CAR_Public/180604.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, June 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 111



                            Headlines


8POINT3 ENERGY: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics
A PLACE FOR MOM: June 19 "Pine" Class Certification Bid Filing
ACCOUNT RECOVERY: Costa Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Securities Suit Denied
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Fattig" Sues Over Autodialed Marketing Calls

APPLE INC: "Donahoe" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
APPLE REIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilchfort" Securities Suit
AVVO INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges False Representation in Website
BAR 20: June 6 Filing Due of "Maciel" Deal Prelim OK Bid Briefing
BECTON DICKINSON: Counsel Requests for New Hernia MDL

BECTON DICKINSON: Agreement Reached in 13,658 Women's Health Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Liable in Filter Product Suit, Jury Says
BENJAMIN MOORE: "Keats" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
BIOCERES SA: Suit vs Biotech Firms Pending in Argentina
BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Suit Pending in NJ

BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bondholders' Suit in Okla.
BOK FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Action Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Surgical Mesh Suits
BKLYN COMMONS: "Kiler" Claims Website not Blind-accessible
BRP US INC: "Dickerson" Sues Over Denied Warranty Claim

CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Ortiz Hits Illegal Use of Personal Data
CARLYLE GROUP: Still Defends Class Action over Cobalt Int'l
CBOE EXCHANGE: Sued for Volatility Index Derivative Price-Fixing
CBOE EXCHANGE: Bueno Sues Over Derivatives Price-fixing
CBOE EXCHANGE: Huang Files Suit Asserting Price Manipulation

CHEMED CORP: Employee Suits vs. VITAS Pending
CHEN'S INC: Gratta Sues to Recover Illegally-withheld Tips
CHINA FINANCE: Plaintiffs Request for Final Distribution
CHK UTICA: "Henceroth" Suit Seeks Damages Over Royalties
CIGNA CORP: "Young" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible

CIT GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended "Wieck" Suit
CITIGROUP INC: "Contant" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Oklahoma Firefighters Sue over Mexican Bonds
CIVEO CORP: Injunction Motion Withdrawn in "Suhr" Suit
CNX RESOURCES: Final Approval Hearing in "Hale" Set for Aug. 23

CNX RESOURCES: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in "Addison"
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: $12.5MM Settlement Wins Final Approval
CORECIVIC INC: Must Defend Against "Grae" Suit
COSAN LIMITED: Has R$471.MM Labor Claim Provisions as of Dec. 31
COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Civil Class Action Stayed

CREDITORS RELIEF: Menichiello Hits Autodialed Marketing Calls
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Deal Reached in California Trucking Suit
CSK AUTO: Court Continues CMC in "Melgar" Suit to June 21
CUBESMART: Settlement in NJ Class Suit Granted Final Approval
DIAMOND RESORTS: Reply Deadline in "Dropp" Moved

DRIVELINE RETAIL: "Lavender" Sues Over Compromised Personal Data
E TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Rayner" Suit Underway
E TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Schwab" Suit Remains Pending
EDISON INT'L: At Least 52 Suits Filed Related to Thomas Fire
EDISON INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Case Dismissal Order

EDISON INT'L: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit
EL CAJON, CA: Murphy Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
ELBIT IMAGING: "Gadish" Settlement Funds Held in Escrow
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Actos
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend "Bentele" Class Suit

ELI LILLY: Suit by MSP Recovery Remains Pending
ENEL CHILE: Consumer Class Action vs. Unit Underway
ENERGY PROFESSIONALS: "Nigh" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EQUIFAX INFO: Hotchkiss Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
ETOWAH COUNTY, AL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Brannon"

ETOWAH COUNTY, AL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Hunter"
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Underway
EXPEDIA GROUP: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Arnold" Suit
EXPEDIA GROUP: "Dupler" Class Action Dismissed
FACEBOOK INC: Johnson Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy

FACEBOOK INC: Wing Files Suit Over Personal Data Breach
FACEBOOK INC: Kooser Files Suit Over Data Breach
FACEBOOK INC: O'Hara Files Suit Over Data Breach
FACEBOOK INC: "Haslinger" Suit Hits Data Breach
FEDERATED PAYMENT: Atkinson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

FINNEGANS WAY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FIRST SOLAR: Asks 9th Circuit to Reconsider Ruling
FRENCHRESTO LLC: "Damavolitis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
FUNKO INC: "Jacobs" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
GC SERVICES LTD: Parsons Disputes Collection Letter

