjudicating such claims, and that defendants may not
remove such cases to federal court.

The question of which provisions of the PSLRA apply in state
court class actions asserting claims under the 1933 Act has
arisen in the past, particularly with regard to the PSLRA's
discovery stay.  With the potential post-Cyan acceleration of
such lawsuits, this question is bound to arise more frequently.

The court in Cyan recognized that some of the PSLRA's provisions
are applicable even when a 1933 Act suit is brought in state
court.  As an example, the court cited the PSLRA's "safe harbor"
from liability for certain forward-looking statements made by
company officials, which the court explained was a "substantive
change" to the 1933 Act and was applicable no matter the forum in
which the 1933 Act claim was brought.  In contrast, the court
pointed to the requirement that a lead plaintiff in any class
action brought under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure file a
sworn certification stating, among other things, that he had not
purchased the relevant security at the direction of plaintiff's
counsel.  The court stated that this requirement merely "modified
the procedures used in litigating securities actions" and thus
"applied only when such a suit was brought in federal court."
Beyond those two examples, however, the court did not expressly
decide which other PSLRA provisions apply in state court actions
asserting 1933 Act claims.  A close analysis of the PSLRA
demonstrates which of its other provisions, consistent with the
court's analysis, should be applicable even in state court
actions, and which provisions merely modify the procedures for
federal actions brought pursuant to the Federal Rules.

The PSLRA's amendments to the 1933 Act are codified in 15 U.S.C.
Sec.Sec.77z-1 and 77z-2.  Section 77z-2 details the parameters
and requirements for the statutory safe harbor for forward-
looking statements, while Sec. 77z-1 sets forth the PSLRA's other
modifications to the 1933 Act.  Section 77z-1 has four
subsections.

The first subsection of Sec. 77z-1 (Sec. 77z-1(a)) contains an
introductory clause stating that "[t]he provisions of this
subsection shall apply to each private action arising under this
subchapter [namely, the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77a et seq.]
that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."  When the Cyan court stated
that the PSLRA modified the procedure for class actions "brought
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," this appears to be
the provision to which the court was referring.  Section 77z-1(a)
then goes on to list a series of statutory requirements
(Secs. 77z-1(a)(2)-(8)) for class actions brought pursuant to the
Federal Rules, the first of which is the sworn certification
requirement that the court gave as an example of a procedural
requirement.  In addition to the sworn certification requirement,
Secs. 77z-1(a)(2)-(8) cover the procedures for the appointment of
a lead plaintiff, the share of recovery to be awarded to the
representative party serving on behalf of the class in the event
of a judgment or settlement, restrictions on settlements under
seal, restrictions on payment of attorney fees and expenses,
disclosure of settlement terms to class members, and procedures
for a court to use to determine if there are certain attorney
conflicts of interest.  Because each of these provisions only
applies in actions brought pursuant to the Federal Rules, it
stands to reason, applying the court's analysis in Cyan, that
these provisions would not apply in state court actions.

In contrast, the other three subsections of Sec. 77z-1
(Secs. 77z-1(b)-(d)) do not contain introductory language
limiting their application to actions brought pursuant to the
Federal Rules.  Rather, by their language, each of those
subsections applies "[i]n any private action arising under this
subchapter," i.e., the 1933 Act.  Those subsections govern the
PSLRA's stay of discovery during the pendency of any motion to
dismiss (and the concomitant requirement that defendants preserve
documents during the pendency of the discovery stay), sanctions
for abusive litigation, and the defendant's right to written
interrogatories to the jury, in the specified circumstances, on
the issue of each defendant's state of mind at the time of the
alleged violation. Likewise, Sec. 77z-2's statutory safe harbor
for forward-looking statements is not limited to actions brought
pursuant to the Federal Rules but rather applies "in any private
action arising under this subchapter." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77z-2(c).
Because these provisions apply to any actions brought under the
1933 Act and are not limited to actions brought pursuant to the
Federal Rules, they should be applicable even in state court
actions asserting 1933 Act claims.  Indeed, the Cyan court said
as much in connection with the statutory safe harbor.  It follows
that the court's analysis should apply equally to the discovery
stay, sanctions, and written interrogatories provisions, as well.

The analytical framework telegraphed (but not explicated) by the
Cyan court should put to rest prior commentary questioning which
parts of the PSLRA are applicable in 1933 Act actions brought in
state court.  Indeed, even before Cyan was decided, several
California state courts zeroed in on this distinction between
Sec. 77z-1(a) and Sec. 77z-1(b) and held that, although Sec. 77z-
1(a)'s provisions do not apply in state court, the discovery stay
set forth in Sec. 77z-1(b) is applicable no matter the forum in
which a 1933 Act claim is brought. For example, in Milano v.
Auhll, the court explained that in Sec. 27(a) of the PSLRA
(codified as 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77z-1(a)), "reference is extensive
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the inference is
fairly strong that Congress intended these provisions to apply
only in the federal courts." 1996 WL 33398997, at *2 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Oct. 2, 1996). In contrast, Sec.27(b) of the PSLRA (codified
as 15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec.77z-1(b)), "contains the statement that its
provisions apply 'in any private action arising under this
title', which appears to refer to the 'title' or principal
division of the Act of [1933]." In other words, "an intention
appears on the part of Congress to apply section 27(a) of the
amendments only to class actions in federal court, but to apply
section 27(b) to all private actions based on alleged violations
of the 1933 Act, regardless of whether they were brought in state
or federal court."

As such, the Milano court held that, insofar as the discovery
stay provisions are contained in Sec.27(b), Congress intended the
provisions creating a new right on the part of defendants to a
stay of discovery to be applied to all 1933 Act cases in state as
well as federal courts.  Another California court likewise held
that "the automatic stay provision in Section 27(b) of the [1933]
Act applies to all cases filed under the [1933] Act, whether in
state or federal court." Shores v. Cinergi Pictures Entm't, No.
BC149861 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 1996).

In the wake of Cyan, several commentators predicted that
plaintiffs would be incentivized to bring class action claims
pursuant to the 1933 Act in state court as a means to avoid the
PSLRA's discovery stay.  A close reading of the PSLRA and the
court's Cyan decision demonstrates that such claims would be
subject to the PSLRA's discovery stay (as well as its safe harbor
for forward-looking statements and its provisions concerning
sanctions for abusive litigation and the defendant's right to
written interrogatories to the jury), regardless of the forum in
which they are brought.

Anthony Bagnuola, a litigation associate at the firm, provided
research assistance in the preparation of this article. [GN]


DEL MONTE: Court Approves $904,872 Settlement in "Bruce"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned ANNETTE BRUCE, Plaintiff, v. DEL MONTE FOODS,
INC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05891-JD (N.D. Cal.).

The settlement requires Del Monte to make a single payment of
$904,872. This sum is treated exclusively as a civil penalty
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  From the
settlement, the plaintiff requests attorney's fees in the amount
of $225,000, reimbursement of $12,000 of actual litigation costs,
and a $1,000 enhancement payment to Annette Bruce. Atticus
Administration will be paid no more than $10,000 to distribute
the remainder of the settlement funds.

No objections to the settlement have been presented to the Court.
The parties have advised the Court that the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) does not oppose the
settlement terms.

In that regard, the Court finds that Del Monte has agreed to pay
a significant monetary penalty for PAGA claims that were subject
to considerable uncertainty on both sides of this case. The
settlement amount of $904,872 exceeds the amount the plaintiffs
estimated would be recovered even with a successful litigation
outcome. The parties reasonably vetted the claims and defenses
through written discovery, motion practice, third-party subpoena
practice, and informal exchanges of information. They settled
after presenting an overview of the evidence and their legal
arguments at a mediation before a qualified mediator.

Consequently, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and
reasonable, and promotes the purposes of PAGA. Final approval is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2vsnx3 from Leagle.com.

Annette Bruce, Plaintiff, represented by Sebastian Lamar Miller -
-
sebastian@sebastianmillerlaw.com -- Sebastian Miller Law, P.C.

Del Monte Foods, Inc, Defendant, represented by David Duane
Jacobson -- djacobson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Kerry
McCoy Friedrichs -- kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Laura J. Maechtlen -- lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Megha Jonnalagadda Charalambides --
Mcharalambides@Seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Certification of Certificate Holders Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of New
York denied Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Defendant, No.
14-CV-4394 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.).

The action against Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of trust in
connection with Deutsche Bank's service as trustee of ten
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts of which
Royal Park and the putative class members are or were
beneficiaries (Trusts).  The ten subject Trusts, formed between
2006 and 2007, issued bond-like instruments referred to as RMBS
certificates in which Royal Park and other investors acquired
beneficial interests.

In its initial motion for class certification, Royal Park sought
to certify the following class to prosecute its claims:
All persons and entities who held Certificates in the Trusts and
were damaged thereby. Excluded from the class are defendant, the
loan originators, the Warrantors, the Master Servicers and the
Servicers to the Trusts, and their officers and directors, their
legal representatives, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which they have or had a controlling interest.

With respect to numerosity, according to the expert report of W.
Scott Dalrymple, Royal Park's damages expert, there are a minimum
of 580 investors in the Trusts.  The Plaintiff's proposed class
meets the numerosity requirement.

With respect to commonality, the Plaintiff alleges that Deutsche
Bank breached identical or nearly identical contractual terms to
which all class members were beneficiaries, giving rise to
contractual and common law claims. Consequently, common questions
such as (1) did Deutsche Bank discover loans in breach of R&W?;
(2) did Deutsche Bank know about the Events of Default?; (3) did
Deutsche Bank violate its contractual duties by failing to
enforce R&W rights or by failing to declare Events of Default?;
and (4) were class members damaged by the Defendant's conduct
and, if so, to what extent? are all central to establishing
liability and damages for each class member.

Deutsche Bank focuses its opposition on arguing that individual
questions predominate over common ones and does not explicitly
argue that Royal Park has failed to establish commonality under
Rule 23(a). Regardless, even if the Defendant had made that
argument, the Court agrees that Royal Park has established common
questions capable of yielding common answers for both breach of
contract and breach of duty claims, and has met the requirement.

With respect to typicality and adequacy of representation, first,
Deutsche Bank retorts that Royal Park, in asserting that it
obtained litigation rights by operation of New York's General
Obligation Law Section 13-107, is at conflict with those putative
class members who are former owners who relinquished their claims
by operation of the same provision.  Next, Deutsche Bank suggests
Royal Park's position may be antagonistic to other class members.
The Defendant claims that when Royal Park gave up its rights to
seek further documents from Fortis (BNPFF) the bank from which it
was assigned its own rights asserted here when it settled an
action in Belgium, this self-inflicted inability to participate
in discovery renders it an inadequate class representative. As a
result, Deutsche Bank continues, Royal Park's discovery failures
may subject it to unique defenses not relevant for other class
members.

Regardless, Deutsche Bank's vague discussion of unique defenses
is insufficient to destroy typicality or adequacy here. There is
no evidence to support that the unique defense would threaten to
become the focus of the litigation and the Defendant's one
citation in support of its claim that Royal Park's discovery
failures render it inadequate is inapposite. In McDaniel v. Cty.
of Schenectady, upon which the Defendant relies, the putative
class representative refused court orders to participate in a
deposition three times and counsel could not locate her.  By
contrast, Royal Park, which was formed as a special purpose
vehicle specifically to take over certain distressed assets like
the RMBS at issue here, has been a zealous and active participant
in this litigation.

Royal Park has met both the typicality and adequacy requirements
of Rule 23(a), and were this Court to certify the class, it would
appoint Royal Park as Class Representative and Robbins Geller as
Class Counsel.

Despite Plaintiff's ability to meet the requirements of Rule
23(a), the Court will not certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3)
because of its failure to establish that common issues
predominate over individualized issues.

The Plaintiff contends that common proof or evidence could answer
these questions and establish the elements of the claim on a
class-wide basis. For its breach of trust claim, Royal Park
alleges that a single group of individuals at Deutsche Bank was
responsible for developing relationships with deal parties to
each Trust and so Plaintiff would rely on common proof that
Deutsche Bank's ongoing relationships with the Master Servicers,
Servicers and/or Warrantor prevented it from taking the actions
against such entities necessary to fulfill its obligations under
the Governing Agreements.

The Plaintiff suggests that liability can be established through
common proof with respect to Deutsche Bank's discovery of R&W
violations, through loan sampling and re-underwriting the prove
that loans breached the R&Ws, through common evidence of the
Trusts' massive economic losses, widely disseminated
investigative reports of origination and servicing failures and
predatory schemes at issue. Finally, the Plaintiff purports to
offer a common methodology that can establish class-wide damages
through Dalrymple.

Nonetheless, despite the many common questions and some potential
common proof, class certification is not warranted because of the
numerous individualized inquiries the Court and parties would
have to conduct. Ultimately, these individualized issues some of
which were identified in this Court's previous analysis of
ascertainability, and some of which are presaged above
predominate over the common ones.

First, the nature of the Trusts creates obstacles to the
identification of who exactly has standing in this litigation,
obstacles that would require numerous individualized
determinations. Second, resolving Deutsche Bank's potential
statute of limitations defense would require individualized
determinations of which statute of limitations applied to each
plaintiff's cause of action. Third, Royal Park's failure to
establish that damages may be determined on a class-wide basis
militates against certification.

Given the Plaintiff's failure to establish predominance, by
operation of subsection (D), its failure to establish superiority
largely follows. While there is nearly always some efficiency
that would stem from consolidating the litigation of the common
questions presented here, the prospect of applying a choice of
law analysis that may well yield the further application of
various state laws to the same liability issue does not promote
judicial economy nor make the case more manageable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7lo9m6a from
Leagle.com.

Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur C.
Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven W. Pepich --
stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Christopher M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Darryl J. Alvarado --
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Jeffrey James Stein -- jstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Marco Janoski Gray --
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Juan
Carlos Sanchez -- jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin S. Sciarani --
ksciarami@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Lucas
F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee, Defendant,
represented by Bernard J. Garbutt, III --
bernard.garbutt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Michael Stephan Kraut -- michael.kraut@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP, Ashley Anelcha Krupski --
ashley.krupski@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Bryan P. Goff -- bryan.goff@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Christopher James Stanley -- cstanley@jha.com --
Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, Cristina Ashba --
cristina.ashba@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Elizabeth Allen Frohlich -- elizabeth.frohlich@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gila Sara Singer, Joseph Hage
Aaronson LLC, Grant R. MacQueen -- grant.macqueen@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Gregory P. Joseph, Joseph Hage
Aaronson LLC, John Michael Vassos -- john.vassos@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Jonathan Herman Levy --
jonathan.levy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


DIRECTV LLC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Valdez"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time
for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint
in the case captioned ANTHONY VALDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC;
CABLE VISION CCTV, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Class Action inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00663-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dzjpkt from Leagle.com.

Anthony Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

Directv, LLC., Defendant, represented by Nancy L. Stagg --
nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
LLP.


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Cal. High Ct. Uses ABC Test in Drivers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under both California and federal law, the question whether an
individual worker should properly be classified as an employee
or, instead, as an independent contractor has considerable
significance for workers, businesses, and the public generally.
On the one hand, if a worker should properly be classified as an
employee, the hiring business bears the responsibility of paying
federal Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance
taxes and state employment taxes, providing worker's compensation
insurance, and, most relevant for the present case, complying
with numerous state and federal statutes and regulations
governing the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees.
The worker then obtains the protection of the applicable labor
laws and regulations.  On the other hand, if a worker should
properly be classified as an independent contractor, the business
does not bear any of those costs or responsibilities, the worker
obtains none of the numerous labor law benefits, and the public
may be required under applicable laws to assume additional
financial burdens with respect to such workers and their
families.

Although in some circumstances classification as an independent
contractor may be advantageous to workers as well as to
businesses, the risk that workers who should be treated as
employees may be improperly misclassified as independent
contractors is significant in light of the potentially
substantial economic incentives that a business may have in
mischaracterizing some workers as independent contractors. Such
incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business
may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar
workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other
responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its
employees. In recent years, the relevant regulatory agencies of
both the federal and state governments have declared that the
misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather
than employees is a very serious problem, depriving federal and
state governments of billions of dollars in tax revenue and
millions of workers of the labor law protections to which they
are entitled.

The issue in the appeals case captioned DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST,
INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, No. S222732 (Cal.),
relates to the resolution of the employee or independent
contractor question in one specific context.  Here, the Supreme
Court of California must decide what standard applies, under
California law, in determining whether workers should be
classified as employees or as independent contractors for
purposes of California wage orders, which impose obligations
relating to the minimum wages, maximum hours, and a limited
number of very basic working conditions (such as minimally
required meal and rest breaks) of California employees.

In the lawsuit, two individual delivery drivers, suing on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of allegedly similarly
situated drivers, filed a complaint against Dynamex Operations
West, Inc., a nationwide package and document delivery company,
alleging that Dynamex had misclassified its delivery drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees.  The drivers
claimed that Dynamex's alleged misclassification of its drivers
as independent contractors led to Dynamex's violation of the
provisions of Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 9, the
applicable state wage order governing the transportation
industry, as well as various sections of the Labor Code, and, as
a result, that Dynamex had engaged in unfair and unlawful
business practices under Business and Professions Code section
17200.

Prior to 2004, Dynamex classified as employees drivers who
allegedly performed similar pickup and delivery work as the
current drivers perform.  In 2004, however, Dynamex adopted a new
policy and contractual arrangement under which all drivers are
considered independent contractors rather than employees. Dynamex
maintains that, in light of the current contractual arrangement,
the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors.

After an earlier round of litigation in which the trial court's
initial order denying class certification was reversed by the
Court of Appeal (Lee v. Dynamex, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th
1325), the trial court ultimately certified a class action
embodying a class of Dynamex drivers who, during a pay period,
did not themselves employ other drivers and did not do delivery
work for other delivery businesses or for the drivers' own
personal customers. In finding that the relevant common legal and
factual issues relating to the proper classification of the
drivers as employees or as independent contractors predominated
over potential individual issues, the trial court's certification
order relied upon the three alternative definitions of "employ"
and "employer" set forth in the applicable wage order as
discussed in the state Supreme Court's decided opinion in
Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (Martinez).  Martinez
held that "[t]o employ . . . under the [wage order], has three
alternative definitions. It means: (a) to exercise control over
the wages, hours, or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or
permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law
employment relationship." (49 Cal.4th at p. 64.) The trial court
rejected Dynamex's contention that in the wage order context, as
in most other contexts, the multifactor standard set forth in
this court's seminal decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v.
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello)
is the only appropriate standard under California law for
distinguishing employees and independent contractors.

In response to the trial court's denial of Dynamex's subsequent
motion to decertify the class, Dynamex filed the current writ
proceeding in the Court of Appeal, maintaining that two of the
alternative wage order definitions of "employ" relied upon by the
trial court do not apply to the employee or independent
contractor issue. Dynamex contended, instead, that those wage
order definitions are relevant only to the distinct joint
employer question that was directly presented in this court's
decision in Martinez -- namely whether, when a worker is an
admitted employee of a primary employer, another business or
entity that has some relationship with the primary employer
should properly be considered a joint employer of the worker and
therefore also responsible, along with the primary employer, for
the obligations imposed by the wage order.

The Court of Appeal rejected Dynamex's contention, concluding
that neither the provisions of the wage order itself nor this
court's decision in Martinez supported the argument that the wage
order's definitions of "employ" and "employer" are limited to the
joint employer context and are not applicable in determining
whether a worker is a covered employee, rather than an excluded
independent contractor, for purposes of the obligations imposed
by the wage order. The Court of Appeal concluded that the wage
order definitions discussed in Martinez are applicable to the
employee or independent contractor question with respect to
obligations arising out of the wage order. The Court of Appeal
upheld the trial court's class certification order with respect
to all of plaintiffs' claims that are based on alleged violations
of the wage order.

At the same time, the Court of Appeal concluded that insofar as
the causes of action in the complaint seek reimbursement for
business expenses such as fuel and tolls that are not governed by
the wage order and are obtainable only under section 2802 of the
Labor Code, the Borello standard is the applicable standard for
determining whether a worker is properly considered an employee
or an independent contractor. With respect to plaintiffs' non-
wage-order claim under section 2802, the Court of Appeal remanded
the matter to the trial court to reconsider its class
certification of that claim pursuant to a proper application of
the Borello standard as further explicated in this court's
decision in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59
Cal.4th 522 (Ayala).

Dynamex filed a petition for review in the state Supreme Court,
challenging only the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the wage
order definitions of "employ" and "employer" discussed in
Martinez are applicable to the question whether a worker is
properly considered an employee or an independent contractor for
purposes of the obligations imposed by an applicable wage order.
The state Supreme Court granted review to consider that issue.

The state Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the
trial court did not err in concluding that the "suffer or permit
to work" definition of "employ" contained in the wage order may
be relied upon in evaluating whether a worker is an employee or,
instead, an independent contractor for purposes of the
obligations imposed by the wage order. In light of its history
and purpose, the state Supreme Court concluded that the wage
order's suffer or permit to work definition must be interpreted
broadly to treat as "employees," and thereby provide the wage
order's protection to, all workers who would ordinarily be viewed
as working in the hiring business. At the same time, the state
Supreme Court concluded that the suffer or permit to work
definition is a term of art that cannot be interpreted literally
in a manner that would encompass within the employee category the
type of individual workers, like independent plumbers or
electricians, who have traditionally been viewed as genuine
independent contractors who are working only in their own
independent business.

For these reasons, the state Supreme Court concluded that in
determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work
definition, a worker is properly considered the type of
independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it
is appropriate to look to a standard, commonly referred to as the
"ABC" test, that is utilized in other jurisdictions in a variety
of contexts to distinguish employees from independent
contractors.

Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent
contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring
entity establishes:

   (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of
the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both
under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

   (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual
course of the hiring entity's business; and

   (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
the work performed for the hiring entity.

Although, it appears from the class certification order that the
trial court may have interpreted the wage order's suffer or
permit to work standard too literally, the state Supreme Court
concluded that on the facts disclosed by the record, the trial
court's certification order is nonetheless correct as a matter of
law under a proper understanding of the suffer or permit to work
standard and should be upheld.

Accordingly, the state Supreme Court concluded that the judgment
of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's April 30, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73s9l5q from
Leagle.com.

Littler Mendelson, Robert G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com --
Damon M. Ott -- dott@littler.com -- Philip A. Simpkins --
ps@snlegal.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Paul S.
Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- DLA Piper and Ellen M.
Bronchetti -- ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com -- for Petitioner.

Pope, Berger & Williams, Pope, Berger, Williams Reynolds, A. Mark
Pope, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Glancy Prongay & Murray, Kevin F.
Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Boudreau Williams, Williams Iagmin
and Jon R. Williams -- williams@williamsiagmin.com -- for Real
Parties in Interest.

Della Barnett, R. Erandi Zamora -- ezamora@crlaf.org -- Anthony
Mischel -- mischellaw@gmail.com -- Cynthia L. Rice --
crice@crla.org --  William G. Hoerger and Jean H. Choi for
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, National Employment
Law Project, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, La Raza
Centro Legal, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Asian
Americans Advancing Justice-LA, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice-ALC, The Impact Fund, Alexander Community Law Center,
UCLA Center for Labor Research, Women's Employment Rights Clinic
and Worksafe as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in
Interest.


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Ruling Hailed as Game Changer for Gig Economy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Tippett, writing for The Conversation, reports that
a recent California Supreme Court ruling is being hailed as a
"game changer" for the gig economy.

That's because the court adopted a more streamlined test for
deciding whether a worker is an independent contractor or an
employee.  Gig economy companies, like Uber and Lyft,
overwhelmingly classify their workers as independent contractors.
As a result, they don't comply with basic employment laws, like
minimum wage and workers' compensation insurance.

If courts decide these workers are misclassified and actually
meet the legal test for employee status, gig companies can be on
the hook for back pay or unpaid insurance premiums, as well as
penalties for past noncompliance.

So does this mark a turning point for the gig economy? Maybe not.

A new test for gig workers
In the decision, Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court,
the justices adopted a much simpler test than California has
applied in the past.  The new test asks three questions: Is the
worker free from the company's control? Is the worker performing
a core business function of the company? And does the worker have
his or her own independent business?

This test strikes at the heart of the gig economy, a system built
on providing workers on demand for all sorts of tasks, whether it
be picking you up, assembling furniture or delivering a new
toaster or a burrito.  The services that gig workers perform are
core to the company's business, making it much harder for the
companies to defend their decision under this streamlined test.

But plaintiff's lawyers shouldn't sharpen their pencils just yet.
That's because gig economy companies have what amounts a "get out
of jail" free card -- arbitration agreements containing class
action waivers.

'Get out of jail' free
Put simply, companies can force workers to sign agreements that
they will only pursue their legal rights through arbitration --
and not in courts.  These agreements can also waive a worker's
right to bring any class or collective claims against the
company.

A lot of legal claims are not economically viable unless they are
brought as class actions.  The amount of money at stake is not
enough to make it worth a lawyer's time, unless you group
everyone's claims together.  This is especially true of lawsuits
involving wage and hour violations -- like failure to pay minimum
wage or overtime.

A study I completed with law student Bridget Schaaff found that
these waivers are very common in the gig economy.  For 2016,
around 70 percent of the contracts we reviewed contained
arbitration agreements with class action waivers. This likely
underestimates the proportion of workers subject to these
waivers, because it was the larger, most established gig
companies that tended to use them.

Gig companies are unlikely to change their practices without the
threat of class actions.  Although state agencies can help by
stepping up enforcement, it's ultimately up to Congress to take
away the "get out of jail" free card.  And that would mean
amending the Federal Arbitration Act. [GN]


EL PASO, CO: Judge Grants Class Action Status in Immigration Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nia Bender, writing for Koaa.com, reports that a judge has
granted class action status to a lawsuit accusing the El Paso
County sheriff's department of improperly holding people for
possible deportation by federal authorities.

District Court Judge Eric Bentley issued the decision on May 1,
expanding the lawsuit to any current and future El Paso County
Jail inmates who federal authorities ask the sheriff's department
to detain.

The Colorado American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in
February on behalf of two men being held in the jail, arguing
that state law required their release.

The sheriff's office argued that it is housing immigrants on
federal agents' behalf.

The ACLU says the suit is the first known challenge to an attempt
by federal immigration authorities to work around court rulings
that limit how they work with local sheriffs. [GN]


ELETROBRAS: To Pay US$ 14.75-Bil. to Settle US Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider reports that Brazilian state-owned power company
Eletrobras signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to pay
US$ 14.75 billion to settle a class action with holders of its
ADRs in the United States. The deal still has to be reviewed by
local authorities and, according to the company, eliminates the
risk of higher costs stemming from the lawsuit.

If the US Justice system approves the Eletrobras deal, Eletrobras
ADR's holders will be notified of their rights -- which include
the right to do not accept the deal. The class action settlement
is similar to that of Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil
company which also faced a class action in the US after a
corruption probe showed that the company overpaid contractors.

Eletrobras said in a statement that the proposed deal does not
mean that the company acknowledges responsibility for whatever
charge presented against it.[GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Employment Lawsuit Awaits Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court is poised to issue a ruling soon that could reshape the
influence of class action plaintiffs on the workplace -- not to
mention the workloads of employment lawyers nationwide.

As the clock ticks on the current Supreme Court term, labor and
employment lawyers from both the plaintiffs and defense bars are
watching closely for a ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
several class action suits related to the 2017 cybersecurity
incident.

Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class
actions were filed by consumers against the company in federal,
state and Canadian courts relating to the 2017 cybersecurity
incident. The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent
various classes of consumers and small businesses, generally
claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by
Equifax in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and
assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief.

In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial
institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at
risk due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert
various common law claims such as claims for negligence and
breach of contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims.

The financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages
and other related relief. Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed
by the City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity
incident alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances
governing protection of personal data, consumer fraud and breach
notice requirements and business practices.

Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent
orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings
with respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court
discussed, including the City of Chicago action, to the Northern
District of Georgia as the single U.S. District Court for
centralized proceedings. Based on this order, consolidated
proceedings with respect to U.S. consumer and financial
institution federal class actions related to the 2017
cybersecurity incident have begun in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia. Discovery has not yet begun and
the cases are in a preliminary phase.

In addition to these federal court proceedings, several putative
class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident have
been filed in the Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia. These
cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton
County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated
into a single action.

The company had also appeared or notified the appropriate parties
of representation in the Canadian class actions, but such actions
are all at the preliminary stages. In addition, civil enforcement
actions have been filed by the Attorneys General of Massachusetts
and West Virginia, both of which are in the pre-trial stages, and
a lawsuit has been filed by the City of San Francisco, which has
been stayed by the court.

Equifax said, "We dispute the allegations in the complaints
described above and intend to defend against such claims."

Equifax Inc. is a leading global provider of information
solutions, employment and income verifications and human
resources business process outsourcing services. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

                           *     *     *

Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a consolidated putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with statements regarding the company's cybersecurity systems and
controls is pending against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The complaints seek certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from February
25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Equifax said, "We dispute the allegations in these complaints and
intend to defend against the claims."

Equifax Inc. is a leading global provider of information
solutions, employment and income verifications and human
resources business process outsourcing services. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Under Appeal in 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the
district court's ruling on the motions to dismiss the Beltz II
lawsuit.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association,
by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita
Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.;
Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen;
Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L.
Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H.
Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged
policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the
Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the
Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the
Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all
policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of
Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party
Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February
10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion
to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors'
motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to
dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and
all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief
sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case
without prejudice.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action
would proceed before the Department and any final and non-
appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan
action will be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was
completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April
29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested
that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5,
2015.

The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the
District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to
the Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled
as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph
S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of
Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity
Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J.
Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney;
LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B.
Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C.
Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A.
Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin
P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van
Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are
all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that
retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and
an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,
breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,
conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt
Vorsheck, at the expense of Exchange.

The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a
judgment be entered against the Defendants certifying the action
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the
Class and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring
the conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the
Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding
compensatory and punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed
their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17,
2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to
dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its
entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does
not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the
Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim
against Indemnity for failure to state a claim.

The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the
Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or
fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have sought
indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in
connection with the Beltz II lawsuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact
for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. The company is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Bid to Drop "Ritz" Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the class action suit by Lynda Ritz in the U.S. District
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On December 28, 2017 a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned
Lynda Ritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company, J. Ralph Borneman,
Jr., Terrence W. Cavanaugh, Eugene C. Connell, LuAnn Datesh,
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, C. Scott Hartz, Brian A.
Hudson, Sr., Claude C. Lilly, III, George R. Lucore, Thomas W.
Palmer, Martin P. Sheffield, Richard L. Stover, Elizabeth A. Hirt
Vorsheck, and Robert C. Wilburn, and Erie Insurance Exchange
(Nominal Defendant) (the "Ritz" lawsuit).

The individual named as Plaintiff is alleged to be a policyholder
(subscriber) of the Erie Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange").
With the exception of Terrence W. Cavanaugh and Robert C.
Wilburn, the individuals named as Defendants comprise the current
Board of Directors of Indemnity. Messrs. Cavanaugh and Wilburn
are former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The Complaint alleges that since at least 2007, Erie Indemnity
Company has taken "unwarranted and excessive" management fees as
compensation for its services under the Subscriber's Agreement.