GENT'S PLACE: "Kaplan" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
GRUPO AVAL: Defending Suits over Pension Funds, Mortgage Rates
HARDINGE INC: Assad Trust Seeks to Halt Sale to Privet Fund
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Faces "Rodgers" Suit in Florida
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Investors Drop Federal-Mogul Suit in Delaware

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Investors Drop Federal-Mogul Suit in Michigan
IZEA INC: "Perez" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
JACKSON HEWITT: 3rd Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in "Scoma" Denied
JB HUNT: Wants Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Decision
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloway Files Product Liability Suit

KAIYI INC: Quan Seeks OT Pay, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements
KASS SHULER: "Keyte" Suit Disputes Erroneous Collection Letter
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Sandusky Wellness Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in "Davis" Suit Still Pending
LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Bouffard" Suit Granted
LABORATORY CORP: "Gonzalez" Suit Still Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: "Sealock" Class Suit Underway
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway
LG DISPLAY: Canadian Class Suits vs. LCD Makers Already Concluded

LG DISPLAY: Consumer Group's Bid over Service of Suit Pending
LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in Calif. Granted OK
LIFE STORAGE: Awaits Final Approval of $8 Million Settlement
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Howard"
LOMA NEGRA: Petition in Error in Argentinian Class Suit Underway

LONGFIN CORP: Miller Files Suit of Share Price Drop
LONGFIN CORP: "Loong" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
MANHATTAN LAUNDRY: "Juarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASTEC NETWORK: "Hays" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAVERICK DESIGN: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation

MDL 2672: Volkswagen's Bid to Enforce Settlement Partly Granted
MOTIVATIONAL COACHES: Coaches Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Texas
NESTLE USA: Littlejohn Sues Over Product Mislabeling
NEW A&A PIZZA: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums

NEW DAWN: "Moya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
NRG ENERGY: $7 Million Settlement Wins Final Approval
NRG ENERGY: "Braun" Suit Pending in California
NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Heard in "Griffoul" Suit
NRG ENERGY: "Rice" Class Action Still Ongoing

OHIO: Court Partly Grants Class Certification in "Ball" Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM: "Mahabadi" Hits Share Price Drop
PANERA BREAD: Rewards Card Holders Sue Over Data Breach
PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Ct. OKs "Castillo" Conditional Certification
PG&E CORP: Calif. Suits over Transmission Lines Ongoing

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: "Hester" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PLAINS ALL: 3rd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bruner Sues Over Engine Fire Hazzard
PREMIER CC INC: "Elkish" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Gifford" Disputes Collection Letter

QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan"
RAYMOND JAMES: Kampert Files Suit Over FCRA Breach
RH INC: Court Issues Case Management Schedule in Securities Suit
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Associated Deal Deadlines in "Singh" Moved
S GROVER CPA: "Garcia" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

SAKS FIFTH AVE: Mekerdijian Sues Over Data Breach
SHIPLEY ENERGY: Lowry Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SIG SAUER: Hartley Files Suit Over Pistols' Safety Issues
SIMPLY RIGHT: "Perales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SIRIUS XM: May 29 Due to File "Buchanan" Class Certification Bid

SKY SOLAR: Plaintiffs Balk at Bid to Drop "Barilli" Class Action
SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Underway
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for Approval of Notice Program Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim

SPRINGBOARD MEDIA: "Dessaigne" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUNNY DELIGHT: Hunt Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Calif.
SUNRISE FAMILY: Cordero Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SYNACOR INC: "Lefkowitz" Suit Hits Share Drop from Bad Forecast
TARGET CORP: "Greenberg" Filing, Class Cert. Schedule Moved

TD BANK NA: Melackrinos Files Suit Over Illegal Charges
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Bristol County Hits Share Price Drop
THAT'S IT: Medina Files Suit Over Deceptive Products Labels
TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seek Compensation for Travel Time
TOPMARK FUNDING: Northrup Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Court Narrows Claims in "Alston" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: "Morgate" Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 4th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Order
UPSIDE SERVICES: Jairam Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
US STEEL: Continues to Defends Shareholder Suit in W.D. Pa.

VERA INTERIOR: "Hernandez" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WABASH NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Supreme Underway
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: 9th Circuit Appeal Pending
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd
WISCONSIN: Court Party Extends "Austin" Litigation Schedule

WOOD GROUP: Bid to Decertify "Fenley" Class of Inspectors Denied
WORLD WRESTLING: Summary Judgment Granted in Singleton/LoGrasso
YAMANA GOLD: Canadian Malartic Mine Suit Underway
ZUFFA LLC: Class Notice Order in "Park" Modified


                            *********


8POINT3 ENERGY: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 8Point3 Energy Partners LP, Charles D.
Boynton, Mark R. Widmar, Natalie F. Jackson, Alex Bradley, Thomas
C. O'Connor, Norman J. Szydlowski and Michael W. Yackira,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00493, (D. Del., April 3, 2018), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
8point3 Energy Partners LP by affiliates of Capital Dynamics,
Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

8point3 is a limited partnership that owns, operates and acquires
solar energy generation projects.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Partnership's
Class A shareholders will receive $12.35 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a proxy
statement that failed to disclose revenues from unconsolidated
affiliates, principal repayments related to refinancing
activities, all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash
flow, all line items used to calculate adjusted earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


A PLACE FOR MOM: June 19 "Pine" Class Certification Bid Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN PINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A PLACE FOR MOM, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1826 (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the parties' stipulation
to extend the time for the Plaintiff to seek class certification.

The class action lawsuit was filed by former named Plaintiff
Andrew Kim in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on Aug. 7, 2017.  On Dec. 5, 2017, the case was
transferred to the Court.  On Feb. 12, 2018, the parties served
their initial discovery disclosures upon each other.

On Feb. 2, 2018, the Plaintiff served interrogatories and
requests for production of documents on the Defendant.  The
Defendant served its responses and objections to the Plaintiff's
interrogatories and requests for production on March 12, 2018,
and supplemental responses and objections on March 30, 2018.

The parties have held three telephonic conferences in order to
meet and confer about the Defendant's discovery responses.  To
date, the Defendant has produced approximately 180 pages of
additional documents in response to the Plaintiff's discovery
requests, but the Defendant anticipates producing additional
documents.

On March 5, 2018, the Defendant served interrogatories and
requests for production on the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff served
his discovery responses on the Defendant on April 4, 2018.  The
parties met and conferred about these responses on April 10,
2018.

The Plaintiff served subpoenas on two vendors that performed
services for the Defendant.  The Defendant recently disclosed the
existence of another vendor, which may require issuance of an
additional subpoena.

The parties each served deposition notices and are in the process
of scheduling depositions for a time after relevant documents
have been produced.

On Feb. 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order setting a schedule
for discovery and trial.  Under that schedule, the class
certification discovery is set to close on April 23, 2018.
However, given the status of the Defendant's investigation into
the remaining documents to be produced by the Defendant, the
pending non-party discovery, and the depositions that will occur
after additional documents have been produced, the parties
believe that a modest extension of the class certification
discovery deadline would best facilitate the efficient
prosecution of the action.

Therefore, they stipulated and Judge Zilly approved that the
deadline to complete discovery on the class certification issues
is extended by eight weeks, to June 18, 2018, and the deadline to
file any motions related to the class certification is extended
by four weeks to July 19, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/47cWXl from Leagle.com.

Kevin Pine, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro
hac vice, Gary Michael Klinger -- gklinger@kozonislaw.com --
KOZONIS LAW, LTD., pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens --
jspragens@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice & Sharon M. Lee --
slee@lchb.com -- LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP.

A Place For Mom Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Debra Rae Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com --
PERKINS COIE, pro hac vice, James G. Snell  --
JSnell@perkinscoie.com --  PERKINS COIE LLP, pro hac vice & James
F. Williams -- JWilliams@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


ACCOUNT RECOVERY: Costa Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Ania Costa, Mabel Ruano and Roger Ruano, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Account Recovery
Solutions LLC, Payment Management Services USA, LLC and
Perfection Collection, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-21350,
(S.D. Fla., April 5, 2018), seeks statutory and actual damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action, including expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and other and further relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collection agencies assigned to the
Plaintiffs. They allegedly made phone calls that created a false
sense of urgency to intimidate Plaintiffs, and to prompt them to
respond "immediately" by threatening to visit their residence
that same day, at which time they would be required to make
themselves available with photo identification. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
             akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
AllState Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has denied
defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit.

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a putative
class action filed in November 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and several of its officers asserting claims under the federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers
made allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning
claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency
increase for Allstate brand auto insurance.