Count I of the Complaint purports to allege a claim for breach of
alleged fiduciary duties against Indemnity and the Directors on
behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of subscribers.

Count II purports to allege a claim for breach of alleged
fiduciary duties against Indemnity and the Directors on behalf of
Exchange.

Count III purports to allege a claim for breach of contract and
an alleged implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against Indemnity on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class.

Count IV purports to allege a claim of unjust enrichment against
several Directors.

The Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
requests the Court to enjoin Indemnity from continuing to retain
excessive management fees; and order such other relief as may be
appropriate.

On March 5, 2018, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Ritz
lawsuit. The Directors also filed their own motions to dismiss
the Ritz lawsuit on March 5, 2018.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Ritz lawsuit. The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the Ritz lawsuit and have sought indemnification
and advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with
the Ritz lawsuit.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact
for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. The company is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


ESSENDANT INC: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Essendant Inc. is awaiting court approval of a class action
settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

In 2017, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed by
a former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court. During the
second quarter of 2017, the Company reached an agreement on the
general terms of a settlement to resolve this litigation. The
parties have finalized a settlement agreement, which is now
subject to court approval. A hearing on the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval was set for May 10, 2018.

In consideration of the settlement, in the second quarter of
2017, the Company recorded a $3.0 million pre-tax reserve within
"Warehousing, marketing and administrative expenses" in the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Essendant Inc. is a national distributor of workplace items, with
2017 net sales of $5.0 billion. The Company provides access to a
broad assortment of over 170,000 items including janitorial,
foodservice and breakroom supplies (JanSan), technology products,
traditional office products, industrial supplies, cut sheet paper
products, automotive products and office furniture. The company
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


EXTENDICARE: Class Action Alleges Negligence at Nursing Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Harris, writing for The Star, reports that Jose Novo had
bed sores so deep that bone was exposed.

Lioubov "Luba" Ijnatieva felt "something crawling" inside a skin
wound on her leg.  It was infested with fly maggots.

Their stories are detailed in two separate statements of claim
for a pair of proposed class actions that allege negligence at
two Ontario nursing home giants with facilities in the GTA.  The
plaintiffs have since died but were both elderly patients at
facilities run by Extendicare and Leisureworld (now Sienna Senior
Living).

These allegations have not been proven in court. None of the
proposed class actions have been certified by a judge.

Both statements of claim say the two defendants were negligent,
breached fiduciary duties, breached terms of contract and failed
to provide proper care.  The long-term care services provided by
them were substandard, the statements of claim say.

In an emailed statement, an Extendicare spokesperson said that
"we care deeply about the residents, clients and families that we
serve, and our staff work hard to provide them with comfort,
care, and compassion."

Spokesperson Rebecca Rawn said that Extendicare does not believe
the lawsuit has merit and intends to demonstrate through the
court process.

"Extendicare has very comprehensive programs which ensure that
residents of its homes are appropriately cared for and conducts
regular internal audits, external audits, and program evaluations
to continuously improve, and our performance is shared publicly,"
Ms. Rawn said.  "We cannot speak to the specifics of any of our
residents' care or treatment.

"We reiterate our deep commitment to providing high-quality care
to our residents and to doing better in any cases where we are
thought to have fallen short of that goal.  We work with our
residents and families to address issues and concerns and it is
unfortunate when they cannot be resolved."

A spokesperson from Sienna said the company had just received the
claim and "are currently reviewing it."

"The health and wellbeing of all residents is our primary focus,
and we take pride in the quality of care our team members
provide," Brian Richardson, Sienna's chief marketing officer,
said in an emailed statement to the Star.  "Our mission is to
help residents live fully, every day."

The plaintiffs are being represented by Oakley and Oakley, one of
three law firms that recently formed the Nursing Homes Action
Coalition, set up to handle the two recent legal actions and a
third filed in summer 2016.

According to one of the statements of claim filed May 1, 2018,
Leisureworld Senior Care was "systemically negligent" in caring
for Novo, 65, who was a resident at the company's Tullamore
Nursing Home in Brampton. Novo died on May 27, 2016.

Novo's son Jimmy Novo is named as the "representative plaintiff"
in the lawsuit, in the statement of claim.  The action is seeking
general damages of $50 million and "aggravated and punitive
damages" of $100 million.

According to the statement of claim, Novo's "family noticed that
(he) would choke on his food as a result of staff at the nursing
home trying to make him eat faster."

In October 2015, Novo was taken to the hospital for "infected
decubitis ulcers (bed sores)," the statement of claim says. A
month later, his bed sores continued to worsen, with some were
recorded as stage four, "with bone being visible," according to
the statement of claim.

In the second statement of claim filed in November 2017, Lioubov
"Luba" Ijnatieva, 91, a former resident of Extendicare's West End
Villa nursing home in Ottawa, says she suffered "harm and damages
due to the negligence, breach of fiduciary duties and breaches of
contract."  Ijnatieva has since died and is represented by her
daughter Larisa Gerol.

The plaintiffs are seeking general damages of $50 million and
"aggravated and punitive damages" of $100 million, the statement
of claim says.

In the statement, Ijnatieva complained of a "crawling" sensation
in her leg wound to Extendicare staff.  She was hospitalized to
address the chronic wound, and was "shocked and extremely upset
to learn that the wound had been infested with fly maggots,"
according to the statement of claim.

Gerol "also learned that staff at West End Villa had found that
her mother's wound had fly maggots in it when they had removed
bandaging from the leg, after the bandaging had not been cleaned
or changed for an extended period of time," the statement says.

The third legal action, filed in 2016 by Oakley and Oakley
against nursing home chain Revera, has not yet been certified as
a class action but has grown to more than 90 cases, senior
partner Amani Oakley said. A statement of claim has been filed.
Revera has filed a notice of intent to defend.

Larry Roberts, senior manager of corporate affairs for Revera,
said that residents and staff are the company's highest priority.

"We work very hard to foster a caring environment," he said in an
emailed statement. "Our staff are committed to providing a safe
and supportive environment in which all our residents are treated
with dignity and respect."

Roberts said that to protect the privacy of Revera residents, the
company does not publicly discuss individuals.

"As the class action suit brought against Revera is before the
courts, out of respect for the system and for all parties
involved, we cannot speak to the specifics of the lawsuit. . ."
he said.

"We do not believe there is merit in the class action lawsuit and
we are prepared to go through the court process." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Canadians Sue Over Cambridge Analytica Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Nanji, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Facebook is
facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the 622,161 Canadians
who may be among 87 million people whose personal data was
improperly harvested.

The proposed class action comes on the same day Cambridge
Analytica -- the British political consulting firm that's now the
subject of political probes in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., as
well as an investigation by Canada's privacy commissioner -- said
it was shutting down and filing for bankruptcy because news
reports about the privacy scandal had "driven away virtually all"
of its customers and suppliers.

A lawsuit filed on May 2 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
is the second class-action to hit the Silicon Valley heavyweight
over the Cambridge Analytica drama.  A class action was launched
in U.S. district court on behalf of 71 million U.S. and U.K.
users whose data may have been scraped by the firm, which has
been accused of building detailed voter profiles for electoral
gain.

The Canadian class action, which has yet to be certified by a
judge, alleges Facebook and Facebook Canada disclosed users'
personal information without their consent and failed to
adequately protect their privacy.

A statement of claim filed in the court on May 2 alleges the tech
giant "intentionally or recklessly and without lawful
justification invaded the private affairs or concerns of the
(users) . . . in a way that a reasonable person would regard the
invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or
anguish."

A spokesperson for Facebook said it did not have a comment about
the suit.  Paul Grewal, the company's vice-president and deputy
general counsel, addressed concerns over privacy in a blog post.

"We are committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect
people's information.  We will take whatever steps are required
to see that this happens," Mr. Grewal said at the time.

The lawsuit seeks $62,216,100 in punitive damages, or $100 for
each of the 622,161 Canadians Facebook says may have had their
info swept up by Cambridge Analytica.  The firm, which has denied
any wrongdoing, has ties to U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016
campaign.

The suit also seeks general damages in the amount of $1,000 for
each class-action member.

Cambridge Analytica is not named as a defendant in the Canadian
class action, which only names Facebook and Facebook Canada.
Both Cambridge Analytica and Facebook are defendants in the U.S.
class action.

"Companies such as Facebook that collect and use personal
information for commercial purposes are obliged to take strict
measures to ensure that that information is not shared with or
accessed by third parties without proper disclosure and prior
consent," said Sajjad Nematollahi --
sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com -- a Toronto-based lawyer at
Siskinds LLP who is representing the plaintiffs.

"The implications of failing to protect the integrity of users'
personal information extend beyond the privacy of those directly
impacted to the foundations of our democracy," he said.

Jessica Simpson, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is a newlywed
who previously spoke to the Star about her frustration finding
out her information may have been scrapped.

"I figured I've already spoken out about the privacy issues, why
stop now?" said Ms. Simpson, who works as an event and
fundraising specialist at a non-profit.

The data was collected using a personality quiz app that was used
by nearly 300,000 people, but it also scraped information about
their social network and friends who didn't install the app
directly, gaining access to tens of millions of connections.

That means Cambridge Analytica could have gleaned, without
Ms. Simpson's express permission or knowledge, her public
profile, photos, current city, location "check-ins," birthday,
"likes," as well as the posts and messages shared with the
connection that authorized the app in the first place.

She said she hopes the case prompts people to be more mindful
about their online activity and that companies step up their
privacy protections "to ensure that user data is secure and not
being used for other purposes."

In recent weeks, Facebook has acknowledged it did not do enough
to protect people's personal data.  CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who was
grilled by U.S. lawmakers about fake news, privacy, political
advertising, foreign election meddling and the platform's role in
the democratic process, has also apologized for the breach.

The tech giant has also announced several measures aimed at
improving people's privacy, and among other things is letting
people know if their information may have been accessed by
Cambridge Analytica on their help centre page. [GN]

                           *     *     *

Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company faces multiple class action
suits related to the misuse of certain data by a developer.

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 the company and certain of
its 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 in violation of our terms and
policies, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Facebook said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and
we are vigorously defending them. In addition, 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. It is reasonably
possible that some of these actions or inquiries could subject us
to substantial losses, although we are currently unable to
estimate the amount of such losses."

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide. Its products include Facebook Website and mobile
application that enables people to connect, share, discover, and
communicate with each other on mobile devices and personal
computers; Instagram, a community for sharing visual stories
through photos, videos, and direct messages; Messenger, a
messaging application to communicate with other people, groups,
and businesses across various platforms and devices; and
WhatsApp, a mobile messaging application. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: User Agreement May Create Grounds for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglass Gaking, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that in his
questioning of Facebook (FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Senator
John Kennedy said that "there are some impurities in the Facebook
punchbowl." More bluntly, he continued, "your user agreement
sucks."  Mr. Kennedy's questioning deteriorated from there, as he
did not get specific enough about the user agreement and showed a
lack of understanding about how Facebook and its 3rd party apps
work.  However, he was absolutely correct in his starting point
about Facebook's user agreement.  It sucks.

Facebook's terms of service clearly spell out the expectations
for users.  Users know -- if they actually read the agreement --
how they are permitted to behave on the platform, how ownership
of their content works, and what the consequences are if they
violate the policy.  However, Facebook has no way of confirming
the capacity of its users to agree to the contract.  It is also
not entirely clear how Facebook will behave in the contract and
how it will be held accountable for misbehavior.  That is with
one exception: its promise to "require applications to respect
your privacy."  Facebook did very little to enforce its
contracts, particularly with developers. In neglecting to do so,
it may have violated its own user agreement.

Congressional testimonies and an FTC investigation are not
Facebook's only problems right now.  The broken promise in
Facebook's terms of service to protect user privacy may create
grounds for a class action lawsuit as well.

Facebook Made It Way Too Easy For Developers To Steal Your Data
In a 2018 interview on 60 Minutes, app developer Aleksandr Kogan
explained how he and allegedly "tens of thousands" of other
developers used a Facebook feature called "friend permissions" to
gather data about millions of users without their direct
permission via their friends' usage of an app.  Once those
developers got access to the data, it left Facebook's platform,
where Facebook would have no way of holding the developers
accountable for upholding their agreement.  Mr. Kogan sold his
data to Cambridge Analytica, who used it to profile American
voters for the benefit of selected political candidates.
Facebook even allowed Mr. Kogan to post a user agreement on his
app that contradicted the developer agreement he signed with
Facebook by saying he would sell their data to third parties.
That agreement was posted for a year and a half before the press
finally exposed it in 2015. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Parties Agree to Settle Class Suit over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties have entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all claims in a consolidated securities
action.

Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions,
derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state
and federal courts in the United States and in other
jurisdictions against the company, its directors, and/or certain
of its officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach
of fiduciary duties in connection with the company's initial
public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified damages.

The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along with
multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as
NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by
NASDAQ in connection with the company's IPO, were ordered
centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action and granted the company's motions to dismiss the
derivative actions against its directors and certain of its
officers. On July 24, 2015, the court of appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the derivative actions. On December 11, 2015, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action. On April 14, 2017, the company
filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 26, 2018, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims
in the consolidated securities action.

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide. Its products include Facebook Website and mobile
application that enables people to connect, share, discover, and
communicate with each other on mobile devices and personal
computers; Instagram, a community for sharing visual stories
through photos, videos, and direct messages; Messenger, a
messaging application to communicate with other people, groups,
and businesses across various platforms and devices; and
WhatsApp, a mobile messaging application. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on May 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:18-cv-00931, on behalf of
public common unitholders of Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc.
("Fairmount" or the "Company") (NYSE: FMSA) who held Fairmount
public common units and have been harmed by Fairmount and its
board of directors (the "Board") for alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the acquisition of the
Company by SCR-Sibelco NV ("Sibelco").

Under the terms of the merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement
Sibelco will own, directly or indirectly, approximately 65% of
the shares of combined company common stock and Fairmount
stockholders, including holders of certain Fairmount equity
awards, immediately prior to the effective time will own the
remaining approximately 35% of the outstanding shares.  The
complaint alleges that the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement on
form S-4/A (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  In particular, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for both companies; (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by Fairmount's financial advisor, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC ("Wells Fargo"), in support of its fairness
opinion; (iii) information relating to the Background of the
Merger; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest faced by the
Wells Fargo.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from May 2, 2018.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

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

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm.  [GN]


FCA US: Court Dismisses "Bledsoe" Dodge Ram Emissions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs tested one 2012 Dodge Ram 2500, the results of
which allegedly show that the vehicle emitted emissions at
amounts greater than those permitted by federal and state
regulations, higher than its gasoline engine counterpart, higher
than what a reasonable consumer would expect, and higher than
levels set for vehicles to obtain certificates of compliance.
The first claim alleges that the Defendants violated the RICO
Act.  The second claim alleges that the Defendants violated the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

To support the existence of the alleged worldwide scandal, the
Plaintiffs cite to the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal.  The EPA
indicated that FCA N.V. and FCA US failed to justify or disclose
defeat devices in model year 2014-2016 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel
and 2014-2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel vehicles.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that the EPA tested these vehicles and
identified that they contained several Auxiliary Emissions
Control Devices (AECDs) that appear to cause the vehicle to
perform differently when the vehicle is being tested for
compliance with the EPA emissions standards during the Federal
emission test procedure than in normal operation and use.

The Court finds that the Complaint lacks sufficient well-pleaded
facts that allow it to draw a reasonable inference that the
results from the Plaintiffs' PEMS testing of one vehicle
plausibly shows the presence of a defeat device, a defect in the
tested truck, or a defect that exists in the Affected Vehicles.
Because the Complaint lacks such well-pleaded factual matter
regarding an alleged defect in the Trucks, an alleged defeat
device in the Trucks, or any plausible inferences of the
misconduct alleged, the Plaintiffs have not shown that there
exists an injury in fact to confer standing for this action, the
Court says.

The lack of well-pleaded allegations of fact in the Complaint
showing the existence of a defect or the presence of a defeat
device in the tested vehicle (and by extension the Affected
Vehicles, based on the alleged results of Plaintiffs' PEMS
testing, may be demonstrated by comparing the conclusory
allegations of the instant Complaint with factual allegations
found to be satisfactory in other cases similar to the one
currently before the Court.

Thus, the Plaintiffs' allegations of the presence of a defect or
a defeat device in the identified vehicles, based on results of
their PEMS testing on a single Truck, are conclusory; they are
not founded on specific allegations of fact. The court may not
accept as true the Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations regarding
the performance of vehicles generally, other than the one tested
and the presence of defeat devices or a defective emissions
system in any of the vehicles.

The Plaintiffs' factual allegations surrounding the currently-
pending enforcement action involving the Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep
Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel vehicles provide much, if any, support
to nudge the Plaintiffs' claims from conceivable to plausible.
The Court recognizes that the additional factual allegations in
Counts alleging European testing and results pertained to GM
vehicles other than the ones at issue in the lawsuit. But in
Counts, plaintiffs explained that the GM vehicles about which
corroborative European test results were alleged, shared common
designs, including engines, which made it plausible that those
test results also applied to the plaintiffs' vehicles. The
Plaintiffs allege no such links between the Dodge Ram 1500 and
Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel vehicles and the Trucks at issue in
the current action. Indeed, those vehicles had engines
manufactured, imported and sold by VM Italy and VM North America.
Consequently, the Court finds that the well-pleaded facts in the
Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint fail to raise a
plausible inference of wrongdoing.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth a myriad of alleged injuries
that are claimed to have resulted from the Defendants' conduct.
These injuries include, but are not limited to, the purchase or
lease of an allegedly illegal and defective class vehicle,
overpayment for an Affected Vehicle, owning a class vehicle whose
resale value has or will diminish, and a number of out of pocket
losses.

However, all of the Plaintiffs' purported injuries hinge on the
Complaint's conclusory allegations that the Defendants defrauded
or misled consumers because the Affected Vehicles perform in a
manner consistent with the Plaintiffs' PEMS testing results,
contain a defective emission control system, contain a defective
device, and/or contain defeat devices. That is to say, the
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are all based upon allegations that
the Court must disregard as conclusory, or upon inferences from
the well-pleaded facts contained in the Complaint the Court has
found implausible. Because the Complaint does not allege
sufficient well-pleaded facts to raise a plausible inference of
wrongdoing, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently identified an
injury in fact to confer standing for this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y754gt42 from
Leagle.com.

James Bledsoe, Paul Chouffet & Martin Rivas, Plaintiffs,
represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt -- dal@miller.law.com -- The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Jason Henry Alperstein
-- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella, Byrne, Mark Jeffrey Dearman
-- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLp, Paul
Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLp, Scott A. George
-sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode
-- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Darrell S. Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, James P. Feeney
-- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Paul L. Nystromp --
nystrom@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLp.
Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Soble --
jsobley@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Jonathan W. Garlough --
jgarlough@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Lauren M. Loew --
lloew@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Leah R. Imbrogno --
limbrogno@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael D. Leffel --
mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Vanessa L. Miller --
vmiller@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.


FIRST COMMUNITY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Strike in "Lavigne"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted in part Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply
Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned JANINE LAVIGNE, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. and FIRST NATIONAL BANK TEXAS,
Defendants, Civil No. 1:15-cv-00934-WJ/LF (D.N.M.).

This is a putative class action for relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant First Community Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary
Defendant First National Bank Texas violated the TCPA by placing
automated telephone calls to her cellular telephone for
nonemergency purposes using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) as defined by the TCPA.

The Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff's reply,
because it exceeds the page limit set forth in the local rules.
The Plaintiff requests leave to exceed the local rule's page
limit. D.N.M.LR.-Civ 7.5 specifies that a reply brief must not
exceed twelve pages.

Here, the Plaintiff filed a sixteen-page reply brief. The
Defendants do not assert any prejudice by the extra pages,
rather, they assert they are prejudiced because the Plaintiff
included new arguments and new evidence in the reply. In its
discretion, the Court declines to strike the Plaintiff's reply.

Where a reply brief presents new legal arguments or evidence, a
court may take either of two courses of action: (a) refrain from
relying on the new arguments or materials in the reply or (b)
permit a surreply.

The Court concludes that the Defendants should have the
opportunity to file a surreply, because the Plaintiff included
new arguments and evidence in her reply. Although it is unclear
whether the addition to the proposed class definition changes
anything, the Defendants should have the opportunity to respond.
Moreover, the Plaintiff attached excerpts from three depositions
to her reply. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
mischaracterized the deposition testimony in argument, and the
Court concludes that the Defendants should be given the
opportunity to clarify the testimony.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply is granted in
part.  The Defendants may file a surreply to the Motion to
Certify Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd2hunc2 from Leagle.com.

Janine LaVigne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by -- blake@stefancoleman.com.,
Law Offices of Blake Dugger & Stephen F. Taylor, Lemberg Law,
LLC, 43 Danbury Road. Wilton, CT 06897, pro hac vice.

First Community Bancshares, Inc. & First National Bank Texas,
Defendants, represented by William S. Helfand --
bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP & Gregory L. Biehler -- greg.biehler@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


FITCHBURG GAS: "Bellermann" Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit with a caption, Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).

The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including
the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources,
emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages
allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of
electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service
territory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court issued an order denying class certification status in July
2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

Unitil said, "The Company continues to believe these claims are
without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Unitil Corporation (Unitil or the Company) is a public utility
holding company headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. Unitil
is subject to regulation as a holding company system by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The company is based in Hampton, New
Hampshire.


FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Power Outages
--------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
a proposed class action lawsuit against Florida Power & Light Co.
over hurricane-related power outages has cleared its first
hurdle: a motion by FPL to dismiss the case that plaintiffs
counsel have said could be worth $1 billion.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to find gross negligence and
breach of contract over FPL's monthly "storm surcharge." [GN]


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: "Fernandez" & "Cryer" Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the court has consolidated the
Fernandez action with the existing Cryer action.

On July 28, 2016, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan") Investment Committee ("Investment Committee"), and
unnamed Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), alleging
that the defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed
by the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan
when allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available. The plaintiff also claims
that the total Plan costs, inclusive of investment management and
administrative fees, are excessive. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and seeks, among other things,
damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's investments in
the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On November 2, 2017, a second former employee, represented by the
same law firm, filed another putative class action lawsuit
relating to the Plan in the same court, captioned Fernandez v.
Franklin Resources Inc., et al. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on February 6, 2018 naming the same defendants as those
named in the Cryer action, as well as the Franklin Board of
Directors, the Plan Administrative Committee, individual current
and former Franklin directors, and individual current and former
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff in this second lawsuit asserts the same ERISA
breach of fiduciary duty claim asserted in the Cryer action, as
well as claims for alleged prohibited transactions by virtue of
the Plan's investments in the Funds and for an alleged failure to
monitor the performance of the Investment Committee. The
plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $60.0 million and seeks
the same relief sought in the Cryer action, on behalf of the same
class.

On April 6, 2018, the court consolidated the Fernandez action
with the existing Cryer action.

Franklin Resources said, "Management strongly believes that the
claims asserted in the litigation are without merit. The fact
discovery phase in the consolidated action is closed and the
parties are currently in the expert discovery phase. Franklin is
defending against the consolidated action vigorously. Franklin
cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome of the
litigation or whether it will have a material negative impact on
the Company, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from any negative outcome."

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a global investment management
organization and derives its operating revenues and net income
from providing investment management and related services to
investors in jurisdictions worldwide through its investment
products that include its sponsored funds, as well as
institutional and high net-worth separate accounts. The company
is based in San Mateo, California.


GAME SHOW NETWORK: Faces "Bell" Suit in W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Game Show Network,
LLC. The case is styled as Elise Bell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Game Show Network,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-05393 (W.D. Wash., May 16, 2018).

Game Show Network is an American digital cable and satellite
television channel that is owned as a joint venture between Sony
Pictures Television and AT&T.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cecily C Shiel, Esq.
   TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
   1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200
   SEATTLE, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 682-5600
   Email: cshiel@tousley.com

      - and -

   Janissa Ann Strabuk, Esq.
   TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
   1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200
   SEATTLE, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 682-5600
   Email: jstrabuk@tousley.com


GATEWAY ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA)
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in the case captioned ROBERT
HAMLEN, Plaintiff, v. GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant, No. 16 CV 3526 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Robert Hamlen brings this putative class action against
Gateway Energy Services Corporation for breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and violations of the NJCFA.  The Plaintiff argues that
Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Opinion and Order determining that
the plaintiff adequately pleaded the breach of contract and NJCFA
claims is law of the case.  The Court agrees.

The law of the case doctrine provides when a court has ruled on
an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that
court in subsequent stages in the same case.

The defendant's motion papers do not present any change of
controlling law, nor does defendant assert Judge McCarthy's
decision was clearly erroneous.

The Defendant argues it is entitled to an adjudication on the
merits by an Article III judge of its dispositive motion.

The Defendant is wrong.

The law of the case doctrine is intended to keep rulings
consistent throughout a litigation. This purpose is served by
maintaining consistent rulings through all stages of the case,
regardless of the judge making the determination or whether that
judge has life-tenure.

Judge McCarthy's determination that the amended pleadings survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, to which defendant did not object, is the
law of the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jgjx8t from
Leagle.com.

Robert Hamlen, Plaintiff, represented by Antonino B. Roman --
aroman@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP, Chantal Khalil -- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd Seth
Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP & Douglas Gregory Blankinship --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber, LLP.

Gateway Energy Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Kasner -- andrew.kasner@emhllp.com -- Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP, Steven Miles Lucks, Fishkins Lucks LLP, &
Michael D. Matthews, McDowell Hetherington LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Pedranti Sues Over Steering System Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Pedranti, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. General Motors LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC702660 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
19, 2018), is an action for damages as a direct and proximate
result of the acts and omissions of the Defendant, specifically
by failure to disclose the Steering system defects of 2010 Buick
Enclave vehicles and failure to comply with its obligations under
the express warranty.

General Motors LLC is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor
vehicle components in Los Angeles County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Cutler, Esq.
      Daniel Tai, Esq.
      STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
      A Professional Corporation
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 929-4900
      E-mail: jcutler@slpattorney.com
              dtai@slpattorney.com


GENERAL MOTORS: NY Judge Nixes Advance Successor Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the company's move for
reconsideration of certain portions of its summary judgment
ruling, holding that plaintiffs cannot advance successor
liability claims in any state where New York law applies.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions pending
against it in various courts in the U.S. and Canada alleging that
consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or
Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General Motors
Corporation) had been economically harmed by one or more of the
2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated
with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these
economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or
damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles,
as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief.

Many of the pending economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern
District). These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims
under federal and state laws, including claims relating to
recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting
successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles
manufactured by Motors Liquidation Company.

The Southern District has dismissed various of these claims,
including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, claims for recovery for alleged reduction in
the value of plaintiffs' vehicles due to damage to GM's
reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch matter,
and claims of plaintiffs who purchased a vehicle before GM came
into existence in July 2009. The Southern District also dismissed
certain state law claims at issue.

In August 2017 the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven
of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for
additional briefing to decide whether Plaintiffs' claims can
proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017 the Southern
District granted GM's motion and dismissed successor liability
claims of plaintiffs in an additional state, but found that there
are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment
for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for
reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's
December 2017 summary judgment ruling. That motion was granted in
April 2018, holding that plaintiffs cannot advance successor
liability claims in any state where New York law applies.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company is based in
Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Petitions for Rehearing and En Banc Review Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the objector's petitions for rehearing
and for en banc review before the entire Sixth Circuit have been
denied.

In a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern
District) on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff
alleged that GM and several current and former officers and
employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to
problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC
filings and other public statements.

In 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a
class-wide settlement of the class action for $300 million. One
shareholder filed an appeal of the decision approving the
settlement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment approving the settlement in
November 2017. The objector subsequently filed petitions for
rehearing and for en banc review before the entire Sixth Circuit.
Both of those petitions were denied.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company is based in
Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends 3 Airbag Inflators Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company is aware that there are
various class actions pending related to the defective airbag
inflators manufactured by Takata.

Through April 17, 2018, the company is aware of three putative
class actions pending against GM in federal court in the U.S.,
one putative class action in Mexico and three putative class
actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising
out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata
are defective.

At this early stage of these proceedings, we are unable to
provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be
incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company is based in
Detroit, Michigan.


GNC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling to Pennsylvania High Court
-------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a petition for appeal
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller
commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim
against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization
of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime
compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the
Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the
fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use
of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In
September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs
and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as
a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of
attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded
an immaterial amount in legal fees.

The Company appealed from the adverse judgment and the award of
attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior
Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular
rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather
than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by
1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed.

Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the
Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability
by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the
accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed
a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on
January 22, 2018.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a global specialty retailer of health,
wellness and performance products, including protein, performance
supplements, weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and
greens, wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink
and other general merchandise. The company is based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Bid for Class Decertification Filed in "Naranjo"
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a motion for class decertification has been
pending in the lawsuit by Elizabeth Naranjo.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The
complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other
matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which
indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and
legal fees are sought. As of March 31, 2018, an immaterial
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

The Company intends to conduct further discovery and file a
motion to decertify the class action prior to trial. The hearing
for this motion was scheduled for April 27, 2018.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a global specialty retailer of health,
wellness and performance products, including protein, performance
supplements, weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and
greens, wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink
and other general merchandise. The company is based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GOOGLE INC: Ballard Spahr Discusses Cy pres Settlement Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq. -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- and
Burt M. Rublin, Esq. -- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard
Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the U.S.
Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether parties to a class
action may agree to a settlement that confers cy pres awards upon
various nonprofit institutions and organizations, but provides no
monetary relief for class members.

In Frank v. Gaos, plaintiff Paloma Gaos filed a class action
against Google, alleging that the company violated her privacy
rights when it allowed third-party websites to see her search
queries.  She sought monetary damages and certification of a
nationwide class of all U.S.-based Google users.  The parties
entered into a class settlement that extinguished the privacy
claims of the estimated 129 million people who used Google's
search engine in the United States between 2006 and 2014.

In exchange, Google created an $8.5 million settlement fund that
was used to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees (25% of the fund),
"incentive awards" of $5,000 to each of the named plaintiffs, and
cy pres awards to six educational institutions and other
organizations to promote research, education, and initiatives
relating to protecting privacy on the Internet.  None of the
settlement fund was disbursed to class members.  Although the
settlement required Google to disclose on its website how users'
search terms are shared, Google was not otherwise required to
make any changes to its practices.

The cy pres-only settlement was approved by the district court
despite objections by certiorari petitioner Ted Frank, Director
of Litigation for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a
frequent objector to class action settlements.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order approving the
settlement.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court
that dividing the $5.3 million in net settlement proceeds
remaining after payment of the attorneys' fees among 129 million
class members would be "infeasible" because they would each
receive "a paltry 4 cents in recovery," which is "a de minimus
amount if ever there was one."

The Google case is significant because it represents the first
time the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the parameters of cy
pres relief in class action settlements.  When certiorari was
denied in a different case raising this issue in 2013, Chief
Justice John Roberts noted the "fundamental concerns" raised by
cy pres relief, including "when, if ever, such relief should be
considered" and "how to assess its fairness as a general matter."
He suggested that, "in a suitable case, this Court may need to
clarify the limits on the use of such remedies."  The Court has
now decided that the Google case represents its opportunity to
provide such clarification.