Plaintiffs' further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises and sales during that time allegedly while in
possession of nonpublic information about claim frequency. The
Company, its chairman and chief executive officer and its former
president are the named defendants. Defendants answered the
complaint, disputing plaintiffs' allegations that there was any
misstatement or omission or other misconduct, after the court
denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018.

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property and casualty insurance, and life insurance businesses
in the United States and Canada. The company is based in
Northbrook, Illinois.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Fattig" Sues Over Autodialed Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Fattig, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Express Company, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv- 00177 (N.D. Okla., April 2, 2018), seeks treble
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

American Express Company is a bank who attempted to call the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number by using an automated
dialing system, including the use of an artificial or prerecorded
voice, without prior consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darrell W. Downs, Esq.
      R. Stratton Taylor, Esq.
      TAYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT, DOWNS, RAMSEY & RUSSELL, P.C.
      400 West Fourth Street (Ground Delivery) P.O. Box 309
      Claremore, OK 74018
      Tel: (918) 343-4100
      Fax: (918) 343-4900
      Email: ddowns@soonerlaw.com
             staylor@soonerlaw.com

             - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Phone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


APPLE INC: "Donahoe" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Carter Donahoe, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. CV-18-894080, (Comm. Pleas, Ohio, March 6, 2018), was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on
April 4, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-00763.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including but not limited
to, compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and costs incurred by counsel for
Plaintiffs in accordance with Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act
and Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

The complaint says Apple failed to inform consumers that updating
their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS
11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance
of these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that
phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the
phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying
a new phone. iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5
and 6 running versions of iOS 10 software, it adds.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Wertheim, Esq.
      James S Wertheim LLC
      24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Tel/Fax: (216) 446-8001

Defendant is represented by:

      Patrick M. Hagan, Esq.
      Laurie A. Witek, Esq.
      DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
      255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 977-8200
      Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
      Email: patrick.hagan@dinsmore.com


APPLE REIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilchfort" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the the case, MARSHA WILCHFORT on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. GLADE M. KNIGHT, APPLE REIT EIGHT, INC., APPLE SIX ADVISORS,
INC., APPLE REIT SEVEN, INC., APPLE EIGHT ADVISORS, INC. and
APPLE FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, APPLE SEVEN ADVISORS, INC., APPLE
HOSPITALITY REIT, INC., BRE SELECT HOTELS CORP., GLENN W.
BUNTING, KENT W. COLTON, LISA B. KERN, BRUCE MATSON, MICHAEL S.
WATERS and ROBERT M. WILEY, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-01046
(MKB) (E.D. N.Y.).

Wilchfort commenced the putative class action on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated against, inter alia,
the Defendants, asserting claims under Virginia law for breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and tortious interference with contract.

Beginning in 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively, A-6, A-7, and A-
8 each instituted a Dividend Reinvestment Program ("DRIP").
Under DRIP, shareholders were offered the choice of receiving
additional units in lieu of cash dividends.  In exchange for
these dividends, shareholders received shares at "fair market
value," a rate determined by one of two methods: (a) the most
recent price at which an unrelated person had purchased the
units, (b) or another measure determined in the good faith
judgment of the boards of directors.  Thus, unless the boards
chose otherwise, shares were to be priced at the rate purchased
by the last non-shareholder.

Throughout the entire alleged "Class Period," ranging from July
17, 2007 through Feb. 12, 2014, all three Apple REITs assessed
fair market value at eleven dollars per share, the most recent
price at which an unrelated person had purchased the Apple REIT
units according to the Defendants' various public filings.

Relying in part on a SEC Administrative Order imposing penalties
on the Apple REITS for various violations of federal securities
law, Wilchfort alleges that the Defendants were aware that the
actual fair market value of their shares was well below $11.
Wilchfort further alleges that shares of A-7 and A-8 had been
purchased by unrelated persons for much less than $11 per share
in various tender offers.  In light of these circumstances,
Wilchfort asserts that the Defendants failed to live up to their
agreement to, in good faith, revalue units from time to time and
to price units at the most recent price at which an unrelated
person has purchased the units.

Defendants AHR and BRE separately move to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Brodie disagrees with AHR Defendants' construction of the
Plaintiff's claims as to their theory of breach.  She says
although the Complaint is not entirely clear, the section on
breach of contract does incorporate earlier allegations that
encompass the theories of breach as clarified in the opposition
submission.