It is unclear whether the Court will confine its focus to cy
pres-only settlements or will more broadly address class
settlements that include cy pres distributions of settlement
funds unclaimed by class members.

It also is worth noting that last June, the Department of Justice
announced a new policy prohibiting DOJ attorneys from entering
into settlements on behalf of the federal government that provide
for cy pres payments to any non-governmental entity or person
that is not a party to the lawsuit.

The Google case will be decided sometime next term. In the
meantime, parties in class actions would be well advised to
exercise caution in structuring settlements with cy pres relief.
[GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Says Would-Be Workers Can't Sue Together
----------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for The Mercury News, reports that more than
250 would-be Googlers claiming the company denied them jobs on
the basis of their age should not be able to band together in a
single lawsuit, the company argued in a legal filing.

The filing concerns a lawsuit by a woman and man claiming Google
declined to hire them because they were too old. A judge in 2016
conditionally certified the case as a class action, which led
more than 250 people to join the legal case. Google wants the
judge's class-action decision reversed.

The claims by plaintiffs Cheryl Fillekes and Robert Heath and
more than 250 others "can't be manageably tried together" because
the law requires that members of a class action be "similarly
situated," the Mountain View tech giant said in its filing.

"No glue exists here," Google argued. "Plaintiffs applied for
different jobs at different levels at different locations. They
were evaluated by over 1,000 different interviewers, Hiring
Committee members, and recruiters using criteria that vary by
job, level, and time.

"And they were rejected for different reasons at different points
in the context of Google's multi-stage, consensus-based hiring
process," Google said, adding that it "regularly hires engineers
who are age 40 or older."

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 by Heath, a former software
engineer for IBM, Compaq and General Dynamics, who in 2011 at age
60 was invited by Google to apply for an engineering job he
didn't get.

Fillekes, a systems engineer, joined Heath's suit, claiming
Google interviewed her in person for four different jobs from
2007 to 2014, starting when she was 47. But despite her
"impressive qualifications" the firm didn't hire her, according
to the lawsuit.

The conditional class certification brought into the legal action
more than 250 people claiming Google failed to hire them after
they applied, while aged 40 or above, for jobs in software,
systems or site-reliability engineering after Aug. 13, 2010.

Google, in its filing on May 1 in U.S. District Court in San
Jose, described problems some of the class-action plaintiffs had
during job interviews. Much of that content is redacted from
public view, but references are made to one applicant who
"performed poorly on the technical questions" and another whose
"skills were inadequate."

Google is seeking to have its motion to de-certify the class
action heard in court on July 12 or soon after.[GN]


GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 2 disclosed that
an investor class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Gridsum Holding
Inc. (NASDAQ:GSUM) ("Gridsum" or the "Company") publicly traded
American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") between April 27, 2017 and
April 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in shares of Gridsum Holding
are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action on our
website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Gridsum Holding Inc.
and would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead
plaintiff, you may, no later than June 25, 2018, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Gridsum Holding Inc.

Gridsum is a holding company that designs and develops
sophisticated data analysis software for multinational and
domestic enterprises and government agencies in China.  The
Company offers software that allows customers to collect and
analyze information that is collected, indexed, and stored in an
organized manner.

The filed Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial
reporting;

   -- consequently, Gridsum's financial statements were
inaccurate and misleading, and did not fairly present, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company; and

   -- as a result of the foregoing, Gridsum's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 23, 2018, Gridsum issued a press release entitled
"Gridsum Reports Suspension of Audit Report on Financial
Statements," announcing that its "audit report for the Company's
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 should
no longer be relied upon."

According to the press release, Gridsum's auditor identified
certain issues in conducting its audit of Gridsum's financial
results for the year ended December 31, 2017.  Those issues
related to "certain revenue recognition, cash flow, cost, expense
items, and their underlying documentation which [the auditor] had
previously raised" with Gridsum.

On this news, Gridsum's American Depositary Receipt fell $1.17,
or 16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 2018.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive
experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country.  The firm has attorneys in various
practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.
The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and
other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
regarding your rights and interests in this case, please
immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-
0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website
at www.whafh.com. [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: Kaskela Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ:HSIC) ("Henry
Schein" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 7, 2013 and February 12, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Henry Schein investors are encouraged to visit
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/henry-schein-inc/ to receive additional
information about this action and submit their information
online.  Investors may also contact attorney D. Seamus Kaskela at
(888) 715-1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss their legal rights and options with respect to this
action.

On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued
a press release entitled "FTC Sues Dental Products Distributors
for Alleged Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer
Segment." Therein, the FTC disclosed that it had filed a
complaint against Henry Schein, and certain other dental supply
companies, alleging "that they violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve
buying groups representing dental practitioners."

Following this news, shares of Henry Schein's common stock fell
$4.79 per share, or over 6.6%, to close on February 13, 2018 at
$67.39, on heavy trading volume.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Henry Schein
and certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti-
competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply
Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws; (ii) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior, in
part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health
care industry; (iii) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws
would result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and
a lawsuit filed by the FTC; and (iv) Henry Schein failed to
maintain adequate internal controls.  The complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased
Henry Schein's common stock at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.

Investors who purchased Henry Schein securities during the Class
Period may, no later than May 7, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kaskela Law or
other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff a
class member meet certain legal requirements.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 715 - 1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Ink Cartridge Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the case captioned RICHARD SAN MIGUEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HP
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05820-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

HP moves to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), asserting,
among other things, that HP has no legal obligation to make its
printers compatible with any and all third-party ink cartridges.

The Plaintiffs each purchased an HP printer and bought third-
party ink cartridges when the original HP ink cartridges that
came with their printers ran out of ink. Plaintiff Richard San
Miguel (Miguel) purchased an HP printer in December 2015. Miguel
refilled his printer with ink cartridges manufactured by an HP
competitor. These ink cartridges functioned up until September
12, 2016. On September 13, 2016, Miguel's HP printer unexpectedly
failed and the screen displayed a message directing him to remove
damaged ink cartridges and replace them with new cartridges.
Miguel alleges that HP caused this failure by disabling his
printer.

The Plaintiffs assert claims, inter alia, for (1) unfair and
unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq., on behalf of the Injunctive Relief Class; (2) fraudulent
business practices in violation of the UCL on behalf of the
Class; (3) violation of the False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq., on behalf of the Class;
(4) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal.
Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq., on behalf of the Class; (5)
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et
seq., on behalf of the Texas Subclass.

HP moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims, asserting that
HP is not under any legal duty to make its printers compatible
with third-party ink cartridges. HP reasons that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims start from the deficient premise that HP had
some duty to make its printers compatible with third-party ink
cartridges, even those using cloned and infringing security chips
affected by the authentication procedure in HP's firmware. HP
asserts that it was under no such legal obligation, did not make
any such representations and did nothing unlawful.

HP's motion to dismiss is granted in part. The following claims
are dismissed with leave to amend: Claim 1 to the extent it is
based upon unfair business practices; Claims 2 through 4 to the
extent the claims are based upon allegedly false or misleading
statements on HP's printer box, printer card and warranty
booklet; Claims 5 through 7; Claim 8 for violation of the CFAA
under subsections (B) and (C)8; Claim 9 to the extent it is based
upon Section 502 (c)(2)-(3); and Claim 11. Claim 9 is dismissed
with prejudice to the extent it is based upon Section 502(c)(7)
and (8). HP's motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaps98c7 from Leagle.com.

Richard San Miguel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & DeLores Lawty, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Elizabeth Antonia Kramer eak@girardgibbs.com, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Jordan S. Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Taylor
Christopher Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger
Garrison Davis, pro hac vice & Daniel C. Girard --
dcg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

HP Inc., Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Samuel
G. Liversidge -- sliversidge@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Jared Michael Strumwasser --
jstrumwasser@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Joseph C. Hansen -- jhansen@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
Crutcher LLP.


ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in "Koss" Medicaid Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted in the case captioned ALMA KOSS et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FELICIA F. NoRWOOD and JAMES T. DIMAS, Defendants, Case No. 17 C
2762 (N.D. Ill.).  The Plaintiffs move for a preliminary
injunction and to certify their proposed classes.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from delays in processing and
administering their applications to be determined eligible for
long-term Medicaid benefits used to pay for the cost of their
care in nursing facilities (NFs) or Supportive Living Facilities
(SLFs).

In Count I, the plaintiffs cite 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(8),
which requires a plan to provide that all individuals wishing to
make application for medical assistance under the plan will have
opportunity to do so, and that such assistance shall be furnished
with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.  Under
Section 1396a(a)(3), cited in Count II, a plan is required to
provide for granting an opportunity for a fair hearing before the
State agency to any individual whose claim for medical assistance
under the plan is denied or is not acted upon with reasonable
promptness.

The Defendants contend that none of the Medicaid Act provisions
the plaintiffs cite in Counts I-IV are privately enforceable. The
Medicaid Act does not itself provide a statutory right of action
for the provisions plaintiffs cite, so the question becomes
whether they are rights, privileges, or immunities for which 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 provides a vehicle for private enforcement.
Plaintiffs have persuaded the court these factors favor their
positions except on Count III.

Here, the plaintiffs are not medical providers but people who
applied for long-term care Medicaid benefits, so Bio-Medical
Applications' reasoning does not speak to the situation presented
in this case. Also, the Fourth Circuit has since held that
Section 1396a(a)(8) gives rise to a right enforceable under
Section 1983.
The court therefore concludes that the Medicaid Act provisions
cited in Counts I, II, and IV are privately enforceable under
Section 1983.

Unlike Counts I, II, and IV, the plaintiffs have not shown that
the prompt-payment provision on which they rely in Count III, 42
U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(37), or its implementing regulations are
privately enforceable.

Because they were brought by, or on behalf of, healthcare
providers, neither Wilder nor Bradleyeven assumes the answer to
the question Count III presents: may a Medicaid recipient
residing in an NF or SLF bring a prompt-payment claim under
Section 1396a(a)(37) via Section 1983 premised on delays in
paying the facility at which she resides for the costs associated
with her care? Unlike the prompt-payment issue under Section
1396a(a)(8), no Seventh Circuit decision even assumes the answer
to that question.

Accordingly, Count III is dismissed as abandoned.

The Plaintiffs allege that they applied for long-term care
Medicaid benefits and that they experienced delays ranging from
60 to 20 months. Noting that the regulations allow for certain
reasonable delays, defendants argue that Illinois Department of
Human Services' requests for documents described in the complaint
defeat the plaintiffs' claims given the more complex types of
documents and inquiry that is required when determining
eligibility for long-term care benefits.

The Plaintiffs allege, however, that DHS sometimes asked for
documents they had already submitted. They also plead that the
delay in making a determination after the last document was
submitted often exceeded the time it took for DHS to request the
first document. With favorable inferences, these well-pleaded
facts make it plausible that the delays the plaintiffs
experienced were unrelated to the need to review documents and
otherwise unreasonable within the meaning of Section 1396a(a)(8).
The motion to dismiss Count I is denied.

The Defendants briefly argue that the complaint does not make
clear whether the plaintiffs received written notice of their
right to a prompt hearing.  Koss alleges in the complaint that to
this day she has never received a determination on the
application she submitted nearly 20 months ago. The complaint
says that neither Ms. Wente nor her NF has received any written
communication from HFS or DHS regarding the determination of Ms.
Wente's application.

Small alleges the same thing, according to the complaint, and her
NF was told by phone that her application was denied. Harris
pleads that her application was approved nearly six months after
she submitted it; she says nothing about communications in the
interim. Drawing inferences favorable to plaintiffs, as the court
must at this stage, those allegations embrace claims that HFS and
DHS never sent any named plaintiff a notice of her right to a
prompt hearing in the months her application was pending.
The motion to dismiss Counts II and IV on this ground is
therefore denied.

The complaint states that Koss lost her eyesight as a result of
the defendants' delays in processing her applications but her
blindness constitutes the alleged effect of the defendants'
discrimination rather than the cause. As the plaintiffs offer no
other theories, the complaint fails to state an ADA claim, and
Count V must be, and is, dismissed.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part. Counts III and IV of the complaint are
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6wl5kgv from Leagle.com.

Alma Koss, Wanda Wente, by and through her next friend Virginia
Hartman, Mary Small, by and through her next friend Brian Small &
Lessie Harris, by and through her next friend Opal Acklin,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Hugh Farley, Jr. --
farleylaw@aol.com -- Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd., Barbara J.
Duffy -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, pro hac vice &
Ryan Patrick McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell
PC, pro hac vice.

Felicia F Norwood, in her official capacity as the Director of
the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services & James
T Dimas, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
Illinois Department of Human Services, Defendants, represented by
Brian Franklin Kolp, Office of the Illinois Attorney General &
Michael D. Arnold, Illinois Attorney General's Office.


IMPERIALCARS.COM: "Cohen" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Cohen on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Imperialcars.com Corp., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
40045 (D. Mass., March 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin Imperial Cars
and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other related entities from
engaging in the unlawful telemarketing calls.  The plaintiff
seeks damages and such other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Imperial Cars is an automotive sales company, offering new and
used vehicles for purchase. It initiated pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to Cohen's cellular phone, using an automated
dialing system. Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      Email: anthony@broderick-law.com
             ted@broderick-law.com

             - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South A venue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Tel: (508) 655-1415
      Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net


INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court has entered a
scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on
January 27, 2020.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to
R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit
from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks,
including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled
Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among
other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL
and other Stanford Entities and seeks to recover damages and
alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in
this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second
Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted
claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a
fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek recovery from
Independent Bank and other defendants for their losses. The case
was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued March
2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying
the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the
previously ordered discovery stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court
entered a scheduling order providing that the case be ready for
trial on January 27, 2020. The Company anticipates an increase in
legal fees associated with the defense of this claim as the case
proceeds to trial.

Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims
made in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance
carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet
occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies.
However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance
coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of
defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other
means.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit
are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This
is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters
and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when
this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of
litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or
damages arising from, this case.

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking
products and services to businesses, professionals, and
individuals in the United States. The company is based in
McKinney, Texas.


INPUT CAPITAL: Famers File Class Action Over Unfair Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Leo, writing for CBC News, reports that not long ago,
Morris Feduk was running a 39,000-acre farming operation in the
Melville area.  He says he was worth about $8 million.

Now, it's almost all gone.

The 61-year-old says he's teetering on the brink of bankruptcy,
facing a "bleak" and "hopeless" future.  He says the only land he
has left is his homestead, where his family has been for 115
years.

Mr. Feduk blames Regina-based Input Capital.  He says his
dealings with the company have resulted in virtually all of his
farm equipment being seized and his land being foreclosed on.

"It's pretty much took away my way of life," Mr. Feduk told CBC's
iTeam.

Input, a publicly traded company doing business in Saskatchewan,
Alberta and Manitoba, bills itself as a "low cost source of
capital for farmers."  It offers what it calls streaming canola
contracts -- up-front payment for a fixed amount of a future
canola crop. According to the company's website, it has more than
300 active contracts.

Mr. Feduk and five other farm families who have entered into
contracts with Input are launching a class action lawsuit,
claiming "Input practised predatory lending" and it "failed to
follow laws put in place for consumer safety." The lawsuit was
filed on May 2.

The plaintiffs say the contracts with Input are fundamentally
unfair because the crop yields expected by Input weren't
realistic given that bad weather can so often limit production
and "even if there were no problems with the weather, equipment,
or the quality of the crops, the requirements set by Input were
unachievable."

"Input's actions are so seemingly dishonest and false," the claim
says. "The misdirection games they play with class member's lives
should be put under intense scrutiny."

The plaintiffs are asking the court to find Input's contracts
illegal and of no force and to either eliminate the debt they owe
altogether or to limit the "rate of interest" charged by Input to
what is "commercially fair."

Input hasn't yet filed a statement of defence, but in an email to
CBC it said "we completely deny all of the false allegations and
accusations made in the Statement of Claim.  It is our intention
to defend this action vigorously in court where actual facts will
matter."

Input says it's a successful company that has "hundreds of high
quality, satisfied clients and our business is growing rapidly.
Our company has a reputation for dealing honestly and fairly with
farmers and providing them with access to alternative funding to
make their operations successful."

"We are disappointed that a couple of farmers who were not able
to meet their obligations after many years of working together to
help them succeed have decided to follow this course of action."

Chasing 'that one big year'
Mr. Feduk said in an interview with CBC that he was approached in
2009 by Gord Nystuen, a representative of Input's precursor
company, Assiniboia Land Management.  Mr. Nystuen is a former
deputy minister of Agriculture and former Chief of Staff to
Premier Lorne Calvert.

Mr. Nystuen is also one of the founders of Input, along with
Doug Emsley and Brad Farquhar.  Mr. Emsley chaired the transition
team when the Saskatchewan Party government came to power in 2007
and he served as a special advisor and assistant principal
secretary to Premier Brad Wall.  Mr. Farquhar is a former
executive director of the Saskatchewan Party and was a candidate
for the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 election.

Mr. Feduk said Mr. Nystuen offered a partnership of sorts, in
which the company would share the risk for Mr. Feduk's future
crops.  He said Mr. Nystuen told him the firm would pay up-front
for a fixed amount of his 2010 canola crop for an agreed upon
price per bushel. Instead of repaying with cash, Mr.  Feduk would
repay with canola.

Mr. Feduk said that agreed-upon price would be set below the
current market value.  He said he was told that when it came time
to sell, if the market price had gone down then Input would lose
out but if the price went up the company would share the gain
with him.

"So that's what made it kind of appealing," said Mr. Feduk.
"You've got someone that's willing to take a share of the risk,
unlike a financial institution that will borrow you the money but
'we want this money back plus interest and the risk is all
yours.' "

He said the up-front cash was also appealing because at the time
he was "stretched to the limit" financially but was eager to keep
growing his operation.

"Being a farmer, your goal is to get the crop in and harvest it
and hit that one big year where you're going to do really well,"
Mr. Feduk explained.  "That, I've been looking for all my life."

Feduk didn't seek legal advice
Mr. Feduk decided to sign on. He said initially, there wasn't a
lot of paperwork and he didn't seek the advice of a lawyer before
signing the agreement.

According to Tony Merchant, the lawyer representing Mr. Feduk in
the new class-action suit, among the farmers named in the suit,
it was common to enter into contracts with Input without legal
advice, which he blames in part on Input.

"Nobody ever was said 'Here's the contract in advance.  Think
about it, we'll discuss it, perhaps you need to see a lawyer,'"
Merchant told CBC.  "None of the kinds of things that you would
expect over million dollar deals because they said 'we're all
buddies here.' "

The lawsuit says Input persuaded farmers that this was a
partnership in which the company would share the risk and work
with the farmer, making them better-off than they would be
without Input's help.

"Class members were induced to believe that Input was working
with them in a partnership and that if something out of their
control occurred, Input would work with them towards getting
their streaming contracts fulfilled."

The plaintiffs claim that Input was in a fiduciary relationship
with them, meaning it had a responsibility to look out for the
interests of the farmers. The class action says the company
failed to do that.

'Not the Santa Claus that they claimed they were'
Mr. Feduk's 2010 arrangement worked well, so he entered into a
multi-year agreement with the company.  In 2011 his canola crop
was poor and Mr. Feduk was unable to provide the amount of canola
he promised.

Mr. Feduk said the company agreed to roll the amount he owed into
the following year.  But in order to do that, it would require
him to sign a new contract with Input Capital.

The lawsuit says introducing new contracts when trouble came up
was common practice for Input and the consequence of this move
was to, in effect, impose unreasonable interest rates on farmers,
driving them into debt.

"Instead of one contract and 'you're in trouble, let's work our
way out,' it was always new contracts which was in essence
interest upon interest or canola upon canola," Mr. Merchant said.

The lawsuit says Input placed farmers in a vulnerable situation
where they were essentially forced to either sign or give up on
that year's crop.

"If Class Members refused to sign the additional security
required by Input, delays in removing Input from controlling the
Class Member's operation were known by Class Members to make it
impossible to complete their farming operation for the year in
question."

According to the lawsuit, early on Input said it was not a
finance company but a buyer and seller of grain and that the
money it provided to farmers wasn't a loan but merely the pre-
purchase of canola.

The plaintiffs say there are a few problems with that.

First, Input has marketed itself as a buyer and seller of grain
since it was founded.  The lawsuit says the company wasn't
licensed as a grain dealer under the Canada Grain Act until June
2017, which leads the plaintiffs to argue "the sales they were
making prior to that licensing were illegal."

In addition, the plaintiffs argue that Input was in effect acting
as a lender by charging interest and taking mortgages to secure
the money provided.

The lawsuit says Input was loaning money illegally because until
August 2015 it wasn't registered as a finance corporation in the
province "and therefore was not licensed to loan monies to any
person in Saskatchewan."

The lawsuit also claims Input was charging farmers interest
without disclosing the details.

"The monies they advance compared to the grain valuation they
demand, are significantly skewed and in fact the rate of interest
they charge on the loan of money is excessive and usurious, under
the Criminal Code, some at over 60%," says the statement of
claim.

Mr. Feduk said he had no idea what sort of interest rate he was
being charged, but he was getting nervous.

"It's starting to materialize that they're actually not the Santa
Claus that they claimed they were," said Mr.  Feduk.

Input requires security from Feduk
Mr. Feduk said in the spring of 2013, Input agreed to pre-buy his
canola on the condition that he provide security: mortgages on
his property and security agreements on his farm equipment.

He was reluctant but said he was in a tough spot.

"In order to get the crop planted, you didn't have a lot of
options now that we're involved with (Input) and have a
commitment of deliveries to them you aren't going to get another
lender to come in and assume that position right?" he said.

The lawsuit says farmers in the class action had a difficult time
doing business because "many licensed financial institutions,
farm businesses, elevators, auctioneers, equipment dealers and
other businesses now refuse to deal with farmers who have
contracted with Input."

The 2013 and 2014 crop year was very wet in the Melville area and
Mr. Feduk was only able to get half his crop in, which meant
again he couldn't deliver to Input the canola he had promised.

He was getting further and further behind. But he says Input
couldn't tell him how far behind.

"Our accountant had always asked them for a number -- what does
this farming company owe you in dollars and cents," said
Mr. Feduk . "They never would give a dollar amount."

The lawsuit says it has been difficult for farmers to get
accurate information from Input.

It says they "had no access to any information as to the quantity
of crop trucked away by Input . . . Class members had no way to
track the grain to see if they had been meeting their
commitments. Input failed to maintain adequate or any proper
business records."

Feduk's farm placed in receivership
Mr. Feduk knew he was in trouble after the failures of the 2013
and 2014 crop years.

Input told him that in order for their relationship to continue
into 2015, his farm would have to be placed into receivership.
Input said Mr. Feduk could co-manage the operation with an onsite
manager.

Input said it would pay Mr. Feduk for working on his farm and
would pay his expenses. The crop produced would be sold to reduce
his debt.

By that time, Mr. Feduk was getting legal advice. He said his
lawyer told him he had no other viable option.

The class action lawsuit says the receiver decided to only plant
part of the crop that year because farming costs were too
expensive.  And it says Input failed to pay some of the expenses,
leaving debt on Mr. Feduk's accounts.

By the end of 2015, it was all over.  Mr. Feduk said the company
told him it was going to "realize on its security."

Feduk loses almost everything
In the spring of 2016, Input foreclosed on Mr. Feduk's land and
seized much of his farm equipment, selling it off at auction.

In an email to CBC, Input said it took this action with the
consent of the court.

"Little by little everything just kept disappearing," he said.
"Tractors, combines, swathers, grain carts. There was
everything."

Mr. Feduk said the whole ordeal was especially tough on his aging
brother, who until his death in March, lived with Mr. Feduk on
the family farm.

"Maybe the hardest part was just watching what it was doing to my
brother," he said.  "He'd been here all his life.  It was his
retirement years really.  And watching all this stuff
disappearing really was working on him."

None of the claims in this lawsuit have been tested in court.

Input sold off equipment owned by Feduk's friend
It wasn't just Mr. Feduk's equipment that was disappearing.  Some
machinery that had been loaned to him by a friend was seized and
sold too.

In the fall of 2015, Robert Mitrenga loaned Mr. Feduk a grain
cart and a grain dryer.

They were seized with Mr. Feduk's other equipment. Input told CBC
via email it took this action "according to the authority of a
judge-issued court order," which included the sale of Mr.
Mitrenga's grain cart.

According to an April 19, 2018 provincial court judgement, Mr.
Mitrenga notified Input that the equipment belonged to him but
the sale went ahead anyhow.

The judge in that case found against Input Capital, saying it
committed a "wrongful act" and awarded Mr. Mitrenga $20,000.

'Do you want some more?': Feduk alleges assault
In a separate lawsuit, Mr. Feduk says TLF Dirtworx Inc., an agent
of Input, was also seizing material.

According to the statement of claim, on April 20, 2016 Mr. Feduk
noticed workers from the company were removing equipment from his
brother's yard.

It says he confronted them, asked them what they were doing and
said he was going to call the police.

"Just after the plaintiff stated he was going to call the police
he was struck from behind by one or both of the other two
drivers," the statement of claim says.

The lawsuit says he was knocked unconscious.

When he came to, one of the men asked "do you want some more?"

Mr. Feduk was hospitalized and x-rayed.  The doctor found he had
"a concussion, injured kidneys, a bruised shoulder, a bruised arm
and headaches."

Mr. Feduk says ongoing pain from the incident makes it difficult
to continue doing farm work.

He says he complained to police shortly after the incident but he
says to his knowledge, they have not charged anyone.

When CBC reached the owner of TLF Dirtworx by phone he hadn't yet
heard of the lawsuit. The company has not yet filed a statement
of defence.

None of the claims in this lawsuit against TLF Dirtworx have been
tested in court.

Feduk living with regret
Mr. Feduk acknowledges his own part in his downfall.  He said he
regrets not walking away when Input asked him to put security on
his land and equipment.

"At that time I should have said let's call 'er quits," Mr. Feduk
told CBC.  "You guys do what you've got to do and we'll fight on
that basis and I'd have walked out of here certainly in a better
situation than what I ended up."

He also regrets failing to get legal advice earlier.

Now he's the named plaintiff in this class action, which means it
has been launched in his name.

Mr. Merchant said that, like Mr. Feduk, most of the other
plaintiffs failed to get legal advice before signing contracts
with Input.

He said the plaintiffs are claiming they were told one thing
verbally yet something quite different showed up in the contract.

Mr. Merchant said ordinarily that would be a difficult hurdle to
surmount.

"The contracts all say this is the only deal and it doesn't
matter what got said to you," Mr. Merchant explained.
"Everything in the contract, all the words, are supposed to be
there and any inducements don't matter."

He said under ordinary circumstances, the law doesn't even allow
people to testify about what they were verbally told if it
contradicts the written agreement.

But, he says, a class action lawsuit provides a workaround.

"We are aided in getting around that through a class action by a
whole variety of people saying the same thing," Mr. Merchant
explained.  "You say the same kind of thing was said to all of us
and it's a systemic process of deception."

Class action lawyer's tactics questioned
In its email to CBC, Input questioned Mr. Merchant's tactics in
launching this lawsuit.  The company provided CBC with a copy of
a letter the lawyer sent to a farmer in which he explained his
strategy for this action.

In it, Mr. Merchant details his arguments and where he believes
Input is vulnerable.

He tells the farmer that "launching a class action lawsuit,
particularly a Tony Merchant class action, allows the threat of a
powerful punch."

Mr. Merchant wrote that the farmer could use the lawsuit to
generate a "negative story" about Input in the media and to
target Input's investors.

"The impact could be enhanced through attacking Input in the
perception of the investing public."

Input said this letter "clearly puts this entire action in
question."

Mr. Merchant said that generally speaking, lawyers are conscious
of the economic impact class action lawsuits have on defendants.

"This is part of the pressure that impacts defendants," he said
to CBC in an email.

"There is nothing unusual about this as part of the tactics in
trying to obtain fairness for people who have been wronged by
some corporation. Annual filings by companies list all of the
relative litigation.  Companies have to take a reserve against
profits against the possibility of losing litigation that might
result in substantial judgements against them," Merchant said.

Mr. Feduk is glad to be joined by others in this suit but he said
the fact he's not alone in this makes things worse in a way.

"It doesn't make you feel any better that someone else's misery
is similar to your own.  In my case it doesn't anyway," he said.
[GN]


IQ FORMULATIONS: Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
JOSHUA DEBERNARDIS and CHRISTINA DAMORE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IQ
FORMULATIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and
EUROPA SPORTS PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-21562-
GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES, (S.D. Fla.), after concluding, among other
things, that the Plaintiffs do not allege that they have suffered
any physical injury, or that the products fail to work as
advertised.  Rather, they allege a purely economic harm: that
because DMBA is a new dietary ingredient, which could not be
lawfully sold, the products were worthless; and had the
Plaintiffs known this, they would not have purchased the
supplements.

Plaintiffs allege that DMBA is an illegal ingredient, rendering
the supplements adulterated and misbranded for the purposes of
the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.
Section 301, et seq. (FDCA) and violative of state consumer
protection laws that incorporate the FDCA. Plaintiffs a citizen
of Illinois and a citizen of New York, respectively bring suit
against Defendant IQ Formulations, LLC (IQ), the manufacturer of
the supplements, and against Europa Sports Products, Inc.
(Europa), a distributor of the supplements.

They broadly allege that both Synedrex and E.S.P. contain an
unlawful ingredient, MethylPentane Citrate, and for that reason,
each Product is similarly adulterated for purposes of the FDCA,
and similar state law, and is unsafe for human consumption, and
cannot be lawfully sold to consumers. In a similarly conclusory
manner, the Plaintiffs further allege that by failing to disclose
to Plaintiffs and putative Class Members that the Products
contain unlawful dietary ingredients, the Products' labels are
false and misleading, and therefore misbranded.

And because misbranded products cannot be legally sold or
possessed, they have no economic value, making any price paid by
the Plaintiffs an unwarranted amount. Apart from these conclusory
allegations, the Plaintiffs do not allege that the Supplements
failed to perform as advertised or caused adverse health effects.
Nor do they allege that particular representations caused them to
pay more for the Supplements than they would have paid for a
comparable product.

The broad claim that they would not have purchased the
Supplements at all had they known that IQ had failed to follow
the FDA's approval procedure regarding an ingredient is
insufficient to confer standing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mluhnb from Leagle.com.

Joshua Debernardis, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Christina Damore, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jonathan Betten Cohen, Morgan, Morgan, Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut,
PC, pro hac vice, Nick Suciu, III, Barbat Mansour & Suciu, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Richard L. Miller, II, Siprut, PC, pro hac vice,
Richard S. Wilson, Siprut PC, pro hac vice & Rachel Lynn Soffin,
Morgan & Morgan.

IQ Formulations, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Robert Twombly.

Europa Sports Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Alan Katzen, Kluger Kaplan Silverman Katzen & Levine, P.L., Diane
Wagner Katzen, Kluger Kaplan Silverman Katzen & Levine, James P.
Ellison, Hyman, Phelps, & McNamara, P.C., pro hac vice & Erin E.
Bohannon, Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lowrie, writing for CBC News, reports that a class action
lawsuit against two pharmaceutical giants that alleges the
regular use of talc powder is linked to a higher risk of ovarian
cancer has been authorized to proceed in Quebec.

According to court documents released on May 2, the lawsuit is
being filed on behalf of Quebecers who have used Johnson &
Johnson baby powder or Valeant's product entitled Shower to
Shower in their genital area and were later diagnosed with
ovarian cancer.

The lead plaintiff is a Quebec woman who says she developed
cancer in 2012 after having used talc-based products from 1962
until 2013.

Rosemary Kramar alleges in court documents that use of the powder
"probably led to her developing ovarian cancer" and says she
would not have used the products had she known a possible risk
existed.

A lawyer for the firm representing the plaintiffs told The
Canadian Press that studies going back decades show the link
between the repeated use of talc products and an increased cancer
risk.

Tony Merchant said the company knew women were using their
products for personal hygiene reasons and should have either
issued "explicit warnings" or removed them from the market.

"The issue becomes whether it should be on the market at all,
because when they know of the problems they should be considering
removal from the market," he said in a phone interview.

None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court.

A lawyer for Johnson & Johnson did not wish to comment on the
Quebec class action, but the company has argued there is no proof
its products cause health problems.

According to the court documents, the defence has disputed the
validity of the studies presented by Kramar and has also claimed
she had several health conditions that put her at risk of
developing cancer.

It is not clear whether the two companies will appeal the
decision by Quebec Superior Court Justice Andre Prevost.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal action against
Johnson & Johnson that alleges it failed to warn women about the
dangers of its signature baby powder products.

Last year, a California judge overturned a jury's record-breaking
$417 million US verdict against Johnson & Johnson and granted the
company's request for a new trial.

Merchant's firm has also filed a second class action request on
behalf of women in other Canadian provinces, which has yet to be
authorized.

They will be seeking a yet to be determined amount of financial
compensation.

The lawyer says about 470 Canadian women have signed on so far,
including 41 in the Quebec suit.[GN]


JONES MOTOR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Daley" ICWA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
MICHAEL DALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JONES MOTOR CO., INC., and ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-56-NJR-DGW
(S.D. Ill.).

The complaint is based primarily on the allegations that the
Plaintiff and the other drivers were employees of Jones Motor,
and therefore, Jones Motor was required by the Illinois Workers'
Compensation Act to purchase workers' compensation coverage for
the drivers.  But Jones Motor purportedly schemed with Zurich to
misclassify its drivers as independent contractors in order to
evade its obligations under the Illinois Workers' Compensation
Act and avoid paying workers' compensation premiums.

Based on these allegations, Daley asserts claims against Jones
Motor and Zurich for civil conspiracy (Count 1), for violations
of the Illinois Deceptive Business Practices Act (Counts 2 & 3),2
and for unjust enrichment (Counts 4 & 5). Daley also asserts a
claim against Jones Motor for violations of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act (Count 6).

The key consideration in this matter is whether the Illinois
Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusivity of remedy over
Daley's claims to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission,
such that a federal court would be unable to grant relief.  Jones
Motor points to Section 18 of the Workers' Compensation, which
provides that "All questions arising under this Act, if not
settled by agreement of the parties interested therein, shall,
except as otherwise provided, be determined by the Commission."

In Count 1 for civil conspiracy, Daley asserts that Jones Motor
was an employer as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act and
required to provide workers' compensation benefits/coverage to
its employees. Daley further asserts that he and the other
drivers were employees of Jones Motor and were entitled to the
protections, rights, and benefits afforded by the Workers'
Compensation Act. According to Daley, Jones Motor and Zurich
conspired with each other to misclassify Daley and the putative
class members as independent contractors in order to illegally
transfer legal liability and financial responsibility for work-
related injuries from Jones Motor to its employees for the
financial benefit of Jones Motor and Zurich.

These allegations and Daley's prayer for relief illustrate that
his success on his civil conspiracy claim depends on whether he
can prove as a threshold matter that he was an employee as
defined by the Workers' Compensation Act, that he was entitled to
benefits under the Act, and that Jones Motor failed to provide
him with such benefits and instead made him pay for the benefits
himself.
Only the Commission is empowered to make these fact-intensive
determinations that are uniquely suited to the expertise of the
Commission.

Unless and until the Commission does so, the Court is incapable
of resolving his civil conspiracy claim, and therefore it must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Daley's claims in Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 also must be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In
Count 2, Daley alleges that Jones Motor violated the Illinois
Deceptive Business Practices Act by misrepresenting that Daley
and the putative class members were not employees and that it was
their obligation and responsibility to purchase insurance
policies to cover work-related injuries. As a result, Daley and
the putative class members were deceived into paying their own
workers' compensation premiums.

In Count 3, Daley alleges that Zurich violated the "Illinois
Deceptive Business Practices Act by misrepresenting that the
drivers were not employees but were independent contractors of
Jones Motor, which prompted the drivers into paying to defendant
Zurich their own workers' compensation premiums, premiums Jones
Motor was required by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act to
pay.

In Count 4, Daley alleges that Jones Motor was unjustly enriched
by unlawfully misclassifying its employee drivers as independent
contractors and avoiding its statutory obligation to pay workers'
compensation premiums, among other things.

In Count 5, Daley alleges that Zurich was unjustly enriched by
conspiring with Jones Motor to misclassify its drivers as
independent contractors and then collecting premiums from the
drivers for insurance policies that were redundant to the
employees' statutory workers' compensation rights pursuant to the
Illinois Workers' Compensation Act.

In Count 6, Daley alleges in pertinent part that Jones Motor
violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILL.
COMP. STAT. 115/1, by unlawfully deducting occupational accident
policy premiums that were actually workers' compensation policy
premiums from his wages.

Here, it is not obvious that any of the factors have been
satisfied. For instance, while the Defendants may have entered
into one or more settlement agreements, a settlement agreement on
its face does not necessarily represent a position that is
clearly inconsistent with their current position. There is no
evidence that the Defendants conceded employment status within
the settlement contracts. Similarly, it is not clear that the
operative facts remain the same between the actions involving the
alleged settlement contracts and the current litigation, mainly
because the Court knows almost nothing about the particulars of
the individuals involved and their jobs with Jones Motor.

There is also no clear sign that the Court has been misled. Jones
Motor has not yet taken a definitive position in this litigation
and the Court has no idea what position, if any, Jones Motor has
taken in Daley's workers' compensation proceedings currently
pending before the Commission.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjo6j7d
from Leagle.com.

Michael Daley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles W. Armbruster, III,
Armbruster, Dripps, et al., Michael T. Blotevogel, Armbruster,
Dripps, et al., Roy C. Dripps, Armbruster, Dripps, et al., & John
R. Daugherty, Law Office of Keith Short, P.C.

Jones Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by David M. Krueger
-- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander et al., Joseph
N. Gross -- jgross@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan
& Aronoff LLP & Thomas A. Lidbury -- tlidbury@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander et al.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Beth
Ann Berger Zerman -- BethAnn.Berger@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


K12 INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that discovery is ongoing in the case entitled, In Re K12
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH.

On July 20, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company,
two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 ("Tarapara Case"). The plaintiff purports
to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 2013 and
October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges violations by the
Company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations
by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class
action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was
filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305
("Tuinenburg Case").

On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and
the Tuinenburg Case, appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle as
lead plaintiffs, and recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH. On
December 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the company. The amended complaint named an additional
former officer as a defendant and specified a class period start
date of October 10, 2013. The amended complaint alleges
materially false or misleading statements and omissions regarding
the decision of the Agora Cyber Charter School not to renew its
managed public school agreement with us, student academic and
Scantron results, and other statements regarding student academic
performance and K12's academic services and offerings.

On January 30, 2017, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On August 30, 2017, as a result of a hearing
on April 19, 2017, the Court granted with prejudice the Company's
motion to dismiss the allegations of false statements regarding
Scantron scores, but denied the motion on the allegations
pertaining to non-disclosure of Agora's 2012 notice of non-
renewal and other statements regarding our replacement contract
with Agora, and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint
with respect to certain statements on the quality and
effectiveness of the Company's programs. The plaintiffs were
given until October 2, 2017 to amend.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint and elected not to pursue their claims regarding the
statements pertaining to the quality and effectiveness of our
academic programs, and further dismissed two of our former
officers as defendants in the case. The Court accepted these
stipulations on October 4, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the
Company filed its answer denying the allegations and asserting
its affirmative defenses. Discovery with respect to this matter
is proceeding. The Company intends to continue to defend
vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set forth
in the second amended complaint.

K12 Inc. is a technology-based education company and offer
proprietary and third party curriculum, software systems, and
educational services designed to facilitate individualized
learning for students primarily in kindergarten through 12th
grade, or K-12. The company is based in Herndon, Virginia.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, disclosed that a new class action lawsuit
has been filed against LendingClub Corp. ("Lending Club" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LC) and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the federal and securities laws. Class
members interested in serving as lead plaintiff are reminded of
the July 2, 2018 lead plaintiff deadline.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (No. 3:18-cv-02599), alleges that
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements when they stated that Lending Club
customers would receive a loan with "no hidden fees." On April
25, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint
alleging that Lending Club knowingly charged consumers hidden
fees, contrary to their public disclosures.

If you purchased Lending Club stock between May 7, 2016 and April
25, 2018 and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than July 2, 2018. As a member of the class, you
may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member.

         John DeFelice, Esq.
         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         E-mail: john@blockesq.com [GN]


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired LendingClub Corporation (NYSE:LC)
securities between February 28, 2015 and April 25, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until July 2, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On April 25, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint
against LendingClub, in which it alleged that the upfront fee
LendingClub charges is "not clearly and conspicuously disclosed"
and that "consumers frequently complain that they only discovered
the fee...when they noticed that the amounts disbursed were
smaller than they were expecting."

Following this news, shares of LendingClub fell $0.49 per share,
or almost 15%, to close at $2.77 per share on April 25, 2018.

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

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com [GN]


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on May 2, 2018, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against LendingClub Corporation
(NYSE:LC).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 28, 2015 through
April 25, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all LendingClub
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described.  You may move the Court no later than Monday, July 2,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


LENDINGCLUB CORP: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased LendingClub
Corporation (NYSE:LC) ("LendingClub" or the "Company") publicly
traded securities between February 28, 2018 and April 25, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

LendingClub shareholders may, no later than June 29, 2018, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If
you purchased shares of LendingClub and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,
contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299.

LendingClub operates an online marketplace platform that connects
borrowers and investors in the United States.

The Class Period begins on February 28, 2015, the day after
LendingClub filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2014 ("2014 10-K") with the SEC which provided
LendingClub's annual financial results and position. The 2014 10-
K stated LendingClub believed that all installment loans offered
through its marketplace featured a fixed rate that was "clearly"
disclosed to the borrower and which contained "no hidden fees."

On April 25, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced
in a press release that it had filed a complaint against
LendingClub alleging violations of, inter alia, the FTC Act for
falsely promising consumers they would receive a loan with "no
hidden fees[,]" and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for failing to
provide customers with a clear and conspicuous privacy notice so
that each customer could reasonably be expected to receive actual
notice. The press release stated, in relevant part: "The Federal
Trade Commission has charged the LendingClub Corporation with
falsely promising consumers they would receive a loan with "no
hidden fees," when, in actuality, the company deducted hundreds
or even thousands of dollars in hidden up-front fees from the
loans."

Following this news, shares of LendingClub fell $.49 per share,
or over 15% from its previous closing price to close at $2.77 per
share on April 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) LendingClub falsely promised consumers they
would receive a loan with "no hidden fees"; (2) LendingClub's
privacy policy did not comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act;
(3) consequently, the foregoing conduct would subject
LendingClub's business practices to heightened regulatory
scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission; and (4) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 29,
2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as
your counsel in this action.

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


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
LendingClub Corporation ("LendingClub" or the "Company") (NYSE:
LC) between February 28, 2015 and April 25, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for LendingClub investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the LendingClub class action, and/or if you have
information relating to this matter, please visit our LENDINGCLUB
SHAREHOLDER PAGE or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-
1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) LendingClub falsely promised consumers they would
receive a loan with "no hidden fees"; (2) LendingClub's privacy
policy did not comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; (3)
consequently, the foregoing conduct would subject LendingClub's
business practices to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"); and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 25, 2018, the FTC "charged the LendingClub Corporation
with falsely promising consumers they would receive a loan with
'no hidden fees,' when, in actuality, the company deducted
hundreds or even thousands of dollars in hidden up-front fees
from the loans." The FTC's complaint against LendingClub states
that the Company is "persisting in this conduct despite warnings
from its own compliance department that [it's] concealment of the
up-front fee is 'likely to mislead the consumer.'" Additionally,
the FTC's complaint states that LendingClub's "internal
compliance reviews repeatedly cite the concealment of the fee as
a significant problem for consumers."

On this news, LendingClub's stock fell $0.49 per share, or over
15%, from its previous closing price to close at $2.77 per share
on April 25, 2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than July 2, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

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


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of LendingClub Corporation (NYSE: LC) from February
28, 2015 through April 25, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LendingClub
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) LendingClub falsely promised consumers they would
receive a loan with "no hidden fees"; (2) LendingClub's privacy
policy did not comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; (3)
consequently, the foregoing conduct would subject LendingClub's
business practices to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the
Federal Trade Commission; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 2, 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-1328.htmlto join the class
action.

         Contacts:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


LG CHEM: Lithium Batteries Settlements Obtain Final Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge on May 17 granted final approval to three
settlements in the sprawling lithium ion battery antitrust case:
of the $139 million settlement fund for direct purchasers, $41.5
million will come from LG Chem, $24.5 million from Samsung, $4.95
million from NEC Tokin, and $45 million will go to attorneys'
fees.


MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Fober"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned AUDREY FOBER, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS, LLC; DOES, 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-56220 (9th Cir,).

This is a Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)
lawsuit.  The district court entered summary judgment for MTC on
the ground that Plaintiff had consented to the calls.

On an Enrollment Form, the Plaintiff provided her phone number
and agreed that Health Net could disclose her information for
purposes of treatment, payment and health plan operations,
including but not limited to, utilization management, quality
improvement, disease or case management programs.

The Plaintiff argues that the calls at issue nevertheless fall
outside the prior express consent exception because MTC has not
demonstrated that it called the Plaintiff on Health Net's behalf.

The Ninth Circuit finds that there is no statutory or logical
basis for imposing such a requirement. The TCPA aims to curb a
particular kind of call: a call that a person does not expect to
receive. So the statute's applicability turns entirely on what
conduct the called party authorized. Of course, as a theoretical
matter, the Plaintiff could have authorized only calls made on
Health Net's behalf. But that is not what happened. Instead, the
Plaintiff authorized callers to whom Health Net disclosed her
information to make a particular type of call one relating to the
quality of the Plaintiff's healthcare. MTC falls within the group
of permissible callers, and the calls that it placed were of the
kind that the Plaintiff agreed to receive.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 29, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7332875 from Leagle.com.

Adrian Bacon -- abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com -- (argued) and
Todd M. Friedmant -- friedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, Woodland Hills, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Harrison Maxwell Brown -- hbrown@blankrome.com -- (argued), Yosef
Mahmood, -- ymahmood@blankrome.com -- and Ana Tagvoryan --
ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -Blank Rome LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Defendant-Appellee.


MANNA 2ND: "Jara" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Calle Jara, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Manna 2nd Ave LLC (d/b/a Gina La
Fornarina), Manna Madison Avenue LLC (d/b/a Gina La Fornarina),
West D&P LLC (d/b/a Gina), Manna Lexington Avenue LLC (d/b/a Gina
La Fornarina), Mamexicana LLC (d/b/a Gina Mexicana), Paola
Pedrignani and Igor Segota, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02871
(S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover, withheld tips and
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a five restaurants in New
York City under the names "Gina la Fornarina," "Gina" and "Gina
Mexicana." Jara was employed as a counter attendant and then as a
cook at these restaurants. Jara worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours
compensation. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Jara the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to
work over 10 hours a day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maplebear, Inc. The
case is styled as Javier Cortez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maplebear, Inc. (D/B/A
INSTACART), Defendant, Case No. CGC18566596 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
16, 2018).

Instacart is an American company that operates as a same-day
grocery delivery service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denies "Arias" Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
ROSA ARIAS, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1258 (CKK) (D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Rosa Arias moves to certify a class of housekeepers
employed by Defendant Marriott International, Inc., in its hotels
in the District of Columbia.

Some ambiguity notwithstanding, the claims of the Second Amended
Complaint may be summarized as follows, inter alia: (1)
discrimination based on race, national origin, and retaliation
for a protected activity under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (2) breach
of contract in allegedly terminating Plaintiff's employment; (3)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in
allegedly terminating Plaintiff's employment in bad faith; (4)
wrongful termination of at-will contract in violation of public
policy and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, pled in the alternative to
Counts Two and/or Three; (5) negligence and negligent
misrepresentation of material facts, alleging that Defendant
breached its duty of care through various employment actions
relating to the chemicals used in the workplace.

Numerosity

Turning to the first prong of Rule 23(a), numerosity, the
Plaintiff proposes a class comprising two groups of housekeepers
at the Defendant's hotels who allegedly were subjected to
hazardous chemicals without the use of PPE: (a) the employees who
worked with the Plaintiff at the Defendant's Metro Center Hotel,
and (b) the employees who worked at others of the Defendant's
hotels in the District of Columbia.

As the Plaintiff correctly observes, she must furnish a
reasonable basis for her estimated class size. The only basis the
Plaintiff provides in her briefing is that the Plaintiff, Rosa
Arias, has confirms that ether is a definite number of more than
40 Housekeeping employees at the Defendant's Metro Center Hotel.

The Plaintiff's bare assertion in a brief that there are more
than 40 in one of the two groups, without even so much as an
affidavit in support, does not rise to the level of proving that
there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties. It is all too
convenient, moreover, that the Plaintiff's allegation matches
this jurisdiction's precedent to which she refers of at least
forty class members.

As the Plaintiff has not provided a reasonable basis for finding
that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, Plaintiff
fails to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement.

Commonality

The Plaintiff attempts to re-characterize her breach of implied
covenant claim as raising the question of whether the Defendant
breached the implied covenant by requiring the Housekeeping
Employees to work with chemicals that the Defendant knew that
would cause irreversible respiratory and eye injuries without the
use of the proper, chemical label prescribed PPE. As this is
wholly inconsistent with the Plaintiff's pleading in the Second
Amended Complaint, which ties the implied covenant claim only to
her termination, this appears to be an improper attempt to amend
the complaint outside the process set forth in the federal and
local rules.  Only the Plaintiff's characterization of her claims
as presented in her Second Amended Complaint is available in her
efforts to prove commonality.

As the Plaintiff's claims concern only the circumstances
surrounding the Plaintiff's alleged termination, the Plaintiff
has not established that the resolution of these claims could
generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation.

Typicality

The Plaintiff's remaining claims are for termination in
retaliation for a protected activity, breach of contract in her
alleged termination, and breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in her alleged termination. All of these claims
concern the Plaintiff alone and involve details specific to her
leave of absence, testimony in Sanchez, and alleged termination.
The Plaintiff's surviving claims concern a course of conduct,
series of events, and legal theory not shared by other members of
the putative class.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims are not typical of the claims
or defenses of the putative class, and the Plaintiff has not
discharged her burden to meet Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality
requirement.

Adequacy of Representation of the Class

In the event that the Plaintiff had satisfied the other
requirements of Rule 23(a), the Plaintiff still would not meet
Rule 23(a)'s final requirement of adequacy of representation.
Many of the same issues that have plagued the Plaintiff's ability
to meet Rule 23(a)'s other requirements are equally damaging
here. The Plaintiff's claims concerning circumstances of her
alleged termination are unique to her. They are distinct from any
claims that putative class members could pursue that strictly
regard hazardous chemical usage and PPE.

Because the Plaintiff's legal interests are separate and
dissimilar from those of other putative class members, Plaintiff
fails to satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)'s requirement that she adequately
represent the class.

Predominance

Had the Plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements, she would
have been required to meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements of
predominance and superiority.

In the Plaintiff's surviving claims, however, common issues
cannot predominate because there are no common issues remaining.
Where the Plaintiff's claims all concern the circumstances
surrounding her own alleged termination, and in the absence of
any allegation that others were similarly terminated, there
cannot exist generalized evidence which proves or disproves an
element on a simultaneous, class-wide basis. Because there are no
elements shared between the Plaintiff and members of the putative
class, the Plaintiff fails to meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement, including the general factors listed therein.

Superiority

Lastly, even if the Plaintiff had satisfied all of Rule 23(a)'s
requirements in addition to Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement, the same issues regarding a lack of class-wide
claims, interests, and facts that have dogged the Plaintiff's
attempt at class certification up until this point would also
prevent her from satisfying 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement.

The individualized nature of the Plaintiff's claims does not
concern the putative class members and, as such, is more
appropriate to resolve outside of a class action.

As such, the Plaintiff does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
superiority requirement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9g5sak
from Leagle.com.

ROSA ARIAS, Brings this action for herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Truman Spikes, L'Enfant
Plaza S.W.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by Kara M.
Maciel, CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP & Lindsay A. DiSalvo, CONN MACIEL
CAREY, LLP.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Claims in Ritz-Carlton Club Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part Defendant Aspen Highlands
Condominium Association's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fifth
Amended Complaint in the case captioned RCHFU, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT
VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 16-cv-01301-PAB-GPG (D. Colo.).

This action arises out of a dispute regarding the management of
the Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands, located in Aspen,
Colorado and its affiliation with Marriott Vacation Club
Destinations (MVC), a timeshare program with more than 400,000
members operated by MVCI that sells points, which can be used to
stay at various resorts owned by MVCI or affiliated with the
program.

The Plaintiffs own deeded 1/12 fractional interests in
condominiums at Aspen Highlands that entitle them to use of the
condominium for four weeks per year.

The Plaintiffs bring five claims: (1) breach of fiduciary duty
against the Association, RC Management, and Cobalt; (2)
constructive fraud against the same defendants; (3) aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud
against all defendants; (4) conspiracy against all defendants;
and (5) unjust enrichment against RC Management, Cobalt, MVW,
MVCI, and Lion & Crown.  The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and
disgorgement of all monies they have paid.

First Claim -- Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim

The Plaintiffs claim that the Association, RC Management, and
Cobalt owe them fiduciary duties for two reasons: (1) defendants
had a high degree of control over plaintiffs' property and (2)
agency and subagency relationships existed between plaintiffs and
defendants.

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that the Management Agreement entrusted RC Management with
control over plaintiffs' property sufficient to create fiduciary
duties.  Because the Court finds sufficient allegations that
fiduciary duties existed based on control, and defendants do not
contest this theory with respect to the Association and Cobalt,
the Court does not reach plaintiffs' alternative theory that
defendants owe fiduciary duties as agents of plaintiffs.

The Marriott defendants argue that, notwithstanding the powers
granted, the same contract language expressly disclaims any
fiduciary relationship between the parties.

The specific language the Marriott defendants refer to is the
statement that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as
creating a partnership, joint venture, or any other relationship
between the parties to this Agreement. However, when read in
context, nothing in this language is inconsistent with RC
Management owing fiduciary duties to plaintiffs.

The Marriott defendants also argue that the Management Agreement
specifically identifies RC Management as an independent
contractor, which is inconsistent with being an agent.

First, the Marriott defendants do not suggest how to reconcile
the independent contractor paragraph with the language in the
Appointment and Acceptance of Agency paragraph, which states that
in taking any action under this Agreement, the Management Company
shall be acting on behalf of the Association. Second, an
independent contractor can be a fiduciary of the other
contracting party and owe fiduciary duties based on the
contractual relationship.

Considering the Management Agreement as a whole, the Court finds
that, at this stage of the proceedings, the independent
contractor paragraph appears consistent with the existence of
fiduciary duties. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Marriott
defendants' argument that provisions in the Management Agreement
requires dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Association argues that the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
duty claim against it should be dismissed because it rests on the
Association's Board's alleged breach of its contractual fiduciary
duty under the Declaration of Condominium that requires the Board
to 'represent the interests of' the owners 'in a fair and just
manner on all matters that may affect any or all' owners and
holds the Board to 'the standards of good faith and
reasonableness.
Plaintiffs respond that the economic loss rule is inapplicable
because the complaint alleges a judicially recognized, special
independent fiduciary duty that supports a tort action even
though the parties have entered into a contractual relationship.

The Association argues that the business judgment rule immunizes
it from the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims because
the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing the Association's
actions were taken in bad faith. Plaintiffs respond that they
have alleged facts showing bad faith and arbitrary action by (a)
the Association promising a vote on the affiliation decision and
then approving the affiliation without a vote and (b) the
Association opposing the affiliation on the basis that it would
violate the restrictive covenants, but then agreeing to the
affiliation anyway.

The Court finds that the allegations in the complaint
sufficiently set forth a claim that the Association acted
arbitrarily by declining to hold a vote before agreeing to the
MVC affiliation. The Plaintiffs allege that the Association
promised such a vote and told its members that such a vote was
legally required, before acting contrary to these statements
without disclosure or explanation. With respect to the
Association's change of opinion regarding the legality of the
affiliation, the complaint sufficiently alleges that this action
was also arbitrary. Although the Association now presents
arguments that the Board acted in good faith based on a
particular legal rationale, there are no allegations in the
complaint to indicate that the Association's present legal
position was the Board's rationale and basis for its actions.

Instead, the plaintiffs allege that the Association initially
took a position that the MVC affiliation was impermissible under
the restrictive covenants, and then, without explanation, acted
contrary to that position, that the Association acted
arbitrarily.
The Court finds the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to
overcome the business judgment rule at the pleading stage.

The Marriott defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not
alleged a breach of any fiduciary duty owed to plaintiffs by the
Association because affiliating with the MVC was not in the
Association's power and because the restrictive covenants did not
preclude the MVC affiliation. In particular, the Marriott
defendants argue that Cobalt's possession of the exclusive power
to make decisions under the Affiliation Agreement precludes a
claim against the Association.

The Plaintiffs respond that the Association violated its duty of
loyalty by entering into the MVC affiliation and by failing to
enforce the restrictive covenants.

The Court, however, agrees that the restrictive covenants do not
preclude the MVC affiliation and, therefore, plaintiffs cannot
sustain a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on the
Association's failure to enforce the restrictive covenants. In
Hoyt v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp., 2014 WL 509903, at *3
(D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2014), the court, applying Colorado law,
analyzed the affiliation agreement and governing documents with
the same restrictive covenants at issue here and found that,
because the Agreements expressly contemplate the addition of non-
owner Associate Members to the Membership Program, the
plaintiffs' allegations related to such changes cannot state a
claim for breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs do not attempt to distinguish Hoyt; instead, they
argue that the interpretation of the restrictive covenants should
not be resolved at this stage because they are ambiguous. The
Plaintiffs do not point to any specific ambiguity and the Court
finds no ambiguity relevant to plaintiffs' claim.  The Court
agrees with the court in Hoyt.

Accordingly, because the Association's failure to enforce the
restrictive covenants cannot have caused plaintiffs' damages, the
Court will dismiss plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim
against the Association insofar as it is based on its failure to
enforce the restrictive covenants.

Second Claim -- Constructive Fraud

The Court finds that the plaintiffs' allegations that the
Association, RC Management, and Cobalt substituted a survey for
the promised vote without informing the members of its intention
to do so supports a claim for constructive fraud. Constructive
fraud is possible even where a defendant acted in good faith
without intent to deceive, but nonetheless breaches a fiduciary
duty owed to another on account of failure to make full
disclosure.

The Defendants attack the conclusory allegations contained in the
claim itself, but fail to account for or discuss the incorporated
allegations in the body of the complaint that detail plaintiffs'
reliance on the promised vote. The Plaintiffs' allegations
include to allegations that the Marriott defendants engaged in
similar tactics in relation to other Ritz-Carlton clubs and that,
at clubs where member votes were held, the members defeated
affiliation proposals and avoided MVC affiliation.

The Defendants' argument that the powers granted by the
Affiliation Agreement are dispositive is unpersuasive in light of
these allegations and the allegations that the Marriott
defendants agreed with the Association not to carry out the
affiliation without a vote. The Court finds that the plaintiffs'
allegations are sufficient to show material misrepresentations
and omissions, the plaintiffs' justifiable reliance on
defendants' statements, and causation.

The Plaintiffs' allegations of different outcomes at similar
resorts where a vote was held, along with allegations of the
Marriott defendants' efforts, with the cooperation of the
Association, to avoid such a vote at Aspen Highlands are
sufficient to state a claim for constructive fraud. Accordingly,
the Court will dismiss the plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim
insofar as it is based on allegations that defendants failed to
disclose conflicts with the governing documents and the governing
documents' requirement that a vote be held, but will otherwise
allow the claim to proceed.

Third Claim -- Aiding and Abetting

The elements of the tort of aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty include: (1) breach by a fiduciary of a duty owed
to a plaintiff, (2) a defendant's knowing participation in the
breach, and (3) damages. The Association argues that there are no
allegations that support a claim that it aided in the MVC
affiliation. As the plaintiffs point out, the Association ignores
the plaintiffs' allegation that it agreed to and worked with the
Marriott defendants to cause the affiliation. In particular, the
Association does not address the April 2014 Memorandum of The
Marriott defendants do not challenge plaintiffs' third claim
except insofar as it is predicated on the first and second
claims, which the Court will allow to proceed in part.

Therefore, the Court will deny defendants' motions with respect
to plaintiffs' third claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yabymj22 from Leagle.com.

RCHFU, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Jeffrey A
Bayer, Gail L Bayer, Robert Buzzetti, Julie C Canner, Lee James
Chimerakis, Theresa Ann Chimerakis, Kevin Clare, Nancy Lynne
Shute, Toby L Cone Trust, Toby L Cone, its Trustee, Richard
Davis, Shirley J Davis, Carl Eichstaedt, III, James Richard
Farquhar, Jennifer Lucille Farquhar, Koppleman Family Trust,
Larry Koppleman, its Trustee, David Lancashire, Stephen Andrews,
Bonnie Likover, Craig Lipton, Jeremy Lowell, D.D.S., Lori Lowell,
Edward P Meyerson, Andrea C Meyerson, Jerry M. Nowell Trust,
Jerry M Nowell, its Trustee, Dee Ann Davis Nowell, its Trustee,
Dee Ann Davis Nowell Trust, Thomas M. Prose Revocable Living
Trust, Thomas M Prose, M.D., its Trustee, Casey M Rogers,
Courtney S Rogers, Robert A Sklar, its Trustee, Robert A. Sklar
Trust, C. Richard Stasney, M.D., Susan P Stasney, TSE Holdings,
LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Stephen Weinstein,
Brenda Weinstein & Jack Zemer, on behalf of themselves and all
others similiarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Isabella
Martinez -- isabella@reiserlaw.com -- Reiser Law P.C., Linda Pham
Lam -- lpl@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group, Matthew C.
Ferguson, Matthew C. Ferguson Law Firm, P.C.,Matthew Whitacre
Reiser -- matthew@reiserlaw.com -- Reiser Law P.C., Michael
Joseph Reiser -- Michael@reiserlaw.com -- Reiser Law P.C.,
Michael Lawrence Schrag -- mls@clasaslawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law
Group & Tyler Roberts Meade -- tyler@meadefirm.com -- The Meade
Firm.