The Judge next finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled
breach of obligations to price the shares at fair market value,
defined as the most recent price an unrelated person has
purchased the Defendants' units, as to A-7 and A-8 but not A-6.
The Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a failure to re-price A-7 and
A-8, but not A-6, following tender offers of units at less than
eleven dollars per unit.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged breach of contract claims against Defendants
AHR but not BRE.

As to injury claim, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged injury under the traditional measure of
damages recognized under Virginia law.  Nevertheless, the
Plaintiff fails to state a contract claim as to Defendant BRE
because she has not alleged any failure to re-price the A-6 units
following a tender offer for less than $11 per unit.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Indeed, the implied covenant may be particularly important, in
circumstances as in the case, where the plaintiffs must
necessarily leave the decisionmaking process to the expertise of
the Defendants with specialized knowledge in a relevant field.
Accordingly, she says the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a
breach of the implied covenant as to all Defendants.

Under New York law, the Plaintiff's claims accrued in Florida
where she resides and sustained economic injury.  Therefore, the
Judge holds, the shorter of either Florida's or New York's
statute of limitations applies.  Florida imposes a five-year
limitations period for breach of contract actions.  By contrast,
New York enforces a six-year limitations period.  Thus, Florida's
shorter five-year period applies.  And because the action was
filed on Feb. 24, 2017, the Plaintiff's claims based on the
exchange of dividends for units that occurred after Feb. 24, 2012
-- five years prior to filing -- are not time-barred.

Finally, with respect to equitable tolling, the Judge finds that
in view of the significance the Second Circuit has attached to
cross-jurisdictional tolling, she will decline to read into
Florida law such an equitable doctrine in the absence of clear
statutory authority or binding case-law. Thus, the Plaintiff's
claims, including as to A-7, are limited to those arising after
Feb. 24, 2012.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brodie granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  As to the
breach of contract claims, she denied the motion to dismiss as to
Defendant AHR, but granted the motion without prejudice as to the
Defendant BRE, based on the failure to re-price the units
following tender offers below $11 per unit.  As to the breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, the
Judge denied the motion to dismiss as to all Defendants based on
the theory that they declined to exercise their discretion to re-
price the shares solely for their own benefit.  All claims are
limited in time to events occurring on or after Feb. 24, 2012.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/P3uznv from Leagle.com.

Marsha Wilchfort, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Ralph Santoli
& Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

Glade M Knight, Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Six Advisors,
Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Fund Management, LLC, Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple
Hospitality REIT, Inc., Glenn W Bunting, Kent W. Colton, Lisa B.
Kern, Bruce Matson, Michael S. Waters & Robert M. Wiley,
Defendants, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards --
eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice &
Marshall Beil -- mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods.

BRE Select Hotels Corp., Defendant, represented by Jonathan K.
Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
& Meredith Dawn Karp, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.


AVVO INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges False Representation in Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Avvo Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
02835, (S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to
enjoin Avvo from providing false or misleading descriptions and
misrepresentations of fact; and damages and disgorgement of
profits for violation of the Lanham Act (False Advertising) and
New York General Business Law.

The complaint says Avvo operates a website that provide an
internet-based for-profit attorney marketing services. Its
website maintains separate individual webpage profiles for what
it represents are all licensed attorneys in the United States
without any attorney involvement or consent, purporting to
compile relevant information from public sources. Avvo collects
fees from attorneys who subscribe to their services and steers
prospective clients towards those paying for the service. Persons
reviewing Avvo's website regarding the purchase of legal services
are entitled by law to be informed about Avvo's connections to
paying attorneys and the fact that Avvo benefits financially if
potential clients hire them.

Davis is a licensed New York attorney who actively practices law.
He claims that Avvo's reviews are determined based on merit and
are unbiased and by concealing the fact that Avvo provides higher
ratings in exchange for payment of a portion of the fees
collected. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Goldenberg, Esq.
      Jared B. Stamell, Esq.
      Richard J. Schager, Jr., Esq.
      STAMELL & SCHAGER, LLP
      1 Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 566-4047
      Facsimile: (212) 566-4061
      Email: goldenberg@ssnylaw.com
             schager@ssnylaw.com

             - and -

      Jason R. Bleck, Esq.
      1 Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 566-4047
      Facsimile: (212) 566-4061


BAR 20: June 6 Filing Due of "Maciel" Deal Prelim OK Bid Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved
employees" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiffs, v.
BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a California limited liability company, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-
DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California approved the
parties' stipulation extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file
supplemental briefing in support of the motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement from May 7, 2018 to June 6,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/c1aNBJ from Leagle.com.