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ritz-
Carlton Management Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Cobalt Travel Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company & Lion & Crown Travel Co., LLC, The, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendants, represented by Ian Scott Marx --
marxi@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jaclyn DeMais --
demaisj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Philip Rabner
Sellinger -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
Roger Brian Kaplan -- kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- Robins Kaplan, LLP,
Todd Lawrence Schleifstein -- schleifsteint@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Naomi G. Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v.
Mattel, Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel,
Christopher A. Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and
Joseph B. Johnson alleging federal securities laws violations in
connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants
during the period October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions
to the investing public about retail customer inventory, the
alignment between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's
overall financial condition.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock
at artificially inflated prices.

In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Lombardi v. Sinclair, et al., filed December 21, 2017) making
allegations that are substantially identical to, or are based
upon, the allegations of the class action lawsuit.

The defendants in the derivative action are the same as those in
the class action lawsuit plus Margaret H. Georgiadis, Michael J.
Dolan, Trevor A. Edwards, Frances D. Fergusson, Ann Lewnes,
Dominic Ng, Vasant M. Prabhu, Dean A. Scarborough, Dirk Van de
Put, and Kathy W. Loyd.

On February 26, 2018, the derivative action was stayed pending
further developments in the class action litigation.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief. Mattel
believes that the allegations

Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy
products worldwide which are sold to its customers and directly
to consumers. The company is based in El Segundo, California.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Partial Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned  THERES JORDAN,
individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23
Class, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01372-KMT (D. Colo.).

The crux of this case involves unpaid overtime for employees
employed by a third-party agency. More specifically, Plaintiff
was a certified nursing assistant employed by Defendant from
February 2007 to December 2013. The parties agree that the
Plaintiff was a home health care worker (HHCW) who would be
classified as a provider of companionship services.

The Defendant is a for-profit healthcare services company that
provides its customers with in-home personal care and management
and/or treatment of a variety of medical and non-medical
conditions. While employed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was
paid on an hourly basis and was not paid overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging that it failed to pay her,
and the Rule 23 class of HHCWs she represents, overtime wages
under Colorado's Wage Act, C.R.S. Sections 8-4-101, et seq.(CWA),
Minimum Wage Order (MWO), and 7 Colo. Code Regs 1103-1, Section 5
(CCR).

The Defendant's business decision to rely upon the obviously
flawed DOL interpretation (being a non-judicial interpretation)
does not show a change in the law; rather, it only shows, as the
Plaintiff posits, that Colorado DOL chose not to enforce the law
the way it was written under its flawed interpretation of the
exemption. The law, that is the language of the CWA itself, never
changed. And nor did its meaning: the language requires the
Defendant to pay the Plaintiff (and the class) overtime for their
overtime hours worked. While the Defendant argues that it has
relied upon DOL's executive branch interpretations; employees of
the Defendant have relied on the language of the statute and the
court's judicial interpretation. The equities clearly favor the
latter thus factor (3), like factor (2), cuts against the
Defendant.

As such, because the presumption weighs against the Defendant's
preferred position, and since at least two of the three factors
under the exception cut against Defendant, the court holds that
the March 17, 2016 order applies retroactively.

To eliminate any question on this issue, the parties have each
conceded that liability under the statute rises and falls on the
statutory interpretation of the companion exemption specifically,
whoever wins on the question of whether a third-party employer
like Maxim can utilize the companionship services exemption of
the CWA will also win the District Court class action. Save its
safe-harbor and retroactivity arguments being arguments that have
been unsuccessful, the Defendant also agrees with the Plaintiff
regarding the binary outcome of statutory interpretation.

Accordingly, since the Plaintiff was successful on the statutory
interpretation issue in earlier proceedings Defendant is liable
under the CWA for violations of same.

The Defendant raises the issue of whether Plaintiff's claim is
subject to a two-year Statute of Limitations period.

The Defendant's argument holds merit.

Sealing the case against the Defendant, the court's holding on
Statute of Limitations defense squares with disposition of the
other issues in this opinion. For instance, where the safe-harbor
argument did not provide solace for the Defendant because it is
not expressed in the statute -- the two-year Statute of
Limitation provision does allow Defendant to prevail on this
issue. That section expressly provides: "All actions brought
pursuant to this article shall be commenced within two years
after the cause of action accrues and not after that time; except
that all actions brought for a willful violation of this article
shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action
accrues and not after that time." So too here.

Because the Defendant's actions do not rise to the heady heights
of willfulness under the statute, Defendant succeeds in
restricting the period of liability to a two-year period.

In sum, the court largely subscribes to the Plaintiff's positions
with the exception of the two-year Statute of Limitations defense
consistent with the reasoning in this opinion.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied in part and granted as to the two-year Statute of
Limitations defense consistent with this opinion. The Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied as to
the two-year Statute of Limitations defense.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y76jq5kg from Leagle.com.

Theresa Jordan, individually and on behalf of the Proposed
Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Robert
Rusch -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason
J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, PC,
Molly E. Nephew -- mnephew@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker,
PLLC, Neil B. Pioch, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Robert Eugene DeRose,
II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman
Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP & Robi J. Baishnab --
rbaishnabgbarkanmeizlish com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
L. Lambert -- josephJambert@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Lincoln Owens Bisbee -- lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Matthew James Sharbaugh --
matthew.sharbaugh@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
& Thomas F. Hurka -- thomas.hurka@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP.


MDL 2099: Stanford Securities Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that SEI has been named in seven lawsuits
filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SPTC as a
defendant.  The procedural status of the seven cases varies.

The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class
action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act
and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to
go forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the
Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford
Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI
and SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court
granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under
Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the
only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court
in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against
SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities
Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice
of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana,
alleging claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In
January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and
the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI filed its response to
the Complaint and in March 2017 the District Court for the
Northern District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of
all claims in this complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

Another one of the cases, filed in the 23rd Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal
court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford
MDL. The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases remaining in the Parish of
East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions
to respond to the petitions.

In the two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and
brought by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action,
virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions
practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of
federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under
SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that
order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the
Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was
remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place
since that date.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation
remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie
class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a
motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the
relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation,
mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss,
the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of
loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits."

SEI Investments Company a global provider of investment
processing, investment management and investment operations
platforms. The company helps corporations, financial
institutions, financial advisors and ultra-high-net-worth
families create and manage wealth by providing comprehensive,
innovative, investment and investment-business platforms. The
company is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


MDL 2179: Court Denies Bid for Supersedeas Bond
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied multiple Motions to Require Immediate Payment or
a Supersedeas Bond in the case captioned In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Section J. This Document Relates to: Nos. 12-970 AND, 18-
435, 17-16366, 17-16241, 17-17789, 17-16248, 17-16266, 17-16245,
17-17790, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.).

Movants are eight claimants in the Economic and Property Damages
Settlement, which is administered by the Court Supervised
Settlement Program (CSSP).  Since at least July 2015, the CSSP's
practice has been to withhold paying a claim until all appeals,
including appeals to the Fifth Circuit, are fully resolved.

Of greater concern, however, are the practical problems that
would likely arise if the Court were to begin requiring BP to
post a supersedeas bond for each claim for which BP desires to
stay payment pending appeal. Given the rate of appeals, BP's
apparent solvency, and its previously expressed concerns about
the ability to recoup payments should it prevail on appeal, it
seems safe to assume that if the Court accepted Movants' position
and applied it to all pending and future discretionary review
appeals, the Court would be inundated with motions by BP
requesting the Court to approve bonds and stay payments, which,
of course, the Court would have to review and decide.

To the extent that the real motivation behind the Movants'
motions is a belief that BP's appeals are frivolous and meant
only to cause delay, as opposed to a concern that BP will be
unable to satisfy the Movants' claims following an unsuccessful
appeal, then Fed. R. App. P. 38 is likely the proper tool to
address this concern, not Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.

The Settlement is already guaranteed by BPNCA and BP p.l.c.
should BPXP and BPAPC default on their obligations; BP America's
Finance Director and Controller has declared under penalty of
perjury that all four of these BP entities are financially sound
and not at risk of becoming insolvent in the foreseeable future;
the Court has especially strong and flexible managerial power in
this highly complex litigation; for nearly three years the CSSP's
practice has been to withhold payment on a claim until all
appeals are fully exhausted; a number of practical problems would
likely arise should the Court require BP to post a supersedeas
bond in order to stay payment pending appeal; and to the extent
Movants' real concern is that BP is filing frivolous appeals,
then Fed. R. App. P. 38 appears to be the appropriate mechanism
for addressing this concern.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yck5kqgx from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy --
jimr@wrightroy.com -- Domengeaux -- john Wright, Roy & Edwards &
Stephen J. Herman -- sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman &
Katz, LLC.

Marine Spill Response Corporation, Dispersant defendant,
Defendant, represented by Alan Mark Weigel --
aweigel@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.

Airborne Support, Inc., Dispersant defendant & Airborne Support
International Inc, Dispersant defendant, Defendants, represented
by Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@neunerpate.com --
NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, and Jed M. Mestayer,
NeunerPate.


MDL 2827: "Burton" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 28, 2017 captioned Kim
Burton and William Ellis, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated in Missouri v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-
04257 was transferred on April 19, 2018 from the U.S. Distict
Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02323-EJD to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation MDL No.
2827.  According to an order entered by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the
actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern
District of California and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila.
The lead case is 5:18-md-02827-EJD.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

Apple Inc. owns and operates a technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
      Todd C. Werts, Esq.
      LEAR & WERTS, LLP
      2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
      Columbia, MO 65203
      Telephone: (573) 875-1991
      Facsimile: (573) 875-1985
      E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
              werts@learwerts.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jordan T. Ault, Esq.
      HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
      P. O. Box 1251
      235 E. High St.
      Jefferson City, MO 65102
      Telephone: (573) 761-1123
      Facsimile: (573) 634-7854
      E-mail: jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com

         - and -

      Matthew D. Knepper, Esq.
      HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
      190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 480-1500
      Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
      E-mail: matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com


MDL 2828: United Food Suit Transferred to Oregon
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 26, 2018 styled United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 1500,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Intel Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00574 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The District
Court Clerk assigned 3:18-cv-00669-SI to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL No: 2828 in re: Intel
Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 27, 2018.
These cases concern the sale and marketing of Intel computer
chips and CPUs.

Headquartered at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
California, Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, distributes,
and sells computer products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Canty, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com


MDL 2828: "Ferrer" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 6, 2018 entitled
Louisa Ferrer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-00799 was
transferred on April 20, 2018 from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00697-SI to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2828. According to an order entered
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions
of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to
the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Michael
H. Simon.

Headquartered at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
California, Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, distributes,
and sells computer products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq.
      Alyssa M. Williams, Esq.
      Angela Jae Chun, Esq.
      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: webcontact@cglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Miriam Kim, Esq.
      Allison Marie Day, Esq.
      MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
      560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 512-4041
      Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
      E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
              allison.day@mto.com


MDL 2828: "Mechri" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 17, 2018 entitled
Miriam Mechri and Salma Mathlouthi, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00379 was transferred on April 20, 2018 from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00693-SI to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2828. According to an order entered
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions
of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to
the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Michael
H. Simon.

Headquartered at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
California, Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, distributes,
and sells computer products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Eldridge Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Telephone: (310) 446-6652
      Facsimile: (310) 210-0605
      E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


MDL 2828: "Park" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 3, 2018 entitled
Gloria K. Park, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-00742 was
transferred on April 20, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-00696-SI to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2828. According to an order entered
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions
of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to
the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Michael
H. Simon.

The Plaintiff asserts product-liability claims.

Headquartered at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
California, Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, distributes,
and sells computer products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rlm@classlitigation.com

        - and -

      Gordon M. Fauth Jr., Esq.
      LITIGATION LAW GROUP
      1801 Clement Av., Suite 101
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone: (510) 238-9610
      Facsimile: (510) 337-1431
      E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Justice Highwall Workers Included in Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, Beckley Division, granted in part and denied in
part Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Class Membership and Class
Notice in the case captioned DAVID JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. MECHEL
BLUESTONE, INC. and DYNAMIC ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 5:16-cv-04413 (S.D.W.V.).

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants, Mechel Bluestone,
Inc., and Dynamic Energy, Inc., doing business at its Coal
Mountain Surface Mine No. 1 in Wyoming County, West Virginia,
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act by failing to provide the sixty-day notice to employees of a
pending layoff.

The Plaintiff argues that the Justice Highwall employees should
be included as members of the class. He asserts that the class
was clearly intended to include the Justice Highwall employees
from the filing of the complaint, and that this was clearly
expressed. The Plaintiff contends that the Justice Highwall
employees who worked at Coal Mountain are part of a single site
of employment that is expressly named and defined in the
complaint and briefing.
The Plaintiff argues that the certain Justice Highwall employees
who should be included in the class were employed and directly
supervised by the employees of Dynamic and were simultaneously
laid off with the other Coal Mountain employees, therefore
subjecting them to the de facto control of the Defendants.

According to the Plaintiff, the Justice Highwall employees were
employed at a single site of employment at Coal Mountain and were
laid off in the reduction of force at issue here and are,
therefore, eligible to be members of the class action.

The Defendants respond that the Justice Highwall employees should
not be included as putative class members. The Defendants first
argue that Justice Highwall is not a party to this proceeding,
and there is nothing in the record suggesting that Justice
Highwall meets the definition of an 'employer' for purposes of
the WARN Act, thus excluding the Justice Highwall employees from
the class. They further contend that the Mediation Agreement does
not mention Justice Highwall, and that not all of Justice
Highwall's employees worked at the Coal Mountain site. Given
these circumstances, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff has
failed to appropriately state a cause of action against Justice
Highwall under the WARN Act, and its employees should be excluded
as members of the class.

The Court finds that the Justice Highwall employees should be
included in the class. The Plaintiffs have appropriately proven,
and the Defendants do not dispute, that the Coal Mountain Surface
Mine No. 1 was a single site of employment for purposes of the
WARN Act. Further, affidavits of Justice Highwall employees who
worked at Coal Mountain submitted by the Plaintiffs indicate that
those employees were terminated by Dynamic Energy along with the
rest of the Dynamic employees at issue.

Although the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs failed to
allege this in their complaint, the complaint specifically states
that all of the employees at the Coal Mountain Surface Mine No. 1
site including those that the defendants referred to as employees
of 'Dynamic Energy Justice Highwall Miner, were engaged in a
common operational purpose, under common management, used common
equipment, and were under Bluestone's de facto and de jure
management, maintenance, and control.

Given this allegation in the complaint, and given that there is
no dispute that Coal Mountain was a single site of employment,
the Court finds that the Justice Highwall employees included in
the layoff at the Coal Mountain site should be included in the
class and are entitled to full relief under the terms of the
settlement agreement.

Further, the Court finds that the individuals with whom the
Defendants reached a settlement prior to class certification are
not entitled to further compensation under the settlement
agreement.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Class Membership and Class
Notice be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the
Court orders that the Plaintiff's motion be granted insofar as it
seeks to include the Dynamic Energy-Justice Highwall Miner
employees as part of the class for a total of 118 individual
minors named by the Plaintiff, and denied insofar as it seeks
further damages for those miners who entered into settlement
agreements with the Defendant prior to class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybcp3lbg from Leagle.com.

David Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN
STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE
JUSTICE, INC.

Mechel Bluestone, Inc. & Dynamic Energy, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F.
Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE
WOOTON LAW FIRM.


METHODIST DALLAS: Meal Break Suit Granted Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a nurse has
been granted the right to a conditional class action suit against
Methodist Dallas Medical Center Auxiliary, et al. over
interrupted meal breaks that allegedly resulted in overtime work
without pay.

The nurse, Robert Straka, filed a lawsuit against Methodist
claiming its meal break policy did not follow the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime payments.

According to the April 3 opinion filed by Dallas Division of the
Northern District of Texas Judge Jane J. Boyle, Mr. Straka
claimed he, along with several other nurses, were not paid for a
30-minute meal break when they worked a 6.5-hour shift.

According to the opinion, while the nurses were not required to
clock out for their meal breaks, Methodist Dallas Medical Center
Auxiliary employed both an automatic deduction system and an
attestation system for tracking the meal periods.  Both systems
were designed to allow the nurses to report whether they had
received an uninterrupted meal break, which would be deducted
from their work hours.  According to Mr. Straka, his meal breaks
were interrupted on a constant basis and Methodist Dallas Medical
Center's policies for this break time violate the FLSA.

In his suit, Mr. Straka claims he is not alone in the FLSA
violations and that some 4,500 nurses are affected by the
policies at several locations in the Methodist system.  Methodist
argued that all the nurses are not "similarly situated" as there
are several differences among departments that they work in, the
opinion states.

Boyle ruled in favor of Mr. Straka with the condition that only
Methodist's Dallas, Charlton and Mansfield health care facilities
be considered for the class action suit.  Methodist was also
ordered to provide employee information of all nurses that could
be considered class members and affected by the suit.

A 60-day opt-in period would follow the receipt of the employees'
information, allowing all affected nurses to opt-in to the suit
with written consent.

According to the court opinion, Mr. Straka already had seven
nurses' consent to be included as class members in the suit. [GN]


MICROSEMI CORP: Multiple Merger-Related Suits Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsemi Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company is facing multiple class action
suits in California related to the merger among the company,
Microchip Technology Incorporated, and Maple Acquisition
Corporation.

The Company said, "Subsequent to the filing on April 19, 2018 of
the company's definitive proxy statement in connection with the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated March
1, 2018 by and among Microsemi, Microchip Technology
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Microchip"), and Maple
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Subsidiary"), pursuant to
which, among other things, Microchip will acquire Microsemi
through a merger (the "Merger"), various putative class action
complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of the
Company against Microsemi and our current directors."

As of April 26, 2018, the company have received the following
complaints, each filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California: Michael Rubin v. Microsemi,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00653, filed April 20, 2018; Robert Johnson v.
Microsemi, Case No. 8:18-cv-00698, filed April 24, 2018; and
Jordan Rosenblatt v. Microsemi, Case No. 8:18-cv-00724 filed
April 26, 2018.

The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated stockholders of Microsemi and generally allege
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with our definitive proxy statement.
The complaints seek to enjoin the vote on and closing of the
Merger, rescission, damages, and attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs.

Microsemi said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
this litigation, we believe that the allegations in these actions
are without merit. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating
to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the
future."

Microsemi Corporation is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of
high-performance analog and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions
differentiated by power, security, reliability and performance.
The company offers a comprehensive portfolio of semiconductor and
system solutions for aerospace & defense, communications, data
center and industrial markets. The company is based in Aliso
Viejo, California.


MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Arbitration in "Maher" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned JAMES MAHER, individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-00753, (N.D.
Ill.).

Microsoft has filed a motion to compel Maher to arbitrate his
individual claims under its Master Services Agreement (MSA).
The amended complaint describes Xbox Live as an online
multiplayer gaming and digital media delivery service. The
plaintiff, James Maher, claims that he and other similarly
situated individuals he would like to represent in a class
action, do not get their money's worth from Xbox Live because
Microsoft cuts them off the service without refunding them for
periods lasting between one and twenty-one days. Microsoft has
filed a motion to compel Maher to arbitrate his individual claims
under its Master Services Agreement (MSA).

Microsoft's MSA replaced the separate terms of service for Xbox
Live. The MSA's first page notifies the reader that it includes a
Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waiver.

The Court concluded that when Maher clicked, tapped, or otherwise
selected "I Accept," he assented to the MSA three times, twice
before and once after he bought the prepaid subscription card on
which he sues. Courts around the country have recognized that
this type of electronic 'click' can suffice to signify the
acceptance of a contract. Microsoft raised this point in its
supplemental brief and Maher's supplemental reply does not
develop an argument that the Xbox Live screens gave him
insufficient notice of the MSA's terms.

Accordingly, that Maher assented to the MSA must be treated as
undisputed. The court can assume for the sake of argument that
Maher's Best Buy purchase and even his son's one-year
subscription amount to separate contracts without arbitration
clauses. That does not change the legal effect of assenting to
the MSA in a third contract; it just raises a question about the
scope of the MSA's arbitration clause and whether it reaches the
particular dispute, however it is properly framed.

The claims here fall within the scope of the broad language of
the MSA's arbitration clause. The Seventh Circuit reads related
to language in arbitration clauses broadly. Maher characterizes
his claims as arising out of his purchase of the prepaid
subscription card. He draws a semantic distinction. The substance
of Maher's factual allegations concern interruptions in Xbox Live
services provided by Microsoft; it is for those interruptions and
associated nondisclosure about those service interruptions that
he wishes to be compensated. To the degree these claims are
ambiguous about whether the policies Maher challenges are unique
to users of prepaid cards, that ambiguity must be resolved in
favor of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7rjsott from Leagle.com.

James Maher, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James X. Bormes --
jxbormes@bormeslaw.com -- Law Office of James X. Bormes,
Catherine P. Sons -- cpsons@bormeslaw.com -- Law Office of James
X. Bormes, P.C. & Kasif Khowaja -- kasif@khowajalaw.com -- The
Khowaja Law, LLC.

Microsoft Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy Yongmee Cho
-- acho@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Gary M. Miller
gmiller@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Todd Clark Jacobs --
tjacobs@bradleyriley.com -- Bradley Riley Jacobs PC, Rebecca
Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine Llp,
pro hac vice & Stephen M. Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com --
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, pro hac vice.


MICROSOFT CORP: Class Suit Underway in British Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that a six-month oral hearing is expected
to begin in summer 2018 in a class action suit filed in British
Columbia.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All
three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998
and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims. A six-month oral hearing is expected to begin in summer
2018, consisting of cross examination on witness affidavits. The
Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Microsoft is a technology company whose mission is to empower
every person and every organization on the planet to achieve
more. The company strives to create local opportunity, growth,
and impact in every country around the world. The company is
based in Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Summary Judgment Filed in Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a motion for summary
judgment with respect to the named plaintiffs.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs moved
to certify the class in October 2017.

Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an
expert report showing no statistically significant disparity in
pay and promotions between similarly situated men and women.
Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the
named plaintiffs in March 2018.

Microsoft is a technology company whose mission is to empower
every person and every organization on the planet to achieve
more. The company strives to create local opportunity, growth,
and impact in every country around the world. The company is
based in Redmond, Washington.


MSR 804: Families of EgyptAir Crash Victims File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
EgyptAir Flight 804 crashed on May 19, 2016, killing all 66
people aboard between Paris and Cairo, partly because an Apple
computer overheated and caught fire in the cockpit, families say
in a lawsuit against Apple, Airbus, GE Aviation Systems,
Honeywell International, et al., in L.A. Superior Court.


NEW LINK: Court Dismisses "Nguyen" Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint in the securities fraud action captioned MICHAEL
NGUYEN and KELLY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW LINK GENETICS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, No. 16cv3545 (S.D.N.Y.).

The case arises from a failed clinical trial designed to test the
efficacy of a pancreatic cancer immunotherapy. The central issue
is whether NewLink Genetics Corporation's (NewLink) clinical
trial was built on faulty assumptions, outdated clinical studies,
and a compromised patient pool for the purpose of misleading
investors into believing that NewLink's immunotherapy product
would be a commercial success.

Here, Link cited the RTOG-9704 trial which was 18.6 months if you
include all the patients in that trial, as support for his
opinion that Defendants' estimates remain[ed] the same as they've
had all along, and that no fundamental change has occurred in the
United States that is suddenly going to jump the survival of
pancreatic cancer patients in the control arm by five or six
months. They don't believe that. In a similar vein, Vahanian
relied on a Johns Hopkins Group study which demonstrated that for
the last three decades the survival expectancy of pancreatic
cancer was 19.2 months, to formulate his opinion that the
estimated survival rate of Control Group participants was in the
low 20s.

None of the statements referenced in the Complaint suggest that
either Link or Vahanian lacked a sincere opinion about the
estimated survival rates; to the contrary, the studies they
relied on provided a reasonable foundation from which they
developed their estimates regarding the Control Group's overall
survival.
Phase 2 Statements

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants misrepresented Phase 2
data in primarily two ways. First, they contend that the
Defendants' interpretation of Phase 2 data namely, that only one
patient in the high dose group had died improperly concluded that
Phase 2 achieved efficacy.

Second, the Defendants' statement that they initiated Phase 3
based on encouraging Phase 2 data that suggested improvement in
both disease-free and overall survival is misleading, the
Plaintiffs argue, because Phase 2 data did not demonstrate such
metrics.

The Defendants' statements regarding Phase 2 results are non-
actionable opinions. Simply put, the Defendants interpreted Phase
2 data in a positive light, finding that starting Phase 3 was
justified. The Complaint also does not allege that Link or
Vahanian disbelieved their opinions, or withheld facts that they
knew contradicted their statements.  At the time "the statement
was made, NewLink had moved on to Phase 3 of the clinical trials
a step that can only be taken after there have been positive
Phase 2 results sufficient to satisfy both business and
regulatory interests." There is thus no reason to think nor is
one alleged that the Defendants' statements were not honestly
believed.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants' statements about
HyperAcute Pancreas's commercial viability were false and
misleading. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
misleadingly conveyed to investors that they expected the drug to
be approved for "marketing and commercialization" despite interim
results casting doubt on whether HyperAcute Pancreas would be
approved and marketed.

The Court finds that the Defendants' statements amount to nothing
more than an expression about their calculated business decision
to forge ahead on developing what they believed was a promising
drug. Against the clear cautionary language outlining the risks
attendant to a failed clinical trial, Defendants made it clear
that they were making very large strategic investments in
expanding their manufacturing capabilities strategies for
commercialization and marketing. These are merely investments
NewLink made in anticipation of HyperAcute Pancreas's success.
Although this business decision did not yield the result NewLink
and its investors hoped for, such an outcome does not suddenly
make Defendants' previous statements of present or historical
fact any less true.

The Plaintiffs cite Link and Vahanian's Class Period stock sales
as evidence of their motive to commit fraud.

That the Complaint does not tether every single trade to a fraud-
related event is not fatal to an inference of scienter. The
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Link began trading two weeks
after NewLink announced it had completed patient enrolment during
a period in which the stock price was rising and the market was
optimistic about the trial's prospective success. The Plaintiffs
also note that Link stopped trading altogether after his April 7,
2016 trade about a month before the disclosure of the final
results tanked the stock price. These events are sufficiently
close enough in time to shroud Link's actions in suspicion,
especially in view of his decision to amend and then terminate
his trading plan.

The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the Defendants' stock sales
and executive compensation establish a basis from which this
Court can infer a strong inference of scienter underlying the
Defendants' false and misleading statements about patient
enrollment. Accordingly, because the Complaint pleads facts
rendering an inference of scienter at least as likely as any
plausible opposing inference through the Defendants' motive and
opportunity to commit fraud, Tellabs, this Court need not
consider the additional circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that at least with respect to
the Defendants' representations regarding patient enrollment,
conscious misbehavior or recklessness can be established by
showing, inter alia, that defendants knew facts or had access to
information suggesting that their announcement touting the
achievement of Phase 3's first milestone was not accurate. The
Complaint sufficiently alleges Link and Vahanian's
responsibilities and incentives associated with completing
patient enrollment. Coupled with the Confidential Witness's
observations about Vahanian's push to complete patient enrollment
and the Company's inability to recruit qualified patients, the
Complaint sufficiently alleges strong circumstantial evidence of
scienter.

In view of the conclusory allegations tying the Plaintiffs'
economic loss to the disclosure of the fraud, the Complaint fails
to sufficiently plead loss causation. Loss causation is the
causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the
loss.
To plead loss causation, a plaintiff must link the defendant's
purported material misstatements or omissions with the harm
ultimately suffered.

The Complaint in its current form alleges that in May 2016, the
market learned of the fraud through a press release announcing
that Phase 3 did not achieve its primary endpoint, and that the
overall survival rate of the Control Group exceeded that of the
Treatment Group by three months. The Complaint's loss causation
allegations are predicated on a corrective disclosure theory that
the available public information regarding the company's
financial condition was corrected, and the market reacted
negatively to the corrective disclosure.

Nor have the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged loss causation under
a materialization of risk theory. Loss causation alternatively
may be alleged by showing that the loss was foreseeable and
caused by the materialization of the risk concealed by the
fraudulent statement. Thus, where the alleged misstatement
conceals a condition or event which then occurs and causes the
plaintiff's loss, a plaintiff may plead that it is the
materialization of the undisclosed condition or event that causes
the loss.

Here, though news of Phase 3's failure caused the loss, the
Defendants repeatedly cautioned investors about a litany of risk
the inability to achieve the trial's primary endpoint, obtain FDA
approval, or commercialize the drug that could lead to a
significant drop in stock value. In other words, the risk that
materialized was disclosed by the Defendants and known by
investors.

In view of the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claim, their Section 20(a) claim is also dismissed.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8rqpct4 from
Leagle.com.

Michael Nguyen, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Kelly Nguyen, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

NewLink Genetics Corporation, Charles J. Link, Jr. & Nicholas N.
Vahanian, Defendants, represented by Patrick Gibbs, Cooley LLP,
David Hillel Kupfer, Cooley LLP & Sarah Malke Lightdale, Cooley
LLP.


NEW YORK: Dismissal of Dormant Commerce Clause Claims Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The questions presented before the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, are: (1) whether the District Court
correctly dismissed the Dormant Commerce Clause claims of
American Trucking Associations, Inc. and its fellow plaintiffs
challenging the authority of New York State Thruway Authority to
allocate surplus highway toll revenues to New York's canal
system; and (2) whether the District Court properly determined
that defendants did not waive the argument that Congress
authorized them to depart from the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Thruway Authority violated the
Dormant Commerce Clause when it used surplus revenue from highway
tolls to fund New York State's Canal System (Canal System). The
District Court dismissed this claim, finding that Congress
specifically authorized the Thruway Authority to allocate highway
tolls to canal uses. ATA further claims that the District Court
abused its discretion in reaching the question of congressional
authorization because the Thruway Authority did not discover or
raise this argument until several years into the litigation.

The Thruway Authority's Tolling Powers

The New York State Thruway Authority is a public benefit
corporation, created in 1950 by the New York State Legislature to
construct and operate transportation facilities. Since its
establishment, it has operated the Governor Thomas E. Dewey
Thruway System (the Thruway), a 570-mile cross-state highway that
is a major artery of interstate commerce in the Northeast United
States and a critical route for commercial truckers serving the
region.

The Canal System

The rise of the Interstate Highway System, a marvel of American
infrastructure, cemented the decline of perhaps the most awesome
earlier such marvel: the New York Canal System. That system is a
network of waterways that stretches across upstate New York,
including the Erie, Oswego, Champlain, Cayuga, and Seneca Canals.
In the nineteenth century, it served as the model for canal-
building throughout the world and fuelled the unprecedented
development and prosperity that came not alone to New York State
but to the whole country. In the words of Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan of New York then chairman of the Water Resources,
Transportation, and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the principal
architect of ISTEA, the Canal System is what has made America
great.

Whether Congress Authorized the Thruway Authority to Allocate
Excess Highway Tolls to the Canal System

ATA contends that Congress did not evince an unmistakably clear
intent to authorize the Thruway Authority to allocate excess
revenues from highway tolls to the Canal System.