Jose Maciel, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline
Tahmassian Zarneh -- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law
Firm & David Glenn Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak
Law Firm.

Elvis Bonilla, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce
Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC
& Kelsey M. Peterson-More -- kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com --
Kingsley & Kingsley.

Bar 20 Dairy, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Joseph Vidal Macias --
joseph@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, S.
Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & Wesley Lawrence Carlson --
wesley@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.


BECTON DICKINSON: Counsel Requests for New Hernia MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs'
attorneys have filed a request for the creation of a new hernia
multi-district litigation ("MDL") in either the Southern District
of Ohio or the Western District of Missouri.

As of March 31, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
1,280 product liability claims involving Bard's line of hernia
repair devices (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The
majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also
pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions
in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.
From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions
with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia
Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in various state
and federal courts.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months. On April 11, 2018,
plaintiffs' attorneys filed a request for the creation of a new
hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") in either the Southern
District of Ohio or the Western District of Missouri.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted
and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The company
is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Agreement Reached in 13,658 Women's Health Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company has
reached agreements in approximately 13,658 of the Women's Health
Product Claims.

As of March 31, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
3,195 product liability claims involving Bard's line of pelvic
mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending
in a federal MDL in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a
coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,080 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against Bard but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a Bard pelvic mesh device is
actually at issue. The claims identified above also include
products manufactured by both Bard and two subsidiaries of
Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc)
("Medtronic"), each a supplier of Bard.

Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify Bard with
respect to any product defect liability relating to products its
subsidiaries had manufactured. As described below, in July 2015
the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which was
amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's
indemnification obligation. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled
claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with
claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or
agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively
as the "Women's Health Product Claims." The Women's Health
Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury
allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of March 31, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 13,658 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of
lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each
agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.

The Company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional
inventory settlements.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The company
is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Liable in Filter Product Suit, Jury Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a jury in the
Filter Product Claims in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in
favor of plaintiffs.

In connection with the acquisition of Bard, as of March 31, 2018,
the Company is defending approximately 3,789 product liability
claims involving Bard's line of inferior vena cava filters
(collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The majority of
those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, but claims are also
pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions,
including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally
seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of
the products. The Company has limited information regarding the
nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The
Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other
unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could
materially impact the Company's estimate of the number of claims
or lawsuits against the Company.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in the MDL and state courts.
On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the
Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a
verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was
not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict
liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. The Company
intends to challenge that verdict.

The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims
may take place over the next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The company
is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BENJAMIN MOORE: "Keats" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Adam Keats, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin Moore & Co. and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG18893683
filed on February 20, 2018, was removed from California Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 4, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-
02050.

Benjamin Moore -- www.benjaminmoore.com -- is a paint company
based in Montvale NJ. Plaintiff disputes Benjamin Moore's
advertising and marketing of its Natura Paint products as being
"green" and having no harsh emissions and fumes. Keats is suing
for breach of express warranty in violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law
and seeks to recover damages, restitution, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

Benjamin Moore is represented by:

      Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 586-7700
      Fax: (310) 586-7800
      Email: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

             - and -

      Leanna C. Costantini, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
      3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Tel: (949) 732-6500
      Fax: (949) 732-6501
      Email: costantinil@gtlaw.com


BIOCERES SA: Suit vs Biotech Firms Pending in Argentina
-------------------------------------------------------
Bioceres S.A. said in its Amendment No. 4 to Form F-1
Registration Statement under the Securities Act filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an extraordinary
appeal to the Supreme Court was filed in a class action suit
filed in Argentina against the national government and certain
biotechnology companies, including the company.

In Argentina, a class action suit has been initiated against the
national government and certain biotechnology companies,
including the company, requesting, among other changes, the
mandatory labelling of GM foods and environmental protection of
land use.

As of the date of this prospectus, the plaintiffs' request for an
injunction against GMO approvals was rejected by the Federal
Court of Appeals and an extraordinary appeal at the Supreme Court
was filed, the practicable chances of success of which are low.

Bioceres S.A., an integrated agricultural technology company,
creates, develops, deregulates, and commercializes technologies
for agricultural and agro-industrial biotechnology markets in
South America. The company operates through Seed Biotechnology,
Agro-Industrial Biotechnology, and Research and Development
Services segments. The company is based in Santa Fe, Argentina.


BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Suit Pending in NJ
----------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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
putative class action suit filed by two bondholders in the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey.

On August 26, 2016, the Bank was sued in the United States
District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative
class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging the
Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. On September 14, 2016, the Bank was sued in the
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders
alleging the Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of
securities by the principals. Two separate small groups of
bondholders have filed arbitration complaints with the Financial
Institutions Regulatory Association respecting the bonds and
other bonds for which the Bank served as indenture trustee.

Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank has valid
defenses to the claims.

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding
company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and
services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas,
Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three
segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth
Management. The company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bondholders' Suit in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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
putative class action suit filed by bondholders in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

On March 14, 2017, the Bank was sued in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by
bondholders in a second putative class action representing a
different set of municipal securities. The bondholders in this
second action allege two individuals purchased facilities from
the principals who are the subject of the SEC New Jersey
proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of
municipal securities for which the Bank also served as indenture
trustee.

The bondholders allege the Bank failed to disclose that the
seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct
complained of in the New Jersey action. The Bank properly
performed all duties as indenture trustee of this second set of
municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings against the
issuer of the securities when default occurred, is cooperating
with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is not a
target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by counsel
that the Bank has valid defenses to the claims of these
bondholders. It is the opinion of management that no loss is
probable at this time.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding
company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and
services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas,
Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three
segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth
Management. The company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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 motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit in Texas remains pending.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by the Bank is
interest and exceeds permitted rates. The Bank was previously
sued in a class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma making the same allegations.
Pursuant to a motion to dismiss, the Northern District of
Oklahoma Court action was dismissed. Other courts considering the
question whether extended overdraft fees are interest have
likewise determined such fees are not interest.

The Bank has moved to dismiss the action. The Northern District
of Texas Action was dismissed upon motion by the Bank with leave
granted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The Bank has again moved to dismiss
the complaint, which motion to dismiss is pending before the
Court.

Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding
company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and
services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas,
Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three
segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth
Management. The company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Surgical Mesh Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to transvaginal
surgical mesh products.

As of April 24, 2018, approximately 49,500 product liability
cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products
designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ
prolapse have been asserted against the company. The pending
cases are in various federal and state courts in the United
States and include eight putative class actions. There were also
approximately 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and
three putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims in the
United Kingdom.

Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of the Company's transvaginal surgical mesh products. The
plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the
cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in
Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and
transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to
MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth
quarter of 2013, the company received written discovery requests
from certain state attorneys general offices regarding the
Company's transvaginal surgical mesh products.

The company has responded to those requests. As of April 24,
2018, the company has entered into master settlement agreements
in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain
plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately
47,500 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements
provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds
to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other
things, achieving minimum required claimant participation
thresholds.

Of the approximately 47,500 cases and claims, approximately
21,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final.
All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any
liability or wrongdoing.

Boston Scientific Corporation is a global developer, manufacturer
and marketer of medical devices that are used in a broad range of
interventional medical specialties. The company is based in
Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BKLYN COMMONS: "Kiler" Claims Website not Blind-accessible
----------------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BKLYN Commons, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02000 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2018),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Bklyn Commons Workspaces provides spaces and desks for doing work
and membership via a website, Bklyncommons.com which allows
consumers to book a tour, sign up for membership, view pricing
options and times of operation. Plaintiff browsed and intended to
find a Bklyn Commons location, book a tour and sign up for an
open desk on Bklyncommons.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel. (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


BRP US INC: "Dickerson" Sues Over Denied Warranty Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dickerson, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BRP US, Inc.,
Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. and BRP, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-06269 (W.D. N.Y., April 3, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from further using deceptive marketing; removal and
replacement of defective exhaust systems with a suitable
alternative product; compensatory, exemplary, statutory damages;
treble and punitive damages, including interest; disgorgement of
all ill-gotten profits received from the sale of defective
personal watercrafts; full restitution; attorneys' fees and
costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other
relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty,
statutory fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act.

On June 29, 2016, Mr. Dickerson purchased two 2016 Sea-Doo GTX
S155 PWCs from Filer's Powersports, an authorized Sea-Doo
retailer in Macedon, New York. Its exhaust system resonator
melted and took on water. However, Defendants have refused to
make the necessary repairs under the applicable warranties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Andrew C. White, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 298-3281
      Fax: (914) 824-1561
      Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
             awhite@fbfglaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
      MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 228-9898
      Fax: (973) 228-0303
      Email: mmendelsohn@mskf.net


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Ortiz Hits Illegal Use of Personal Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ortiz and Victor Mallh, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cambridge Analytica,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02901, (S.D. N.Y., April 1, 2018),
seeks all actual, consequential, statutory and/or treble damages,
as well as any applicable interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and such other injunctive and declaratory relief for
violation of New York General Business Law.