The Thruway Authority, on the other hand, argues that Congress
did expressly authorize it to do so.

The Court agree with the Thruway Authority.

Here, too, ATA makes a critical admission. It acknowledges that
the District Court's conclusion that nothing in ISTEA caps the
amount of excess toll revenue that can be used to support
transportation enhancement activities, such as canals, is perhaps
true as a literal matter. Inasmuch as ATA concedes that Congress
authorized the Thruway Authority to allocate excess toll revenues
for canal purposes, and likewise concedes that it is "true as a
literal matter that ISTEA contains no language limiting the
amount of revenue for allocation, its argument necessarily relies
merely on context, not text.

The text is clear: Congress manifested its unambiguous intent to
authorize the Thruway Authority to allocate excess toll funds to
the Canal System. Although ISTEA does not expressly invoke the
Commerce Clause or state its intent to abrogate Dormant Commerce
Clause limitations, it need not do so if congressional intent is
unmistakable, as it is here.

Whether the Thruway Authority Forfeited Its Argument That
Congress Authorized It to Depart from the Commerce Clause

ATA argues that the Thruway Authority failed to raise its
argument regarding congressional authorization for more than
three years after ATA filed its complaint and for almost six
months after the District Court granted partial summary judgment
on liability in favor of ATA. That failure, according to ATA,
constitutes forfeiture.

Yet ATA concedes that, regardless of whether the Thruway
Authority indeed forfeited its argument, the District Court had
discretion to reach the merits to correct a clear error.
Congress's intent in ISTEA section 1012(e) to exempt the Thruway
Authority from the Dormant Commerce Clause was unmistakably
clear. Thus, regardless of whether the District Court relied on
the proper standard for forfeiture, it had discretion to reach
the merits of the Thruway Authority's defense.

In summary, the Second Circuit holds as follows:

   (1) Congress evinced an unmistakably clear intent to authorize
the Thruway Authority to depart from the strictures of the
Dormant Commerce Clause by allocating surplus highway toll
revenues to New York's Canal System;

   (2) Congress placed no limits on the amount of such surplus
highway toll revenue that the Thruway Authority could allocate to
the Canal System;

   (3) The District Court correctly granted defendants' motion to
dismiss on the basis of Congressional authorization and vacated
its previous order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment; and

   (4) The District Court had discretion to reach the merits of
the Thruway Authority's defense that Congress had authorized it
to devote surplus highway toll revenues to the Canal System.

The appeals case is AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., WADHAMS
ENTERPRISES, INC., LIGHTNING EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE INC., WARD
TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS CORP., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, DATTCO,
INC., STARR TRANSIT CO., INC., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK
STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION, THOMAS
J. MADISON, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, HOWARD MILSTEIN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, DONNA J. LUH, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-CHAIR OF NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, E. VIRGIL
CONWAY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK
STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
RICHARD N. SIMBERG, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF
THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, BRANDON R. SALL, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS
MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, J. RICE DONALD, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JOSE HOLGUIN-
VERAS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK
STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
BILL FINCH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, JOANNE M. MAHONEY, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, ROBERT L. MEGNA,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE
THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, STEPHEN
M. SALAND, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK
STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARDS OF DIRECTORS,
Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 17-737 (L), 17-873 (Con) (2ND Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's March 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8ya55q from Leagle.com.

CHARLES A. ROTHFELD, Evan M. Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com --
Matthew A. Waring -- mwaring@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Washington, DC; Richard Pianka -- rpianka@trucking.org -- ATA
Litigation Center, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

ANDREW W. AMEND, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel,
Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy
Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman,
Attorney General, State of New York, for Defendants-Appellees.


NEW YORK: Averts Female Crossing Guards' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge closed the book on May 1 on a certified class action
brought by female New York City school crossing guards alleging
they were paid less than male traffic enforcement agents, finding
the two positions are too dissimilar to warrant comparison.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley awarded New York City summary
judgment over hybrid class and collective action claims alleging
that the city discriminated against thousands of mostly female
school crossing guards employed by the New York Police
Department.

The case is styled Miller et al v. City of New York, Case No.
1:15-cv-07563 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge
William H. Pauley, III.  The case was filed September 24, 2015.
[GN]


NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York-
Presbyterian Hospitals. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
New York-Presbyterian Hospitals and New York-Presbyterian
Healthcare Systems IPA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04367
(S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2018).

The NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital is a nonprofit university
hospital in New York City affiliated with two Ivy League medical
schools: Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and
Surgeons and Weill Cornell Medical College.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NISSAN NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in Defective TCTS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SARAH DUNCAN, RICHARD
SILVER, ANTHONY WEISSENBURGER, JUDY WEISSENBURGER, KEVIN FRY,
SHAUN COONEY, CLINTON STEWART AND MICHELLE LIM STEWART,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND NISSAN MOTOR CO.,
LTD., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-12120 (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs, eight owners of cars manufactured by the
Defendants who seek to represent others similarly situated, bring
claims against the Defendants, Nissan North America, Inc., and
Nissan Motor Company, based upon an alleged defective component
in the cars. Their claims include counts for breach of contract;
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
breach of an express warranty; breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability; unjust enrichment; violations of the consumer
protection statutes of Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts,
and North Carolina; and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2310(d)(1).

The Defendants manufacture and sell or lease cars. Certain models
of these cars, identified as the Class Vehicles, contain a
defective Timing Chain Tensioning System (TCTS). As alleged, the
defect in the TCTS causes the engine of the car to become
damaged, necessitating expensive repairs, and potentially also
posing a safety risk to the occupants of the car. The Defendants
allegedly knew and should have known, at the time of sale or
lease of the Class Vehicles, that the TCTS was defective.

Breach of Express Warranty (Count VI)

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they entered into
either the Basic Warranty or as the Defendants point out, the
warranty agreement is thus an agreement to provide repairs within
certain time and mileage restrictions; not to remedy problems
that become manifest within certain time and mileage
restrictions, as the Plaintiffs contend. As the First Circuit
observed, citing law from multiple jurisdictions, case law almost
uniformly holds that time-limited warranties do not protect
buyers against hidden defects defects that may exist before, but
typically are not discovered until after, the expiration of the
warranty period. The Plaintiffs do not make any argument based on
the terms of the warranty to support their contention that the
warranty explicitly covers problems made manifest within the
warranty period. Thus, their contention that the repairs were
covered expressly under the terms of the warranty fails.

Unconscionability of the Warranty Limits

The Plaintiffs contend that, because of the gross disparity in
bargaining power between them and the Defendants, the lack of
meaningful choice on the part of the Plaintiffs in determining
those time limits, and the Defendants' knowledge and active
concealment of the defect, the warranty limits are
unconscionable.
Although there is persuasive authority on both sides, the Court
is inclined to side with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have pled
a lack of meaningful choice over the terms of the warranty, a
disparity of bargaining power, a purposeful limitation of the
warranty period to exclude the defect and a defect known at the
time of sale to the manufacturer but concealed from the
purchaser. Moreover, the defect known at the time of sale to the
manufacturer was not necessarily the kind of defect that all
manufacturers would necessarily know by testing different
components for failure rates.

Rather, the complaint draws a distinction between components must
be routinely replaced in an automobile, and thus are designed to
be relatively inexpensive to identify and replace, and components
that are expected to last the lifetime of the car, and thus may
be quite expensive to replace, and alleges that the defective
TCTS was in the latter category.

In light of the UCC's instruction to take into account the
general commercial background, and offer parties a reasonable
opportunity to present evidence as to [the clause's] commercial
setting, purpose, and effect, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently stated a claim that the durational limits in
the express warranty are unconscionable, at least for the
purposes of defeating a motion to dismiss.

Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count VII)

The complaint also alleges a count of a breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability. The Defendants contend that such a
claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In Colorado, the
statute of limitations is three years In Texas, Massachusetts,
North Carolina and Oregon, the statute of limitations is four
years.

The Defendants argue that the action accrued at the time of sale,
which for all Plaintiffs was more than four years prior to the
filing of suit.

Both of these cases are grounded in a California law imposing a
duty to disclose safety-related risks and thus the non-disclosure
of the defect itself may constitute an active concealment. The
Plaintiffs make no argument that, under the applicable laws, the
Defendants were under a duty to disclose the defect. Thus, the
complaint does not plead facts sufficient to state a claim that
the Defendants fraudulently concealed the TCTS defect, thereby
tolling the statute of limitations on the claims for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.

Accordingly, this claim is time-barred and the Court allows the
motion to dismiss Count VII.

Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count X)

The parties agree that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act count rises
or falls with the express and implied warranty claims. Because
the complaint pleads facts sufficient to state a claim for breach
of express warranty, the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for a
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Breach of Contract (Count IX)

The Plaintiffs allege that they entered into contracts and
warranty agreements with the Defendants, and that the Defendants
breached these agreements by providing Plaintiffs with cars that
had defective TCTSs.

At the pleading stage, however, mere redundancy between two
separate counts is not a sufficient reason to dismiss a count of
the complaint. While the Plaintiffs will not be entitled to
double recovery on these claims, they need not elect under which
theory they will proceed at this stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the breach of contract
claim.

Unjust Enrichment (Count VIII)

The complaint pleads a count of unjust enrichment, on the theory
that the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the TCTS defect
render it unjust for the Defendants to keep the benefit of not
paying for the repairs that the Plaintiffs paid for to the TCTS.
Although the Plaintiffs make no response to this argument, the
Court notes that is it not uncommon for an unjust enrichment
claim to proceed, in the alternative, with a breach of contract
claim beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claim at this time.

Violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (Count I)

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Oregon
Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The Defendants contend, in their
motion to dismiss, that the claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act is barred by the statute of limitations, because
the statute of limitations for that claim runs for one year after
the discovery of the practice.

The Plaintiffs' response to this argument is to refer back to
their equitable tolling argument. But, for the same reasons that
the equitable tolling argument failed with respect to the count
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, that
argument fails here as well.

Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Count II)

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants contend that the
complaint fails plead facts sufficient to state a claim for
relief under that Act because the complaint only alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a failure to disclose material information,
but does not describe the information that the Defendants failed
to disclose with sufficient particularity. Since Plaintiffs make
no particular response to this specific argument, the Court
dismisses this claim for relief under the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act.

Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer
Protection Act (Count III)

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants
contend that the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to
state a claim for relief under that Act because that Act requires
that the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to disclose
the information regarding the TCTS defect with the intent to
induce the Plaintiffs to purchase the Class Vehicles, which it
does not do.

However, such bare allegations here, however, do not support an
inference the Defendants did so with the intent to induce the
Plaintiffs to purchase the Class Vehicles. Thus, the complaint
fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for relief under
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed with respect to
Count I (Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act), Count II (Colorado
Consumer Protection Act), Count III (Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Consumer Protection Act), Count V (North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act), Count VII (Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability), and denied with respect to
the remaining counts.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6uzkd84
from Leagle.com.

Sarah Duncan, Richard Silver, Anthony Weissenburger, Judy
Weissenburger, Kevin Fry, Shaun Cooney, Clinton Stewart &
Michelle Lim Stewart, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary Steven
Graifman -- ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer &
Graifman, P.C., pro hac vice, Howard T. Longman, Stull, Stull &
Brody, pro hac vice, Jay I. Brody, Kantrowitz --
jbrody@kgglaw.com -- Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., pro hac vice,
Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, pro hac vice, Adam M.
Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP &
Thomas G. Shapiro -- Tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy
LLP.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul
Cauley -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro
hac vice, Ingrid D. Johnson -- ingrid.johnson@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice, James M. Campbell, Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, S. Vance Wittie --
vance.wittie@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice,
Eric M. Apjohn, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Jacob
J. Lantry, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.


NYU LANGONE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYU Langone
Hospitals. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYU Langone
Hospitals, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04364 (S.D. N.Y., May 16,
2018).

NYU Langone, based in New York City, is one of the nation's
premier academic medical centers devoted to patient care,
education, and research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Sgarlata" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et
al.

In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On
December 1, 2017 the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential
compromise of personally identifiable information for
approximately 1.6 million customers.

The company has received a number of governmental inquiries,
including from state attorneys general, and the company may be
subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations
in the future.

In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956 was filed in the Court against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed
Shahbazi, the former chief executive officer of TIO (the
"Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a
class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common
stock between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and
sought damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March
16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead
plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim co-
lead counsel.

Pursuant to stipulations entered into by the parties to the case,
the Court issued orders on March 30 and April 6, 2018 providing
for the publication by interim co-lead counsel of an amended
notice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act given
the anticipated amendment of the complaint to include an amended
class definition that includes individuals who purchased options
to purchase the company's common stock between February 14, 2017
through December 1, 2017, the filing of an amended complaint by
co-lead plaintiffs within seventy-five days of the March 30, 2018
order, and a briefing schedule on the Defendants' anticipated
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

PayPal Holdings said, "We may be subject to additional litigation
relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of
TIO's operations in the future."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a leading technology platform and
digital payments company that enables digital and mobile payments
on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. The company is
based in San Jose California.


PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's en banc
appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice and defendants'
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the
basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit,
are still pending.

The company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants in a class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers, and
injunctive relief. In 2004, the trial court found defendants
liable without hearing evidence and awarded "moral damages" of
R$1,000 (approximately $293) per smoker per full year of smoking
plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the
ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which were to be
assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of the class
was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial
court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and
returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In
May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015,
the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In
September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff
filed an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. In
addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Public Prosecutor's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company's
subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit in Brazil
entitled, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil
Industria e Comercio Ltda.

In a class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on
behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their
relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their relatives; and
(iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred
for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian
States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.
In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo
where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that
these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the
Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases,
finding that they are based on different legal claims and are
progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was
returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the
company's subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December
2010. In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the
merits. In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Class Action vs. Unit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that its subsidiary
continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled,
Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., filed in Quebec Superior
Court, Canada.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
September 1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald
Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the
class who is deemed addicted to smoking.

The class was certified in 2005.  Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment
on May 27, 2015. The trial court found the company's subsidiary
and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total
of CAD 131 million (approximately $103 million) in punitive
damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 million) to
the company's subsidiary. The trial court found that defendants
violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by
failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial
court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers
from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further
held that these civil faults were a cause of the class members'
addiction.

The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to
pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days
and found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages
to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult
to administer. The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed
process for the distribution of sums remaining from the punitive
damage award after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also
filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into
a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the
Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the
trial court's ruling that the company's subsidiary make the
payment into a trust within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking security in both
the Letourneau case and the Blais case.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $177 million), in the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $29.4 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017.  The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the
merits appeal in November 2016.

The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of
liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set
aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i)
holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn
class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found
that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii)
finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that
defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member
in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a
factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or
otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking
by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class
members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even
though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent
addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Blais" Class Action vs. Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that its subsidiary
company continues to defend itself in a class action suit
entitled, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-
Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., filed in Quebec Superior Court,
Canada.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member
of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March
2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its
judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found the company's
subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found
that the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $12.1 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and
several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.4 billion)). In addition, the trial court
awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $70,500) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,500) to the company's
subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of
the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that
defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the
dangers of smoking.

The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause
of the class members' diseases. The trial court rejected other
grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the
evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to
youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false
information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii)
defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light
or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court
estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. The trial court
ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $783
million) of the compensatory damage award into a trust within 60
days, CAD 200 million (approximately $157 million) of which is
our subsidiary's portion and ordered briefing on a proposed
claims process for the distribution of damages to individual
class members and for payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also
filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into
a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the
Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the
trial court's ruling that the company's subsidiary make an
initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed
a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that
defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5
billion (approximately $3.91 billion) into trust, to secure the
judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais cases.

Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security
against JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the
company's subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. In October
2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our
subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million
(approximately $177 million) to cover both the Letourneau and
Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a court
trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly
installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately
$29.4 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017. The
Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $593 million) in
seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately
CAD 108 million (approximately $84.6 million) beginning in
December 2015 through June 2017.

In March 2017, the company's subsidiary made its sixth and final
quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately $29.4 million) into a court trust. This
payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. The Court of
Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment
of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or
upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November 2016.

The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of
liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set
aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i)
holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn
class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found
that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii)
finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that
defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member
in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a
factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or
otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking
by all class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence
that did not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v)
awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in "Kunta" Case to Pursue Another Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiff's
counsel has informed the defendants in the case Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., that he did not
anticipate taking any action in case while he pursues the class
action filed in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council,
et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild
reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly
caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that
he did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he
pursues the class action filed Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewa.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Pending in "Adams"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that preliminary motions
are pending in the case entitled, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit Stayed Pending "Adams" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiff's
counsel in the case, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., has informed the parties that no activity is
anticipated while counsel pursues the class action filed in Adams
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's
Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Adams v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's
Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Complaint Still Not Properly Served
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not been properly served
with the complaint in the case entitled, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

To date, the company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have
not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this
case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class
action filed in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council,
et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, the company continues to
defend a class action suit in Canada entitled, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their
estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of
revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the
date the claim was filed.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in Canada entitled, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased
smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco
products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers
who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic
respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates,
dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended
statement of claim.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Suit Remains Dormant
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's counsel
in the case entitled, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al. has indicated that he does not
intend to take any action in the near future.

In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of
profits.

Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take
any action in this case in the near future.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an international tobacco
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other nicotine-containing products in markets outside the United
States of America. The company is based in New York.


PHL VARIABLE: Sued in New York Over Excessive COI Increase
----------------------------------------------------------
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as nominee of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. PHL Variable Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03444-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2018), is brought
on behalf of all owners of life insurance policies issued by PHL
Variable Life Insurance Company that seeks damages as a direct
and proximate cause of Phoenix's material breaches of the
policies, specifically by its unlawful excessive cost of
insurance ("COI") increase.

PHL Variable Life Insurance Company is a member of The Phoenix
Companies, Inc.

Headquartered at 450 Park Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York
10022, PHL Variable Life Insurance Company provides life
insurance and annuity products to affluent and middle market
consumers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth Ard, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10019-6023
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Four Class Suits in the U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company faces four putative class
actions pending against it in the U.S.

Polaris Industries said, "As of the date hereof, we are aware of
four putative class actions pending against Polaris in the U.S."

Three class actions arise out of allegations that certain Polaris
products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting
in economic loss. Polaris has been served in one of these
putative class actions: James Bruner, Michael Zeeck and Ed
Beatie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Polaris Industries/Sales Inc. (D. MN), April 5, 2018.

Polaris has received pre-suit notice of the remaining two
putative class actions pursuant to the California Legal Remedies
Act but has not yet been served: Les Willmon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Sales Inc.
(E.D. CA), April 5, 2018, and Jose Luna, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Sales Inc. (D.
MN), April 10, 2018.

The fourth putative class action is pending in the federal
district court of Minnesota and alleges excessive heat hazards on
certain other Polaris products and seeks damages for alleged
personal injury and economic loss: Riley Johannesshon, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Ronald Krans, Kevin Wonders, William Bates
and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. MN), October 4,
2016.

Polaris Industries "As these proceedings are in the early stages,
we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a
loss will be incurred or an estimate of the range of possible
loss."

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide. The company operates
through four segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles,
Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets, and Aftermarket. The
company is based in Medina, Minnesota.


PRATT & WHITNEY: Judge Rules Against Expanding Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Jane Musgrave, writing for My Palm Beach Post, reports that all
45,000 residents of The Acreage will not be allowed to join a
lawsuit that accuses jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney of
releasing carcinogens into the sprawling rural area in western
Palm Beach County, a federal judge ruled.

Saying the 60-square-mile area of nearly 15,000 homes is simply
too big and too varied, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra on Ma
rejected  2 request from attorneys representing six homeowners to
expand their claims against the military contractor to the entire
community.

While refusing to give the lawsuits class-action status, Marra
didn't rule on the veracity of the allegations that began nearly
a decade ago when state and national health officials designated
the community as a pediatric cancer cluster. The individual
lawsuits, accusing Pratt of causing a spike in pediatric brain
cancer and blaming it for destroying residential property values,
can proceed, he ruled.

West Palm Beach attorney Mara Hatfield, Esq. -- MRH@searcylaw.com
-- who is suing Pratt both on behalf of Acreage residents who
lost loved ones to cancer and those who are seeking redress for
lost property values, said she and other lawyers involved in the
cases are weighing their options.

They could appeal Marra's 42-page ruling in hopes the entire
community could potentially benefit from the lawsuits that blame
Pratt for depressing property values by contaminating soil and
drinking water in the community. Or, she said, as they are doing
with the lawsuits accusing Pratt of ravaging the health of 23
Acreage residents, they could try each case separately.

The company that for decades has conducted rocket and jet engine
testing on a 30-square-mile compound off the Beeline Highway said
Marra's ruling was a vindication.

"As we have repeatedly said over the past eight years since these
cases were first filed, there is no credible scientific basis to
support any allegation that contaminants from Pratt & Whitney's
West Palm Beach operation have reached the Acreage
community . . . much less that they pose any risk to residents,"
Pratt said in a statement.

When the Florida Department of Health and the Centers of Disease
Control and Prevention in 2010 found an elevated number of brain
and central nervous system cancer among kids in The Acreage, they
didn't identify a cause or source behind the figures that
frightened residents. That is the case in most cancer clusters
designated throughout the country. State environmental regulators
declared the water in The Acreage safe to drink.

Hatfield and attorney Jack Scarola, Esq. -- JSX@searcylaw.com --
hired various experts who claimed they linked the cancer cluster
to Pratt. The company hired experts of its own to dispute those
allegations.

Pratt officials insisted Marra's ruling is just the beginning.
"We believe the denial of class certification is an important
step toward the final dismissal of the unfounded claims made by
these plaintiffs against Pratt & Whitney," it said.

Hatfield countered that Marra's detailed ruling shows he
carefully considered the highly technical allegations that
involved complex chemical, geographical, medical and statistical
theories that were presented to him during a five-day hearing in
January. "We're very pleased with the way the court treated the
evidence underlying our claims," she said.

Marra dismissed as "speculation" some of the allegations made
against Pratt by Hatfield and other attorneys who are
representing the homeowners. But, he didn't reject them outright.
He said there was no evidence that the alleged contamination was
as broad or uniform as Hatfield and other attorneys representing
the residents claimed.

Significantly, he threw out the testimony of a real estate expert
who claimed he could conduct a "mass appraisal" to determine how
the contamination impacted the value of each home in The Acreage.
Marra declared the approach espoused by John Kilpatrick, a Boston
real estate appraiser, as "fundamentally flawed" and
scientifically unreliable.

Without a well-founded way to calculate damages for each home,
much less Pratt's responsibility for it, there was no way the
litigation could proceed as a class action, he said. "This will
necessitate testing each home individually too determine exposure
and dose levels at each location in order to assess the magnitude
of any damages attributable to conduct of Pratt & Whitney," he
said of why the dispute must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

While Hatfield and other attorneys decide what action to take to
keep their plans for a class-action suit alive, Hatfield said she
is busy preparing for trial in a lawsuit against Pratt involving
the brain cancer death of 18-year-old Acreage resident Cynthia
Santiago. The trial is to begin in January.[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Sued Over Rising Health Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M Harris, writing for Bloomberg, reports that makers and
distributors of the prescription opioids that triggered a U.S.
public health crisis are responsible for a rise in health-
insurance premiums, according to first-of-their-kind lawsuits
filed in five states.

The lawsuits open another front in the burgeoning litigation
against drugmakers including Purdue Pharma Inc. and the Janssen
Pharmaceuticals unit of Johnson & Johnson and distributors such
as McKesson Corp. and Cardinal Health Inc.  The suits, which seek
unspecified damages, seek to represent everyone who has bought a
health insurance policy in those states since 1996.

"All of the defendants in this action share responsibility for
creating, sustaining and prolonging the opioid epidemic" in
pursuit of corporate revenue, lead plaintiff Edward Grace alleges
in a complaint filed on May 2 in Boston.

Similar cases were brought in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois
and California, said plaintiffs' lawyer Travis Lenkner of
Chicago's Keller Lenkner law firm.  He said a group of firms he's
working with consider these to be the first such cases over
insurance premiums.

The suits accuse the defendants of conspiring, racketeering and
creating a public nuisance.  Opioid abuse has killed more than
350,000 people since 1999, while costing private businesses and
American governments $500 billion annually.

The companies didn't immediately return emails seeking comment.

About 500 cities, counties and states have sued the same
companies, seeking to hold them responsible for increased costs
of crime, incarceration and treatment.  Most of the federal suits
have been aggregated for pretrial proceedings before a U.S. judge
in Cleveland.

The Massachusetts case is Grace v. Purdue Pharma, 18-cv-10857,
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The New
Jersey case is Sardella v. Purdue Pharma, 18-cv-8706, U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: 3 Law Firms File Opioid Epidemic Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three national law firms on May 2 filed class actions against
pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors on behalf of
individuals and businesses who have suffered higher insurance
costs as a result of the extreme burdens the opioid epidemic is
placing on America's healthcare system.

The law firms -- Edelson PC, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, and
Keller Lenkner LLC -- filed suits on behalf of plaintiffs in
federal courts in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and New York.  The complaints charge the major opioid
manufacturers and distributors with fraudulent and deceptive
marketing practices, negligence in distributing opioids into the
marketplace, and numerous other violations of state and federal
law.

In addition to the pain inflicted upon individuals and families,
all Americans -- individual consumers, small businesses, and
large corporations -- have borne the increased health insurance
costs stemming from the opioid epidemic.  The suits are the only
opioid cases that address the health insurance costs consumers
and businesses have faced as a result of the deadliest drug
crisis in American history.

"Decisions by opioid manufacturers and distributors to put
profits over people have damaged millions of consumers and
businesses that purchase health insurance coverage," said
Jay Edelson of Edelson PC.  "Individual policyholders are bearing
the high cost of this unprecedented epidemic.  Through these
suits, we seek to hold the opioid companies accountable."

In each of the cases filed on May 2, the putative class includes
all individuals and corporate entities that purchased health
insurance, including individuals who paid for part of an
employer-sponsored insurance plan. The complaints allege that
each class member paid higher health insurance costs as a
predictable consequence of the defendants' misconduct.

"Obtaining redress from the opioid wrongdoers is not a 'consumers
vs. business' issue, and it transcends traditional political
lines," said Will Consovoy -- will@consovoymccarthy.com -- of
Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.  "These classes include individual
plaintiffs, small businesses, and large corporations. All of them
have suffered damages at the hands of the opioid industry."

Opioid companies' unlawful acts have led to billions of dollars
in increased healthcare costs covered by private insurers.  As
one example, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control
estimated that prescription opioid abuse caused a $14 billion
increase in nationwide private health insurance costs in 2013
alone.  And the numbers have only increased from there.  The
White House Council of Economic Advisers recently estimated that
the economic cost of the opioid crisis in 2015 was more than $500
billion -- 2.8 percent of GDP.

"It is not enough that public entities collect damages for the
harms suffered by taxpayers," said Ashley Keller --
ack@kellerlenkner.com -- of Keller Lenkner LLC.  "Pharmaceutical
companies must pay for their devastating economic impact on the
health insurance market.  We're here to make sure that they do."

For more information, or to discuss your rights as someone who
has paid for health insurance coverage (with no obligation or
cost to you), please contact Edelson PC at (312) 589-6370 /
info@edelson.com, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC at (703) 243-9423 /
info@consovoymccarthy.com, or Keller Lenkner LLC at (312) 741-
5220 / info@kellerlenkner.com.

The Cases:
Chu v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-02576 (N.D. Cal.)
Grace v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-10857 (D. Mass.)
Klodzinski v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-03927
(S.D.N.Y.)
Rivers v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-03116 (N.D. Ill.)
Sardella v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-08706 (D.N.J.)

                        About Edelson PC

Edelson PC -- http://www.edelson.com-- is a national leader in
plaintiffs' class action and mass tort litigation.  Law360 has
called the firm a "Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar," a "Plaintiffs
Class Action Powerhouse," and one of the "Consumer Protection
Practice Groups of the Year" for 2017.  Based in Chicago and San
Francisco, Edelson has recovered billions of dollars in relief
for its clients.

                 About Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC

Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC -- http://www.consovoymccarthy.com--
specializes in solving complex legal problems, and it represents
clients in complex litigation and appeals before state courts,
federal courts, administrative agencies, and the Supreme Court of
the United States.

                   About Keller Lenkner LLC

Keller Lenkner LLC -- http://www.kellerlenkner.com-- pursues
high-stakes litigation for plaintiffs across a variety of claims
and practice areas.  Its lawyers are uniquely situated at the
intersection of law and finance, with experience that includes
litigating in courts throughout the country as well as co-
founding the world's largest private litigation finance firm.
[GN]


QUEENSLAND: To Pay $30-Mil. in Palm Island Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Smith, writing for Green Left Weekly, reports that the
Queensland government has reached a $30 million settlement with
Palm Island residents in a class action in the Federal Court over
the 2004 Palm Island riots that followed the death in police
custody of Aboriginal man Cameron Doomadgee. But Doomadgee's
family says no amount of money will alleviate the pain of losing
him.

The state will also apologise to the community after a landmark
racial discrimination case in which the Federal Court found
police were racist in their response to riots that followed
Doomagee's death.

Indigenous activist Lex Wotton launched the legal action in 2015
on behalf of 447 claimants.

Doomadgee died of massive internal injuries in a police cell on
November 19, 2004. He was locked up for allegedly being drunk and
a public nuisance, and at the time of his arrest had no visible
injuries

Hours later, he was found dead with massive internal injuries,
including broken ribs and a ruptured spleen and with his liver
was so badly damaged it was almost cut in two.

When, a week later, Doomadgee's autopsy results were released,
angry residents marched from the town square and burnt down the
police station, court house and police houses. Queensland's then-
Premier Peter Beattie declared a state of emergency and dozens of
riot squad members were flown in to control the crowd.

Many people believed the arresting officer, Senior Sergeant Chris
Hurley, murdered Doomadgee, but in 2007 he was acquitted of
manslaughter.

Wotton said: "Everyone was angry. "Everyone in the end really
wanted to know what really happened. And everyone also wanted a
fair and impartial investigation into what really happened."

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

He was awarded $220,000 in damages in December 2016 after the
Federal Court agreed with Wotten's claim that the islanders had
been racially discriminated against during and after the unrest.
He argued police had contravened the Racial Discrimination Act
1975 (Cth) in investigating Doomadgee's death, managing community
concerns and responding to the protests.

In her 2016 ruling, Federal Court Justice Debbie Mortimer found
police had acted "with impunity" and the Queensland Police
Service's failure to suspend Hurley after 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.

"But on Palm Island, QPS commanding and investigative officers
operated with a sense of impunity, impervious to the reactions
and perceptions of Palm Islanders, and very much with an 'us and
them' attitude."

Wotton said he is glad the class action has finally come to an
end. "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.

Doomadgee's cousin Alec said the community was still traumatised
by his death and the events surrounding it.

"We will never move on. We will never forget our Cameron and no
amount of money will change that," he said. "The community has
suffered greatly. It's been a long road. It's a good day for the
community and all the families who have been affected by the
unfortunate death of my cousin."

Wotten's lawyer Stewart Levitt, Esq. --
SLevitt@levittrobinson.com -- said: "This is an opportunity for a
celebration. But the 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.

"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."

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.

"We do know that the events of the Palm Island riot so many years
ago now have left a big scar on that community," she said.

Palm Island Mayor Alf Lacey said: "Hopefully that part of history
will fade -- I think it's really important there's an apology
statement from the state government.

"From my end I certainly welcome the apology -- it's about
healing but it's also about moving on. I think it's really
important a line is drawn in the sand and people move on."[GN]


QUINSTREET INC: June 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on May 2 disclosed that that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired QuinStreet, Inc.
(NASDAQ: QNST) securities between February 10, 2016 and April 10,
2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until June 26, 2018 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i)
QuinStreet recklessly disregarded the occurrence of click-through
fraud; (ii) QuinStreet-owned websites experienced phony, low-
quality traffic for its clients; (iii) the Company's practices
were not geared toward providing its clients with valuable
customers or high-quality leads or clicks; (iv) the Company's
fiscal 2018 financial guidance was overstated; and (v) as a
result of the foregoing, QuinStreet's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and
securities litigation. [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Hit With Class-Action Suit Over 'Never Ending ICO'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Katz, writing for Bloomberg, reports that Ripple Labs Inc.,
the fintech startup that controls the world's third-largest
cryptocurrency, was hit by a lawsuit alleging that it led a
scheme to raise hundreds of millions of dollars through
unregistered sales of its XRP tokens.

The San Francisco-based company created billions of coins "out of
thin air" and then profited by selling them to the public in
"what is essentially a never-ending initial coin offering," the
class-action complaint filed on May 3 in the Superior Court of
California said. Ripple violated state and federal laws by
offering unregistered securities to retail investors, the filing
said.

The plaintiff, investor Ryan Coffey, is seeking unspecified
damages and a declaration that Ripple Labs and Chief Executive
Officer Bradley Garlinghouse sold unregistered securities. Coffey
is seeking to proceed on behalf of all purchasers of Ripple
tokens.

"We've seen the lawyer's tweet about a recently filed lawsuit but
have not been served. Like any civil proceeding, we'll assess the
merit or lack of merit to the allegations at the appropriate
time," Ripple spokesman Tom Channick said in an emailed
statement. "Whether or not XRP is a security is for the SEC to
decide. We continue to believe XRP should not be classified as a
security."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in July that
companies which raise money through the sale of digital assets
must adhere to federal securities laws. The SEC has also
subpoenaed firms and individuals behind coin offerings it
believes might be breaking the law, a person with direct
knowledge of the matter said earlier this year. An SEC spokesman
declined to comment on the agency's view of XRP at the time.

"XRP is a security," the plaintiff said. "Defendants themselves
have recognized that XRP investors have a reasonable expectation
of profit, and publicly touted XRP's price performance on
numerous occasions."

Coffey purchased 650 XRP tokens for about $2.60 each, or $1,690,
at the start of January and sold them a few weeks later at a loss
of approximately $551, or about 32 percent of his initial
investment, according to the filing.

Whether Ripple and bigger rival Ether are securities has been at
the center of debate within the sector since the SEC comments.
Gary Gensler, the former chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, said that both XRP and Ether -- the second
most valuable digital coin -- could be classified as securities.

The lawsuit also highlighted Ripple's attempt to persuade some of
the top U.S. crypto exchanges to list XRP. Bloomberg reported in
April that the startup suggested paying financial incentives to
the venues, Gemini and Coinbase, citing four people with direct
knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified
discussing private information.

The case is Coffey v. Ripple Labs Inc., Superior Court of the
State of California (San Francisco).[GN]


RITE AID: "Wilson" Merger Class Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp.,
et al., remains pending, but inactive.

After the announcement of the proposed Merger between the Company
and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.) by a
purported Company stockholder against the Company, its directors
(the Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite
Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc. (Victoria)
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger
agreement.

The complaint alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal
protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from
obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the
Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain
purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger.
The complaint further alleged that the Company, WBA and/or
Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees. The matter remains pending, but inactive.

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the
United States based on both revenues and number of stores. The
company operated 2,550 stores in 19 states across the United
States of America. The company is based in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Plaintiff Balks at Motion to Dismiss "Hering" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff filed on May 1, 2018, an Omnibus Memorandum of Law
in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the case, Hering v. Rite AID Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02440 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 18, 2015).  The case is
pending before Judge John E Jones, III.

Rite Aid said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that in connection with the proposed Merger between the
Company and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), an action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a
claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria and
a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Hering v. Rite Aid
Corp., et al.).

The complaint in the Hering action alleged, among other things,
that the Rite Aid Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and
materially misleading proxy and sought to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was
materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the
Hering action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a
motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Hering complaint. At a
hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court
orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and
subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the
Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Hering, Don Michael
Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the
putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the
Pennsylvania District Court granted the lead plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay the Hering action for all purposes
pending consummation of the Merger.

On March 17, 2017, the Hering plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay for the purpose of filing a proposed amended complaint.
Defendants opposed the motion, and briefing concluded on April
17, 2017. The proposed amended complaint asserted state law
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual
Defendants, a claim of aiding and abetting the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty against Rite Aid, WBA and Victoria, as well as
claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria,
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, Victoria and
certain WBA executives, and a claim for violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants, WBA
and Victoria.

On August 4, 2017, the Pennsylvania District Court entered an
order lifting the stay, noting that the original claims in this
matter are now moot, and directed the plaintiffs to file a motion
for leave to amend the complaint, with brief in support thereof,
on or before September 15, 2017 which deadline was subsequently
extended to September 22, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the lead
plaintiffs gave notice that plaintiffs Don Michael Hussey and
Joanna Pauli Hussey were withdrawing as lead plaintiffs, and that
plaintiff Jerry Hering (the Lead Plaintiff) would continue to
represent the proposed class in the Hering action going forward.
That same day, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, which the Pennsylvania District Court granted
on November 27, 2017. On December 11, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed
the amended complaint (the Amended Complaint), which alleges a
claim for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, and certain
WBA executives.

On February 14 and 16, 2018, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and an opening brief in
support thereof. Lead Plaintiff's answering brief and the Rite
Aid Defendants' reply brief were scheduled to be filed on or
before April 17 and May 17, 2018, respectively.

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the
United States based on both revenues and number of stores. The
company operated 2,550 stores in 19 states across the United
States of America. The company is based in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Indergit Administrator Has Disbursed Settlement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the settlement administrator in Indergit v.
Rite Aid Corporation, et al., has disbursed the settlement funds.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed
to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that
Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of
the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former
store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit
action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to
liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the
Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective
action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration
of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was
denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition
for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013
ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule
23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to
approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the
state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims
is ongoing.

On January 12, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in
principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money,
which was subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court.
On August 3, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice of the settlement was issued to putative
class members on September 7, 2017. On January 11, 2018, the
Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's order, the
Company funded the settlement, and the settlement administrator
has disbursed the settlement funds.

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the
United States based on both revenues and number of stores. The
company operated 2,550 stores in 19 states across the United
States of America. The company is based in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Trial in "Hill" Suit Continued to June 15
---------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the San Diego County Superior Court has
continued the trial in the case, Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, to
June 15, 2018.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed
its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in
November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order
which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a
petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the
California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August
2014.

Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by
the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision
was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case
was held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the
stay and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018. The
Court continued the trial to June 15, 2018. On February 2, 2018,
the Court denied Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment.

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the
United States based on both revenues and number of stores. The
company operated 2,550 stores in 19 states across the United
States of America. The company is based in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RODAN + FIELDS: Hit With Suit Over Eyelash Enhancer
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Berr, writing for CBS News, reports that skincare
product company Rodan + Fields faces a federal class action
lawsuit accusing it of violating state consumer protection laws
and engaging in fraudulent and unfair marketing of its Lash Boost
eye serum. Rodan + Fields says its $150 Lash Boost gives users
"the appearance of lush, longer-looking lashes." But the suit
claims the multilevel marketing company failed to disclose the
side effects of a key ingredient in Lash Boost.

The ingredient in question is a chemical called isopropyl
cloprostenate, which is a type of medication called a
prostaglandin analog. This one is used to treat eye conditions
such as glaucoma. Rodan + Fields omitted information to Lash
Boost buyers about the side effects of prostaglandin analogs that
are well-known to eye doctors, according to the April 13 court
filing in a U.S. District Court in Oakland, California.

"Consumers of Lash Boost ... have experienced serious side
effects, including change(s) in iris color, eyelid drooping,
itchy eyes, eye/lid discoloration, thinning and loss of
eyelashes/loss of eyelash hair, eye sensitivity, eye infections,
and vision impairment," the filing says.

Moreover, the suit notes that Allergan's Latisse, the only Food
and Drug Administration-approved medication for "lash
enhancement" also contains a prostaglandin analog, but Allergan
fully discloses the potential side effects to consumers.

Lash Boost, however, is marketed as a cosmetic and faces less
stringent regulatory scrutiny than medications, which require FDA
approval before they can be sold to the public. The lawsuit
doesn't suggest that Lash Boost should be subject to FDA
regulations, although prostaglandins and analogs including
isopropyl cloprostenate are banned from cosmetics in Canada. U.S.
cosmetic companies are permitted to use the chemicals in their
products.

In 2012, "Allergan ended up suing several companies that were
selling products as over-the-counter cosmetics that contained
prostaglandin analogs," according to the fashion site Racked. "It
won on the basis that they were unfair competitors," the site
reported. "But these types of products have been popular ever
since; you can find several at Sephora, including some that
contain isopropyl cloprostenate."

According to the filing, the lawsuit seeks to compensate
consumers who purchased Lash Boost. Attorneys from the law firm
of Keller Rohrback LLP who represent the plaintiffs declined to
comment.

In a statement, Rodan + Fields denied any wrongdoing and accused
the plaintiffs of comparing Lash Boost to "unrelated products,
including prescription products that have different ingredients
and formulations. We are going to let the specifics of our legal
defense play out in court." It added that Lash Boost has been
consistently marketed as a cosmetic and as such may cause
irritation in some users, especially if used improperly.

"Rodan + Fields provides clear directions to users, including
those who experience irritations," the company said.

Founded by Stanford-trained dermatologists Dr. Katie Rodan and
Dr. Kathy Fields in 2000, Rodan + Fields said it generated more
than $1.5 billion in sales in 2017, topping rivals such as
Neutrogena and Olay According to the company, Lash Boost
accounted for about $200 million in retail sales last year.

As a multilevel marketer, Rodan + Fields sells its products
through a network of nearly 300,000 independent representatives
who are active on social media. Its products aren't available in
stores. Rivals Mary Kay cosmetics, Younique and Avon operate
under the same business model, which rewards consultants for both
retail sales and recruiting new members to their sales teams.[GN]


ROSETTA RADIOLOGY: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosetta Radiology
PLLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosetta Radiology
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04368 (S.D. N.Y., May 16,
2018).

Rosetta Radiology is an outpatient radiology and radiation
oncology practice located on The Upper East Side of
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ROTHMAN EVANS: Faces "Wheeler" Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rothman Evans, P.C.
The case is styled as Sean Wheeler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rothman Evans, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00584-FJS-DEP (N.D. N.Y., May 16,
2018).

Rothman Evans, P.C. in Syracuse is a full-service law firm
providing legal services and specializing in family law, criminal
law, and civil litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RYB EDUCATION: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel in the consolidated class action is still pending.

RYB Education said, "We and two of our directors and officers
were named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York:  Qian v. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
09261-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) and Wang v. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-09320-UA (S.D.N.Y.).  The complaints in both actions
allege that our registration statements contained misstatements
or omissions regarding our business, operation, and compliance in
violation of the U.S. securities laws."

The complaints state that the plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading in our securities between September 27 and November
22, 2017, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On January 3, 2018, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases. On January 27, 2018, certain plaintiffs moved to
appoint them as lead plaintiffs and to approve their choice of
counsel, which is currently pending before the court.

RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their families to promote children's development and prepare them
for their entry into kindergartens and primary schools.


RYB EDUCATION: "Qian" Class Action Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, the company is facing a putative class action
entitled, Qian v. RYB Education, Inc. et al.

RYB Education said, "We, three of our directors and officers, and
certain underwriters for our initial public offering were also
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo:  Qian v. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 17CIV05494."

The complaint alleges that the company's registration statements
contained misstatements or omissions regarding its business,
operations and prospects in violation of the U.S. securities
laws. The complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their purchase or other acquisition of the company's securities
in connection with its initial public offering on or about
September 27, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their families to promote children's development and prepare them
for their entry into kindergartens and primary schools.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Still Defends CD33A Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend the
so-called CD33A Class Action.

On January 10, 2017, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, or the CD33A Class Action. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2017,
following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and its
approval of lead plaintiff's counsel. The lawsuit alleges
material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies, violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
SGN-CD33A presents a significant risk of fatal hepatotoxicity and
that the Company had therefore overstated the viability of SGN-
CD33A as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia, AML.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these
same matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and
directors as defendants.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on July 28,
2017. On October 18, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second consolidated
amended complaint. The plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint on November 17, 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss this new complaint on January 5, 2018. The
plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
on February 16, 2018, and the Company replied to this opposition
on March 9, 2018.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these
same matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and
directors as defendants.

The Company does not believe it is feasible to predict or
determine the ultimate outcome or resolution of this litigation,
or to estimate the amount of, or potential range of, loss with
respect to this proceeding. In addition, the timing of the final
resolution of this proceeding is uncertain. As a result of the
lawsuit, the Company will incur litigation expenses and may incur
indemnification expenses, and potential resolutions of the
lawsuit could include a settlement requiring payments. Those
expenses could have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer. The company is based in Bothell, Washington.


SEATTLE GENETICS: "Kim" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff in the case, Kim v.
Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al., has voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.

Between February 13, 2018 and February 16, 2018, four purported
stockholders of Cascadian filed separate putative class action
lawsuits and an individual complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware and the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against
Cascadian and former members of its then-separate board of
directors and the Company.

The cases filed in Delaware are Kim v. Cascadian Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Palazzo v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

The cases filed in Washington are Jaso v. Cascadian Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Bensimon v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et
al.

Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 14d-9(d) promulgated under Section 14(d) of
the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Cascadian with the
SEC on February 8, 2018 in relation to the Cascadian Acquisition.

The Bensimon complaint also alleges that the Cascadian board
breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith by
entering into the Cascadian Acquisition and allegedly failing to
take steps to maximize Cascadian's value.

All four complaints allege that the Schedule 14D-9 omitted
material information, ostensibly rendering the Schedule 14D-9
materially incomplete. The complaints seek, among other things,
to enjoin the Cascadian Acquisition and/or damages.

On March 8, 2018, plaintiffs in the Kim, Palazzo and Bensimon
cases, or the KPB Group, filed a motion in U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware seeking the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses as a result of the alleged benefit
provided to Cascadian shareholders from the supplemental
disclosures Cascadian made following the filing of their
purported class actions, or the KPB Group Fee Motion. Defendants'
answer to the KPB Group Fee Motion is due on May 11, 2018. On
March 26, 2018, while reserving his right to pursue the KPB Group
Fee Motion, plaintiff in the Palazzo case voluntarily dismissed
his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)
on the grounds that Cascadian's supplemental disclosures prior to
the closing of the tender offer mooted the claims set forth in
his complaint.

Similarly, on April 17, 2018, while reserving his right to pursue
the KPB Group Fee Motion, plaintiff in the Kim case voluntarily
dismissed his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a) on the grounds that Cascadian's supplemental
disclosures prior to closing of the tender offer mooted the
claims set forth in his complaint.

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer. The company is based in Bothell, Washington.


SERVICE CORP: Settlement in "Allard" Finally Approved
-----------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the settlement
agreement in the case, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033;
in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Tennessee, has been approved by the Court and is final.

This case was filed in June 2016 as a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Plaintiff alleged
she received telemarketing telephone calls that were made with a
prerecorded voice or made by an automatic telephone dialing
system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff sought actual and
statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

Service Corporation said, "The parties reached a settlement of
the lawsuit as reported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017.
The settlement agreement has been approved by the Court and is
final."

The financial terms of the settlement called for SCI Direct to
pay $15.0 million, of which $3.5 million was paid by its insurer.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs have
appealed the judgment of dismissal in the case, Karen Moulton,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and
others, Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of
New Orleans.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI
and its subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided
and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises
and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of
Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek
damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that
were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no
longer be party to the suit. The case has continued against the
company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former
individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court entered
a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: "Urofsky" Class Action Pending in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company faces a
class action suit entitled, Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of
herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania
Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation International,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest
Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and
our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate
liability, if any, in this matter."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SILICON LABORATORIES: Defending "Noyes" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Ann Noyes has filed a class action lawsuit against Silicon
Laboratories Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Ann Noyes on behalf of the stockholders of Sigma Designs, Inc. in
the United States District Court in the Northern District of
California against Sigma Designs, certain current and former
Sigma Designs board members and the company (collectively, the
"Defendants").

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 arising out
Sigma Designs' attempt to sell its Z-Wave business to the
company. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants filed a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement
in connection with the proposed sale of the Z-Wave business. The
lawsuit seeks to certify the class, enjoin the sale of the Z-Wave
business, award rescissory damages if the sale is consummated,
and award unspecified damages and other relief.

Silicon Laboratories said, "At this time, we cannot predict the
outcome of this matter or the resulting financial impact to us,
if any."

Silicon Laboratories Inc. is a leading provider of silicon,
software and solutions for a smarter, more connected world. The
company's award-winning technologies are shaping the future of
the Internet of Things (IoT), Internet infrastructure, industrial
automation, consumer and automotive markets. The company is based
in Austin, Texas.


SINA CORPORATION: Unit's Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sina Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that Weibo's motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit remains pending before the court.

Weibo and certain of Weibo's current and former directors and
officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey: Andrew Goldsmith v. Weibo Corporation. et
al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04728-SRC-CLW (filed on June 27,
2017) ("Goldsmith Case") and Feng Chen v. Weibo Corporation. et
al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-05694 (filed on August 3, 2017)
("Chen Case").

The Goldsmith Case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
trading in the Weibo ADSs between April 27 and June 22, 2017; the
Chen Case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in
Weibo ADSs between April 28, 2016 and June 19, 2017.

Both cases' complaints allege that Weibo's public filings
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of
the federal securities laws.

On September 28, 2017, the court entered an order appointing a
lead plaintiff and consolidating the two cases. On November 27,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On January 26, 2018, Weibo and one individual
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
motion is currently pending before the court.

Sina said, "The action remains in its preliminary stages. We
believe the case is without merit and intent to defend the action
vigorously."

Sina Corporation is a Chinese technology company. Sina operates
four major business lines: Sina Weibo, Sina Mobile, Sina Online,
and Sinanet. Sina has over 100 million registered users
worldwide.


SIRIUS XM: "Buchanan" TCPA Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit filed by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in
this action alleges that we violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things,
making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-
Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to
exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent
to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making
calls to consumers in violation of the company's internal Do-Not-
Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in
the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing
and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting us from making, or having made, any calls to land
lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or our
internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this
action vigorously."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports,
entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs,
including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop
to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play
sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and
entertainment channels for various audiences; national,
international, and financial news; and limited run channels.


SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suit over Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a potential class action complaint related to Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") violations.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court
of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC
was added as a defendant. The complaint asserts that the company
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA")
in connection with the admission of season pass holders and
members through the finger scan program that commenced in the
2014 operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee,
Illinois, and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an
injunction.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if
found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus
reasonable attorneys' fees in each case. The complaint does not
allege that any information was misused or disseminated. On April
7, 2017, the court certified two questions for consideration by
the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second District. On June 7,
2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's motion
to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the
interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the
Illinois Appellate Court.

On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in the
company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more
than a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some
way. On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave
to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Six Flags Entertainment said, "We intend to continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this
litigation is still in an early stage, the outcome is currently
not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of
loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we have recorded for
this litigation cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is the largest regional theme
park operator in the world based on the number of parks the
company operates. Of its 20 regional theme parks and waterparks,
17 are located in the United States, two are located in Mexico
and one is located in Montreal, Canada. The company is based in
Grand Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Suits over Credit & Debit Card Info Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend four potential class action complaints over credit or
debit card information.

During 2017, four potential class action complaints were filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation or one of its
subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017 in the
Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, on September 1, 2017 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, on September 11, 2017 in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, and on November 30, 2017 in the
Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts, and/or the expiration dates
of those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to
liability for actual damages or statutory damages between $100
and $1,000 per person, punitive damages in an amount determined
by a court, and reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which are
sought by the plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any
information was misused.

Six Flags Entertainment said, "We intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an
early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is the largest regional theme
park operator in the world based on the number of parks the
company operates. Of its 20 regional theme parks and waterparks,
17 are located in the United States, two are located in Mexico
and one is located in Montreal, Canada. The company is based in
Grand Prairie, Texas.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Woods to Facilitate Class Action Negotiations
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Williams, writing for Newsroom, reports that a top Auckland
QC has been brought in to broker a deal between Christchurch
earthquake victims and Crown-owned insurance claims company
Southern Response.

Earthquake Commission Minister Megan Woods' office confirms
Miriam Dean QC -- who is heading a just-announced review of
retail electricity prices -- has been facilitating negotiations
between a group of homeowners with unresolved insurance claims
and Southern Response.

Grant Cameron, of GCA Lawyers, who represents the 24 homeowners,
says Dean's involvement has been helpful.  "We have had some very
positive discussions which have resulted in us presenting a
proposition to our clients and we're just waiting to see what
that may lead to."

Southern Response chief executive Anthony Honeybone confirms the
company is in the final stages of negotiations over the class
action.   Mr. Cameron says the negotiations centre on finding an
appropriate dispute resolution process, through which each claim
could be considered and settled individually.

Southern Response refuses to say what Ms. Dean's involvement has
cost, but taxpayers will be paying given it's the Crown-owned
company charged with settling AMI's earthquake claims.

Last October, the Court of Appeal paved the way for a
representative action in the High Court taken by two dozen
Christchurch quake-damage claimants.  They allege Southern
Response had a deliberate strategy of minimising its financial
liability for claims, using delaying and misleading conduct.  The
insurance company strongly denies the allegations.

Days after the judgment was issued, Ms. Woods -- who, while in
opposition, frequently criticised Southern Response for the way
it was handling claims -- met with GCA Lawyers partner Cameron.
She took the face-to-face meeting against the advice of Treasury,
which wanted Cameron to send a written proposal.  Treasury warned
Ms. Woods against contradicting Southern Response's position on
the claims or providing specific undertakings about the case.

In February, Ms. Woods wrote to Southern Response chair Ross
Butler and the class action group urging them to enter
negotiations to find an appropriate settlement process, outside
the courtroom.  Ms. Dean's name was suggested by Southern
Response and approved by Ms. Woods.

(Treasury drafted the letters for Ms. Woods after consultation
with Crown Law "to ensure that shareholding ministers are not
opened to legal risk through sending these letters".  It said the
letters were appropriate, but warned "any perception of Crown
intervention in the class action creates precedent and fiscal
risks".)

The class action, backed by an Australian litigation funding
company, was launched in August 2015.  Initially, it involved 47
AMI policy holders, but 19 have since settled and four are now
negotiating their claims directly with Southern Response.

Ms. Woods' willingness to step in continues her ministerial
record of intervention.  In February, her intention to appoint a
ministerial adviser to peer into the Earthquake Commission's
(EQC) outstanding Christchurch claims led to the resignation of
EQC chair Sir Maarten Wevers.  Last year she oversaw the tearing
up of an early contract for Christchurch's metro sports facility.

Treasury warnings

Ms. Woods' letters over the Southern Response class action were
written amidst a flood of warnings from Treasury over any direct
intervention, official documents reveal.

A February 20 Treasury report, written to Ms. Woods and Finance
Minister Grant Robertson, and released to Newsroom under the
Official Information Act, said litigation is an operational issue
for Southern Response.  Direct Crown involvement may increase the
Crown's fiscal risks and have a knock-on effect for claims
against Southern Response, private insurers and EQC, the report
said.  "We consider that the Crown should not be directly
involved in this litigation."

Treasury even referred Ms. Woods and Mr. Robertson to the Cabinet
manual, which warns ministers of potential conflicts when dealing
with community or lobby groups.  "If the Crown is seen to favour
the 24 claimants remaining in the class action, it risks creating
an inequitable situation for all remaining claimants in
Christchurch as well as those claimants who have already settled
their claims."

Ms. Woods tells Newsroom she hasn't ruled out intervention,
should negotiations break down, but says the current process
should continue "before we make further decisions". Southern
Response's claims management is an operational matter, she says,
but she supports an improved approach and efforts to find an
alternative resolutions for customers.

Treasury warned Ms. Woods that any change to the way Southern
Response claims were settled could have ramifications for the
wider insurance market.

Creating an expectation

The biggest danger from the class action, Treasury told the
ministers in February, was the potential for general damages to
be paid by Southern Response. To date, courts have only awarded
general damages in one Christchurch quake claim, the briefing
said -- a $5000 award against Tower, for not acting in good faith
and withholding information. GCA Lawyers is seeking an initial
$25,000 per claim, plus $15,000 for every year without
settlement.

Treasury's report said: "We are concerned that if Southern
Response were to make a payment for the general damages sought,
this would create an expectation among other claimants with
outstanding claims against Southern Response that they are
entitled to the same payment.  In addition, it could potentially
open up all settled claims in the same way."

The briefing said EQC could also be exposed to additional claims
and court action -- involving "undoubtedly large amounts" --
should general damages be paid as part of a settlement for these
cases, or if the Crown intervened in the settlement process.

GCA Lawyers partner Cameron says general damages are a live issue
in any form of litigation.  He agrees that general damages don't
normally form part of an out-of-court settlement, but would not
comment on whether it would be pursued for his clients in this
case.

Treasury's briefing said progress in resolving the Southern
Response class action claims was dependent, in part at least, on
information from claimants.  Cameron retorts: "There would never
have been court proceedings filed certainly by our firm without
there being, we felt, very strong evidence of mismanagement of
claims, and a failure to perform under the policy by the
insurer."

The best way forward, Treasury said, was for Southern Response to
continue litigation, in case negotiations with class action
claimants failed.

Waking up to sleeper claims

Taxpayers have pumped almost $1.5 billion into Southern Response.
The company's outstanding net claims liability at December 31
last year was $493 million -- which, Treasury tells Ms. Woods,
was fully covered by an uncalled Crown facility.  The latest
figures show Southern Response has 773 outstanding claims.  A
tally from last September said 40 claims were being pursued
through the courts and Southern Response had joined EQC in a
further 51 claims deemed under "cap".

Home insurance earthquake claims up to a $115,000 cap are dealt
with by EQC.  Repairs assessed to be over that amount go to
private insurers.  A big issue right now are "sleeper" claims,
involving under-cap homes repaired through EQC that need further
repairs, because of missed or previously unidentified problems,
of a magnitude that would push them over the cap.  The Government
is worried about the cost of such claims, possibly in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. A tussle is developing between
EQC and private insurers about liability.

Quake insurance is experiencing major ructions in New Zealand
right now.

The Government has flagged changes to EQC's cover that will be
brought in by the end of the year.  These include increasing the
cap to $150,000 plus GST, removing cover for contents and
enabling claims up to two years after a natural disaster, rather
than the current three-month time limit. Tower Insurance has
announced that thousands of its customers living in quake-prone
areas face premium hikes.  Meanwhile, Christchurch law firms are
warning insurance companies' limitation deadlines for taking
claims are expiring in the coming months.

Insurance Council chief executive Tim Grafton couldn't be reached
for comment on these issues on May 1.

Treasury's February briefing to Ms. Woods reveals the Ministry of
Justice has been working on a proposal for a Canterbury
Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal.  The briefing said a paper would
be going to Cabinet "shortly" for consideration. Justice Minister
Andrew Little couldn't be reached for comment.  Woods says the
tribunal idea is "subject to a Budget process."  [GN]


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces "Campbell", "Neal" & "Mott" TCPA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone
calls made by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged
that the Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an
automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded
message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to
$1,500 for each violation, without specifying an aggregate
amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended
on April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for
which the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17,
2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony
Bank as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Synchrony Financial is a premier consumer financial services
company delivering customized financing programs across key
industries including retail, health, auto, travel and home, along
with award-winning consumer banking products. The company
provides a range of credit products through our financing
programs which the company had established with a diverse group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants,
manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and
healthcare service providers, which the company refers to as
their "partners." The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Kincaid TCPA Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony
Financial.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging claims under the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael
W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges
that the Company violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements
without consent and without required notices, and seeks up to
$1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the
aggregate is unspecified. The original complaint was filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 20, 2016.

On August 11, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss based on the lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 15,
2016, the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of
Ohio.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Synchrony Financial is a premier consumer financial services
company delivering customized financing programs across key
industries including retail, health, auto, travel and home, along
with award-winning consumer banking products. The company
provides a range of credit products through our financing
programs which the company had established with a diverse group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants,
manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and
healthcare service providers, which the company refers to as
their "partners." The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


SYSTEM DYNAMICS: "Mullally" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Mullally, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. System Dynamics International d/b/a SDI,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00631-UJH-LSC (N.D. Ala., April 20, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

System Dynamics International provides services to the United
States Department of Defense with a focus on manned and unmanned
aviation training, simulation, operations, maintenance, and
logistics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D.G. Pantazis Jr., Esq.
      Lacey Danley, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street N.
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
              ldanley@wigginschilds.com


TARGET CORP: Up & Up Toddler Wipes Settlement Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Spangenberg, Shibley,
& Liber LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP regarding the Target
Corporation up & up flushable toddler wipes class action
settlement.

If you purchased Target up & up flushable toddler wipes, a class
action settlement may affect your rights.
A proposed nationwide class action settlement concerning Target
up & up flushable toddler wipes has been preliminarily approved
by a federal court in the Northern District of Ohio. The case is
known as Meta v. Target Corp., 4:14-cv-00832 (N.D. Ohio).

What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claims that certain up & up flushable toddler wipes
manufactured by Target Corporation and Nice-Pak Products, Inc.
were not "flushable."  Target denies these claims, and the court
has not decided who is right or who is wrong. Instead the parties
have agreed to settle this case to resolve the matter.

Who is included in the settlement?
The class includes people who reside in the United States and
bought up & up flushable toddler wipes at any U.S. Target Store
from April 18, 2010 through October 31, 2014. The wipes involved
in this settlement were under the "Buckeye" product line, which
was discontinued on October 31, 2014.  These claims do not relate
to any up & up flushable wipes sold after October 31, 2014,
including the current product.

What does the settlement provide?
Eligible class members who file a valid claim without a proof of
purchase may be eligible to receive a gift card or coupon for a
capped amount based on amounts purchased.  The cap for the gift
cards is no more than 20 units at $1.35 per unit (up to $27). The
cap for coupons is 20. Eligible class members who file a valid
claim with a proof of purchase may be eligible to receive gift
cards or coupons for up & up wipes packs, based on the amount
purchased, with no cap. If class members have proof of purchase
for more than 20 units, they may receive either a gift card for
$1.35 per unit, or 20 coupons for the first 20 purchases and a
gift card in the amount of $1.35 for each additional purchase.