Facebook allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least
50 million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information
for political marketing purposes, without their authorization.
This personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Plaintiffs are Facebook users who alleged manipulation of their
accounts for political purposes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             mfarmer@gardylaw.com
             mgardy@gardylaw.com

             - and -

      Lee Squitieri, Esq.
      Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 421-6492
      Fax: (212) 421-6553
      Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com
             stephen@sfclasslaw.com


CARLYLE GROUP: Still Defends Class Action over Cobalt Int'l
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. continues to defend state class action
claims related to Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Carlyle
Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

Cobalt was a company owned by two of the Legacy Energy funds and
funds advised by certain other private equity sponsors. Cobalt
and certain of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection on
December 14, 2017.

A federal securities class action against Cobalt (In re Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation) was filed in
November 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, seeking monetary damages and alleging that
Cobalt and its directors made misrepresentations in certain of
Cobalt's securities offering filings relating to: (i) the value
of oil reserves in Angola for which Cobalt had acquired drilling
concessions, and (ii) its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act regarding its operations in Angola and a U.S.
government investigation regarding the same.

The securities class action also named as co-defendants certain
securities underwriters and the five private equity sponsors of
Cobalt, including Riverstone and the Partnership. The class
action alleged that the Partnership has liability as a "control
person" for the alleged misrepresentations in Cobalt's securities
offerings as well as insider trading liability.

The federal court dismissed the insider trading claim against the
Partnership. In addition to the class action in federal court,
derivative claims were also filed in Texas state court in Houston
(Ira Gaines v. Joseph Bryant, et al.) on similar grounds,
alleging that the private equity sponsors, including the
Partnership, breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in
insider trading.

Carlyle Group said no Partnership employee served as a director
or executive of Cobalt, and Carlyle vigorously contests all
allegations made against the Partnership.

Cobalt's Chapter 11 plan included releases by Cobalt of any
claims, including derivative claims, that Cobalt could have
brought arising out of Cobalt's affairs. That Chapter 11 plan was
approved on April 5, 2018, but the state class action claim
against the Partnership has not yet been dismissed.

The Carlyle Group LP is an investment firm specializing in direct
and fund of fund investments in Fintech sector. Within direct
investments, it specializes in management-led/ Leveraged buyouts,
privatizations, divestitures, strategic minority equity
investments, structured credit, global distressed and corporate
opportunities, small and middle market, equity private
placements, consolidations and buildups, senior debt, mezzanine
and leveraged finance, and venture and growth capital financings,
seed/startup, early venture, emerging growth, turnaround, mid
venture, late venture, PIPES. The company is based in Washington,
D.C.


CBOE EXCHANGE: Sued for Volatility Index Derivative Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Palatiello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. and CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02490 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2018), seeks treble damages arising
from the alleged manipulation of the prices of financial
instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange
Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act and the
Commodities Exchange Act.

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

Volatility Index is a benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. It purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap
U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future. Palatiello transacted in
VIX-linked products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Bueno Sues Over Derivatives Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Roland Bueno, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., CBOE
Global Markets, Inc., CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, and John Does,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02435 (N.D. Ill., April 5, 2018),
seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged manipulation of
the prices of financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman
Act, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Commodities Exchange
Act.

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

Volatility Index is a benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. It purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap
U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future.

Bueno transacted in VIX-linked products.

John Does are a group of unnamed financial institutions, market
makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Barz, Esq.
     Frank Richter, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 674 4674
     Fax: (312) 674 4676
     Email: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
            frichter@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
     Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Email: davem@rgrdlaw.com
            bomara@rgrdlaw.com
            sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
     New York, NY 10007
     Telephone: (212) 693-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Email: patc@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Jason C. Davis, Esq.
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 288-4545
     Fax: (415) 288 4534
     Email: jdavis@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Jonathan C. Bunge, Esq.
     Daniel R. Lombard, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 705-7400
     Fax: (312) 705-7401
     Email: jonathanbunge@quinnemanuel.com
            daniellombard@quinnemanuel.com

            - and -

     Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