What are my rights?
Class members have the right to make a claim, to object to the
settlement, to opt-out of the settlement, or to do nothing. To
receive a payment, class members must submit a claim, either
online or by mail, to the administrator. The claim deadline is
September 3, 2018.  The opt-out and objection deadline is July 5,
2018. A fairness hearing has been set for August 7, 2018, at the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, to consider
whether to approve the settlement and a request for attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses to be paid by the settlement.  The
request for attorneys' fees will be posted on the settlement
website once it is filed. For more information or to file a
claim, please go to: www.upandupwipessettlement.com
or call 1-888-878-1989.

         Spangenberg, Shibley, & Liber LLP
         Tycko & Zavareei LLP
         Telephone: 1-888-878-1989.
         Website: www.upandupwipessettlement.com[GN]


TIGER BRANDS: South Africa Gold Producers, Miners Reach Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that South African gold producers signed a class
action settlement on May 3 with law firms representing thousands
of miners who contracted the fatal lung diseases silicosis and
tuberculosis, the lawyers said on May 3.

In their statement, the lawyers did not provide an amount but the
companies have already said that they have set aside 5 billion
rand ($395 million) in provisions for the settlement. [GN]


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the Isolde suit has remained
administratively closed pending the conclusion of the appeal in
the Joshua Harman FCA case.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all
future filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of
Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs). On May 11, 2016,
the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging
defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E.
Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to
disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case
styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court
granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close
proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is
stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion
of the appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries said, "Based on the information available to
the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable
with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no
accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions
as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are
not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to
these matters."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services
to the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and
construction sectors in the United States and internationally.
The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


UNION PACIFIC: Palestine Woman Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Taeler De Haes, writing for CBS 19, reports that a Palestine
woman is taking legal action against Union Pacific, blaming the
company for the loss of her home after the 2016 flood.

Cynthia Smalley said her home was gone in less than thirty
minutes.

"It was like somebody put a water hose in the house and just left
it running," she said. "We walked away with two bed frames, and
that's it."

With tears in her eyes, she looked at the home she celebrated
decades of birthdays and anniversaries.

"It was heart breaking. That was my -- all five of our children.
That was their home. That's all we've known."

Smalley filed suit on April 27, alleging the railroad company
failed to keep up maintenance of the culverts.

The lawsuit showed pictures of closed-off culverts, blocked
drainage pipes, and standing water in people's yards. Living
there for 23 years, she said her family experienced countless
issues with the culverts.

"It just created a dam, and it just kept coming, and coming, and
coming, and created a big pond on my property," she said.

Charles Nichols, Esq. is the lawyer representing Smalley.

He said this impacts nearly everyone living near the railroad
tracks, which he estimates to be at least 100 people.

When water stays down there for days, Charles said it attracts
mosquitos and other bugs that can cause health-related issues if
not taken care of.

"[Union Pacific needs] to make a determination if they can clean
that culvert, or enlarge that culvert," he said. "If that's not
economically feasible for them, they have the option of
abandoning that track."

Smalley reached out to Union Pacific after the flood, and said
they have made no attempt to compensate her family, or make
changes to the culvert.

Union Pacific spokesperson Jeff DeGraff declined to comment about
the issue in Palestine.

Looking at what remains, Smalley just wants answer, so that what
happened in 2016 does not happen again.

"Why did you not maintain your drainage systems," she asked. "So
that nobody else in this community has to bury four children and
a grandmother." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Houstounians File Claims v. Corps of Engineers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Houstonians whose homes were flooded when runoff from
Tropical Storm Harvey backed up behind two dams built and managed
by the Army Corps of Engineers urged a federal judge on May 16 to
let their takings claims proceed.

The Barker and Addicks dams straddle Interstate 10, 20 miles west
of downtown Houston.  The Corps of Engineers built them in the
1940s to hold back the city's main waterway, Buffalo Bayou.

The United States faces 85 lawsuits in the Court of Federal
Claims from homeowners and renters who say government officials
knew that heavy rainfall captured by the dams would flood their
homes, but did nothing to stop development in the area or warn
them about the risk.

They say that when the Corps of Engineers built the dams it
acquired land in the reservoirs expected to flood during a 100-
year storm: property with a 1 percent chance of flooding in any
given year.

But it designed the reservoirs to hold much more water than that,
thus putting at risk the subdivisions, schools and businesses
that were built behind the dams over the years.

Enter Tropical Storm Harvey, a 1,000-year event that dumped more
than 51 inches of rain on parts of Houston when it stalled over
the city last August.

During less severe storms, the Corps of Engineers focuses on
protecting homes below the dams along Buffalo Bayou.  So it lets
storm water build up behind the dams and slowly releases it
downstream.

But with Buffalo Bayou swollen to record levels by Harvey,
flooding homes on its banks in the days during and after the
storm, the Corps of Engineers stored 380,000 acre-feet of Harvey
storm waters behind the dams for 10 days, which swamped homes
with up to 5 feet of water, the plaintiffs say in their master
amended complaint.

The flood pool was close to the dams' maximum 410,000 acre-feet
storage capacity.  An acre-foot is enough water to cover one acre
a foot deep: 325,853 gallons.  In city planning, an acre-foot is
estimated to be enough water to supply a typical suburban family
home for a year.

At a hearing at the Houston federal courthouse on May 16, Justice
Department attorney Jacqueline Brown told Court of Federal Claims
Judge Charles Lettow that homeowners cannot prove a Fifth
Amendment takings claims because Harvey was an isolated event,
not likely to happen again.

"Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for taking when flooding has not
been substantial and frequent," she said.

Brown said the homeowners should be applying for storm relief aid
from federal agencies, not making their case in court.

"That plaintiffs cannot state a claim for taking does not mean
the U.S. is unsympathetic to them and the more than 100,000
Houston residents who experienced flooding," she said.  "Congress
and executive agencies have brought about billions of dollars in
hurricane relief and that is the appropriate way for relief in
the aftermath of this unprecedented storm."

Reiterating statements she made in a Feb. 16 motion to dismiss,
Ms. Brown said the government should not be held liable because
by deciding to hold water behind the dams, the Corps of Engineers
was trying to minimize harm in an emergency.

"Plaintiffs implicitly maintain that the Corps should have
directed floodwaters elsewhere -- elsewhere being onto some other
person's private property -- in order to protect plaintiffs' own
property," the motion states.

It continues: "But the Fifth Amendment is not a constitutional
flood insurance policy.  No taking arises where, as here, the
government is merely acting to mitigate or minimize an inevitable
harm to the public."

With 50 people watching from the gallery, Ms. Brown said the
homeowners' takings claims fail because they bought property in
areas at heightened risk of flooding, and the statute of
limitations has expired, as the dams were built 70 years ago.

Besides, Ms. Brown said, takings cannot be based on the
government's inaction: its decision not to buy all the land in
the reservoirs' maximum flood pools.

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over lawsuits
seeking monetary damages against federal agencies.  There is a
six-year statute of limitations on such claims.

Ian Gershengorn, co-lead counsel for the upstream plaintiffs,
accused the government of trying to complicate a straightforward
case.

The Court of Federal Claims is also handling 116 lawsuits from
people whose homes flooded downstream from the dams.  It has
divided the litigants into upstream and downstream groups.

"The government built and operated dams that worked just as the
government intended during Tropical Storm Harvey," said
Mr. Gershengorn -- igershengorn@jenner.com -- a partner in Jenner
& Block in Washington, D.C., who served for six months as acting
U.S. solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

"They captured billions of gallons of water headed for downtown
Houston, and they stored that water on plaintiffs' property.
That in turn caused massive destruction, dislocation and
disruption for the plaintiffs. . . .  And that is a clear
physical taking of plaintiffs' property that requires
compensation," Mr. Gershengorn said.

Mr. Gershengorn said the government's claim that the statue of
limitations expired misinterprets the law.

"The rule is very simple, and it's the same in federal and state
law: The owner of the property at the time the takings claim
accrues gets to bring the takings claim," he said.

Judge Lettow flew out from Washington for the one-day hearing.
He said he had yet not seen the Barker and Addicks dams and the
flooded neighborhoods in person.

The earthen dam embankments are massive: Barker spans more than
13 miles and Addicks a little over 11 miles. In some areas, the
structures blend into the landscape as hilltop bike trails.

"I hope your honor gets to see the properties at some point, as I
had a chance to do," Mr. Gershengorn said.  "What you're talking
about is what we in the D.C. area would think of as a relatively
modest bump in the road, the dams.  The plaintiffs' homes are
often miles away.  And there are residences, there are golf
courses, there are schools, there are Starbucks.  This is not a
situation in which the plaintiffs are coming in and saying,
'Well, there's this big dam there, no biggie.'"

William Baber, 64, owns home in a subdivision behind the western
edge of Barker Dam.

"It was terrible.  It was unbelievable.  They had to take me out
by helicopter.  The water was up to here," the 6-foot Baber said
after the hearing, holding his hand up to his chest.

"I've been there 18 years and never had this happen.  It did not
flood until they closed the reservoir.  I mean Harvey had come
and gone.  It wasn't Harvey that did it: The engineers did it."


UNITED STATES: Forest Service Faces Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Lutkin, writing for Jezebel, reports that women working in
the U.S. Forest Service are coming forward to talk about sexual
harassment they've experienced while battling forest fires in
remote locations and the pervasive culture of misogyny that their
workplace permits.

The Guardian interviewed a number of women working in the
National Park Service and US Forest Service's wildfire
operations, among them many woman who are participating in a
class action lawsuit filed in California against the fire service
on behalf of female firefighters.  Their stories are disturbing
in themselves, but the response from supervisors show how a lack
of accountability increased the danger for women employees.

In 2009, Denise Rice -- a firefighter for 20 years -- says a
second-in-line supervisor began sexually harassing her.  For two
years, she endured it:

"He'd get handsy and then I'd snap and make him back off and it
would stop for a while, and then it would start up again." But in
2011, the two got into an argument and he assaulted her, poking
her breasts with a letter opener, as she related in 2016
testimony before a congressional committee examining sexual
harassment and gender discrimination in the US Department of
Agriculture, which oversees the forest service.  The man did it
"with a smile on his face in an arrogant way like he could get
away with it.  And I stood there in shock."

The congressional committee that heard Ms. Rice's story vocalized
outrage -- but that very year, her alleged harasser was invited
to give a motivational speech to other firefighters and, as Rice
would eventually discover, was allowed to retire with full
benefits. Meanwhile, Rice says she is still experiencing backlash
at work for speaking out.

Elisa Lopez-Crowder went from the Navy to working for the Forest
Service in 2010.  Initially, she felt comfortable with her team,
but when a new crew-captain joined her group:

"The racist and sexist comments began almost immediately.  He
told me flat-out that he didn't believe women belonged in fire,"
she says.  Ms. Lopez-Crowder is Mexican-American, and he would
say things like "Is your skin dirty, or is that just your skin
color?"

One day as the crew dug trenches, the assistant captain --
annoyed that she was ignoring her comments -- grabbed her by the
pack, threw her to the ground and stepped on her.  She and a
fellow colleague reported the incident, but despite assurances
from her superiors, it took a full year and a half for the man to
leave the fire service.

The Forest Service has invited an outside agency to investigate
harassment allegations, and opened a reporting center.
Vicki Christiansen, the new U.S. Forest Service chief, told the
Guardian, "We know only strong and unambiguous action will get us
to where we want to be." [GN]


UNITYPOINT HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
UnityPoint Health, which operates Meriter Hospital in Madison,
delayed reporting a data breach and falsely told patients that
information stolen during the breach did not include their Social
Security numbers, according to a federal class-action lawsuit
filed on May 4.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, concerns a
reported data breach discovered by UnityPoint in February that
may have compromised patient data as far back as Nov. 1. The
lawsuit states the breach was the result of a "phishing attack"
of employee email accounts that compromised the protected health
information of at least 16,429 people.

UnityPoint notified patients in mid-April of the breach, but the
lawsuit states that UnityPoint "misrepresented the nature,
breadth, scope, harm, and cost of the privacy breach" when it
claimed "the (stolen) information did not include your Social
Privacy number" and that it had "no information to date
indicating that your protected health information involved in
this incident was or will be used for any unintended purposes."

The lawsuit accuses UnityPoint of waiting for more than two
months after the breach was discovered before notifying the
public and regulators.

UnityPoint, based in Iowa, declined to comment.

One of those affected by the breach, Yvonne Mart Fox, of
Middleton, the lead plaintiff, states in the lawsuit that she has
experienced daily anger and sleep disruption as a result of the
data breach, which makes it "feel like I'm having surgery in
public."

Fox began to notice in early 2018 an increase in the number of
robocalls on her cellphone and landline, along with spam emails,
that bothered her with unsolicited marketing contacts.

After receiving UnityPoint's letter about the data breach in
April, Fox spoke with a UnityPoint employee and was told
repeatedly that she "should take steps to protect her
information."

Fox did not get a straight answer when asked whether UnityPoint
would pay for any of those precautionary measures, the lawsuit
states. Subsequent contacts with UnityPoint didn't gain her any
more information, just others telling her, "We are sorry, please
take precautions to protect your information."

UnityPoint finally told Fox it would take no further remedial
action or provide further help or compensation, the lawsuit
states.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages from
UnityPoint along with restitution to patients, among several
other demands.

The lawsuit characterizes personal health information as "one of
the most valuable commodities on the criminal information black
market," worth 10 times the value of personal credit card data
because it can be easily used to buy and re-sell medical
equipment and drugs, create fake identification and file false
claims with insurers.[GN]


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Court Tosses Cold-FX Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Leighton, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
British Columbia's highest court has dismissed an appeal from a
Vancouver Island man who hoped to certify a class-action lawsuit
against the makers of the cold and flu product Cold-FX.

Don Harrison wanted the B.C. Court of Appeal to overturn a lower
court ruling that found, in part, that he failed to accurately
identify a class of people who were concerned about the marketing
of the ginseng-based natural remedy.

In a unanimous decision, a three-justice panel of the Appeal
Court says Mr. Harrison's efforts to overcome some of the
problems with his case identified by the lower court are
"insufficient" and "come too late" to be taken into account.

Mr. Harrison launched his legal action in 2012 against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its subsidiary that makes Cold-FX, Afexa
Life Sciences Inc., over advertising that said the product
offered "immediate relief of cold and flu symptoms" if taken over
a three-day period at the first sign of illness.

He sought restitution for amounts that he and others spent on the
product, alleging Valeant misrepresented the product, although
those assertions have not been tested in court.

In dismissing the case, the Appeal Court says there have been
repeated efforts by Mr. Harrison and his lawyer to refine the
scope of the class action.  But after six years and at least as
many drafts of a notice of civil claim, Justice Harvey Groberman
writes it is "entirely impractical to use the new definition" of
the class that was produced for the Appeal Court.

In an 18-page judgment released on April 30, Justice Groberman
says that while the proposed new definition of the class
eliminates consumers who may have bought Cold-FX when its
packaging didn't carry the alleged misrepresentations, the
wording still falls short.

"It does not include a requirement that the purchaser have read
the misrepresentations, or have relied on them.  More
importantly, it does not contain any requirement that the person
purchased or used the product for the purpose of immediate relief
of cold or flu symptoms," Justice Groberman writes on behalf of
the three justices.

During the proposed class period between 2002 and 2012, the court
found Cold-FX was sold in a total of 14 formats, ranging from
bottles to blister packs, and each one carried different
descriptions and wording.

It would be "fanciful" to expect consumers to recall the precise
representations included on the packages, writes Justice
Groberman.

"Given the number of different packages and the frequency of
changes in the representations, the practical difficulties of
placing individuals within or outside of the class will be
insurmountable," he says.

The justices concur that if the case were certified as a class
action, each of the class members would likely have to be quizzed
about how they purchased Cold-FX and whether they relied on its
claims of immediate relief when they bought it.

Justice Groberman also questions whether a class proceeding was
Harrison's best choice, pointing to case law involving matters
where "different representations are made to different persons in
different circumstances."

"A class proceeding will often not be appropriate because of the
need for detailed individual assessments of circumstances,"
Justice Groberman concludes. [GN]


VICTORY PARK: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory Park
Capital Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Darlene Gibbs,
Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence
Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC,
Victory Park Management, LLC, Scott Zemnick, Jeffrey Schneider
and Thomas Welch, Defendants, Case No. 18-03072-hdh (N.D. Tex.,
May 16, 2018).

Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC is an Investment company in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Leonard Bennett, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.
   763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com

      - and -

   Andrew Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7576
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.
   763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com

      - and -

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-1579
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: craig@clalegal.com

      - and -

   Casey S. Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road Ste 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 640-3334
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   James Wilson Speer, Esq.
   Virginia Poverty Law Center
   919 E Main Street, Ste. 610
   Newport News, VA 23219
   Tel: (804) 782-9430
   Fax: (804) 649-0974
   Email: jay@vplc.org


VIDEOTRON LTEE: Settlement Negotiations in "Benabu" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks SE said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the parties in the case Stephanie J.
Benabu vs. Videotron Ltee and Affinitas GmbH, et al., are in
settlement negotiations.

On August 1, 2016, Affinitas was served with a copy of an
application to bring a class action lawsuit and to appoint the
status of representative plaintiff filed with the Superior Court
of the District of Montreal. The potential suit relates to the
practice of automatically renewing the services provided to
Canadian users of Affinitas's products at standard pricing after
a discounted trial period without active consent by the consumer.
Affinitas ceased engaging in these practices and is currently in
settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. The settlement
currently contemplated would not have a material adverse effect
on the business, results of operations or financial condition of
Affinitas.

Spark Networks SE is a leading global operator of premium online
dating sites and mobile applications. Its focus is on catering to
professionals and highly educated singles with serious
relationship intentions in North America and other international
markets.


WAGEWORKS INC: Kaskela Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE:WAGE) ("WageWorks"
or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

WageWorks investors are encouraged to visit
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/wageworks-inc/ to receive additional
information about this action and submit their information
online.  Investors may also contact attorney D. Seamus Kaskela at
(888) 715 - 1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss their legal rights and options with respect to this
action.

On March 1, 2018, WageWorks disclosed that it was delaying the
filing of its fiscal 2017 Annual Report with the SEC.  Following
this news, shares of the Company's common stock declined $9.75
per share, or over 18.5%, to close at $42.70 on March 1, 2018.

The following day the Company reported that it "has concluded
that it has a material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting . . . related to managing change and
assessing risk in the areas of non-routine and complex
transactions." Additionally, the Company disclosed that its Audit
Committee was investigating "certain issues, including revenue
recognition, related to the accounting for a government contract
during fiscal 2016 and associated issues with whether there was
an open flow of information and appropriate tone at the top for
an effective control environment."

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that WageWorks and
certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks' systems of
internal controls, and that the Company's practices and controls
were ineffective; (ii) WageWorks had failed to adequately manage
and assess risk relating to certain complex transactions,
including certain government contracts; (iii) WageWorks had
improperly recognized revenue, thereby inflating its earnings and
related financial metrics; and (iv) WageWorks' financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, investors purchased WageWorks' common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Investors who purchased WageWorks securities during the Class
Period may, no later than May 8, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kaskela Law or
other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff a
class member meet certain legal requirements

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 715 - 1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Settles Fake-Accounts Lawsuit for $480MM
-----------------------------------------------------
Hannah Levitt, writing for Bloomberg, reports that Wells Fargo &
Co. agreed to pay $480 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
in which investors accused the bank of securities fraud related
to its fake-account scandal.

The settlement resolves the main class-action suit brought by
shareholders targeting the bank's allegedly deficient disclosures
related to its sales practices. It had previously set aside
reserves for the settlement, according to a regulatory filing on
May 4. Wells Fargo said in a statement that it denies the
allegations in the suit.

"Moving to put this case behind us is in the best interest of our
team members, customers, investors and other stakeholders," Chief
Executive Officer Tim Sloan said in the statement.

This is the latest cost for Wells Fargo from a consumer banking
scandal that arose in September 2016. That issue, in which
employees opened as many as 3.5 million bogus accounts,
ultimately cost then-CEO John Stumpf his job. The bank still
faces a bevy of other lawsuits on related matters.

The San Francisco-based bank settled with the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau for an unprecedented $1 billion to cover issues in auto
lending and mortgages. In February, the Federal Reserve imposed a
sanction prohibiting the bank from boosting total assets beyond
their level at the end of 2017 until it fixes shortcomings.

The lender said in a filing on May 4 that "reasonably possible"
legal charges could be as high as $2.6 billion beyond reserves as
of March 31. This is down from $2.7 billion in the previous
quarter.

Wells Fargo executives are set to update analysts and
shareholders on financial targets and regulatory matters at an
investor day scheduled for May 10.

The shareholder case is Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., 3:16-cv-
05479, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San
Francisco).[GN]


WELLS FARGO: Union Investment Achieves Recovery for Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Investment, one of Europe's largest asset management firms
and the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in a federal securities
class-action lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. ("Wells Fargo"),
proudly announces that it has achieved a settlement of $480
million in cash to resolve its claims against the Defendants. The
Settlement, which remains subject to court approval and ongoing
diligence discovery, provides a significant cash recovery in
comparison to the likely recoverable damages had the case been
pursued through a lengthy jury trial and appeals, represents the
fourth largest securities settlement ever achieved in the Ninth
Circuit, and the 31st largest securities settlement ever in the
United States.

"As long term investors in Wells Fargo and thousands of other
portfolio companies across the world, we take action to rectify
misconduct that raises significant public policy concerns and
severely harms public stock market investors," said Union
Investment Executive Board Member Dr. Andreas Zubrod.

Union's Complaint, pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleged that Wells Fargo
and certain current and former officers and directors of Wells
Fargo made a series of materially false statements and omissions
in connection with Wells Fargo's secret creation of fake or
unauthorized client accounts in order to hit performance-based
compensation goals. Those alleged false statements artificially
inflated the price of the Company's common stock during the Class
Period from February 26, 2014 through September 20, 2016.

After years of presenting a business driven by legitimate growth
prospects, U.S. regulators revealed in September 2016 that Wells
Fargo employees were secretly opening millions of potentially
unauthorized accounts for existing Wells Fargo customers. The
complaint alleged that these accounts were opened in order to hit
performance targets and inflate the "cross-sell" metrics that
investors used to measure Wells Fargo's financial health and
anticipated growth. When the market learned the truth about Wells
Fargo's violation of its customers' trust and failure to disclose
reliable information to its investors, the price of Wells Fargo's
stock dropped, causing substantial investor losses.

As Dr. Zubrod added: "Fabricating customer accounts and then
concealing how those fake accounts impacted cross-sell metrics is
simply unacceptable and undermines the trust that Union
Investment and other investors put in Wells Fargo's management.
We are pleased that with this settlement, Wells Fargo is taking
an important step towards reckoning with its prior mistakes and
focusing on creating value for its investors while acting with
integrity."

The Settlement to be paid is in addition to the $185 million
penalty collectively imposed on Wells Fargo by the CFPB, the U.S.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the City and
County of Los Angeles for Wells Fargo's underlying misconduct,
and demonstrates the continuing need for private litigation to
supplement government enforcement actions.  As noted, the
Settlement is subject to further documentation, ongoing due
diligence, review, and Court approval.

Union Investment is headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany, and
manages over 325 billion EUR (ca. 400 billion USD). Union
Investment was represented by Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP.

         Union Investment
         Dr. Sinan Temelli
         Telephone: +49-69-25672935
         E-mail: sinan.temelli@union-investment.de

         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         Alexander Coxe, Esq.
         Telephone: 212-554-1423
         E-mail: alex@blbglaw.com[GN]


WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Plains
Hospital Medical Center. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
White Plains Hospital Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-04369 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2018).

White Plains Hospital is a general medical and surgical, non-
profit hospital located in White Plains, New York. In addition to
providing general care to patients, it also operates a number of
specialized programs, such as its cancer center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Wynn Las Vegas casino illegally forces employees to kick back to
management a percentage of their tips, an estimated class of 500
workers says in a federal class action.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Leon Greenberg, Esq.
     A Professional Corporation
     2965 South Jones Boulevard #E-3
     Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
     Tel: (702) 383-6085
     Fax: (702) 385-1827

        -- and --

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     THIERMAN LAW FIRM
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, NV 89511
     Tel: (775) 284-1500

        -- and --

     James P. Kemp, Esq.
     KEMP & KEMP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     7435 West Azure Drive, Suite 110
     Las Vegas, NV 89130
     Tel: (702) 258-1183

        -- and --

     Robin Potter, Esq.
     111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 861-1800


XUNLEI LTD: Faces Securities Class Suit Related to OneCoin
----------------------------------------------------------
Xunlei Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company is facing a shareholder
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Xunlei Limited
Securities Litigation.

In January 2018, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern
District of New York against Xunlei and certain of its current
and former officers and directors: Dookeran v. Xunlei Limited, et
al. (filed on January 18, 2018, Case No: 18-cv-467 (S.D.N.Y.)),
and Peng Li v. Xunlei Limited, et al. (filed on January 24, 2018,
Case No. 18-cv-646 (S.D.N.Y.)).

Purporting to sue on behalf of all investors who purchased or
acquired Xunlei stock from October 10, 2017, to January 11, 2018,
Plaintiffs allege that certain statements regarding OneCoin (now
called "LinkToken") in the Company's press releases and on a
quarterly investor call were false and misleading because, among
other things, they failed to disclose that OneCoin was a
disguised "initial coin offering" and "initial miner offering"
and constituted "unlawful financial activity." Plaintiffs seek to
recover under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On April 12, 2018, the court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467
(RJS), and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs'
counsel. The proceedings are still at an early stage, and the
consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, no provision in respect
of these putative class action lawsuits is considered necessary
apart from the legal fee to be accrued in 2018 according to
ASC450-20-25, which requires an estimated loss from a loss
contingency be accrued by a charge to income if both probable and
reasonably estimable.

Xunlei Limited is a leading cloud-based acceleration technology
company in China. Xunlei operates a powerful internet platform in
China based on cloud computing to provide users with quick and
easy access to digital media content through its core products
and services, Xunlei Accelerator and the cloud acceleration
subscription services.


* Jackson Lewis Issues Class Action Trends Report
-------------------------------------------------
Jackson Lewis P.C. released the latest issue of Jackson Lewis
Class Action Trends Report. This report is published on a
quarterly basis by the firm's class action practice group in
conjunction with Wolters Kluwer.

A full-text copy of the Trends Report is available at
https://is.gd/NdJ6UY
[GN]


* Oil Sector Hot Bed of IC Misclassification Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rose, Esq. -- mrose@lockelord.com -- Richard Reibstein,
Esq. -- rreibstein@lockelord.com -- and Bill Swanstrom, Esq. --
bswanstrom@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord, in an article for E&P,
wrote that a cottage industry for plaintiffs' class action
lawyers has been independent contractor (IC) misclassification
lawsuits, and one of the industries taking the brunt of those
types of legal proceedings is energy, particularly companies that
operate in the oil patch.

In the oil and gas industry, companies have recently been making
use of ICs to provide specialized talent for limited project
needs, reduce their reliance on a static workforce and shrink
their payroll costs.  IC misclassification is not more prevalent
in the oil and gas fields than it is in other industries; it just
seems as though class action lawyers have been targeting this
area of the energy arena in the last few years.

What can large and small companies that use ICs in the oil fields
do to minimize any such IC misclassification liability and
maximize their compliance with federal and state IC laws?

Before answering those questions, we will comment on some recent
cases affecting companies in the oil and gas industry to give you
an idea of the types of IC misclassification challenges that are
afflicting companies in this industry.

Rig welder brings class action for IC misclassification.  This
case involves a modest-size oil E&P company, Whiting Petroleum,
which was sued last year in Colorado in a proposed class action
by a rig welder who claims he and other similarly situated
workers were misclassified as independent contractors in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the case but a federal court
denied the motion.  Whiting has denied the claims, and the case
was scheduled for mediation in an effort to settle the case.

Well site managers sue large energy company for misclassifying
them as ICs.  This case against Chevron Corp. was brought last
year in California by oil and well site drilling managers who
were paid on a 1099 basis but claim they were misclassified as
ICs and denied minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. The
drill site managers made a motion to have the case certified by
the court as a class action -- and they prevailed, over the
strenuous opposition of Chevron.

Oilfield workers monitoring wells settle their IC
Misclassification case for $2 million.  Flow testers who
monitored oil and gas wells brought a lawsuit against J&A
Services LLC, an Oklahoma oil patch company, alleging that they
were misclassified as ICs in violation of the FLSA.  After
substantial pre-trial discovery, the parties consented to enter
mediation, where J&A agreed to settle the case with 71 workers
for $2 million.

Welders for a Chinese oil rig company sue for IC
misclassification. Honghua America LLC was sued in Texas by two
welders who claimed they were misclassified as independent
contractors in violation of the FLSA.  Two months after the court
denied Honghua's motion for summary judgment, the company settled
the case for an undisclosed amount.

What can a company in the oil and gas industry do to minimize IC
misclassification liability?

Class action lawyers have not diminished their focus on these
types of lawsuits against companies in the oil and gas industry.
For example, in January 2018, another proposed class action
lawsuit was filed against a company by MWD operators paid on a
1099 basis.  They allege they and other similarly situated MWD
operators have been misclassified as ICs and not paid overtime
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the
federal wage and hour laws.

The threshold inquiry by any company using ICs should be whether
the workers in question are suitable candidates for payment on a
1099 basis.  Not all workers are, and he tests for IC status vary
dramatically between the states and there are different tests
under various federal statutes.

Unlike employees, who are subject to being told "how" to do their
work, the most important factor in determining IC status is
whether the workers themselves decide the manner and means by
which they render services, consistent of course with industry
standards and any legal or client requirements.

Even if the workers in question may qualify as ICs, companies all
too often create their own exposure to IC misclassification if
they fail to properly structure, document, and implement their IC
relationships in a manner that complies with IC laws.  This is
where a comprehensive process, such as IC Diagnostics, can be
effectively deployed, assessing well over 48 factors bearing on
workers' IC status before an IC relationship is established --
or, if it is already in existence, determining how it can be
restructured, re-documented and re-implemented to minimize IC
misclassification exposure.

The tests for IC status have plagued legal practitioners and
companies for years.  Although the laws oftentimes require
companies to dot many i's and cross many t's, a great number of
the factors bearing on IC status are counter-intuitive.

What can happen to a company that does not structure or document
its IC relationships in a manner that enhances compliance? The
results can be costly, such as what happened to one of the
country's Fortune 500 companies, FedEx.  The wording of its
independent contractor agreement covering its Ground Division
drivers was held by two federal appellate courts as creating an
employment relationship as a matter of law.  As a result, FedEx
was forced to settle several dozen IC misclassification cases for
nearly $500 million in the past several years.

What is a company in the oil patch to do?  There are no shortcuts
or "quick fixes" when seeking to enhance IC compliance, and "one
size fits all" solutions are likely to be ill-fitting.  Companies
that rely on ICs should seek out sustainable solutions that offer
state-of-the-art approaches to enhancing IC compliance.  While
such an approach is more time-intensive, a customized approach is
far more likely to effectively minimize IC misclassification
exposure. [GN]


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *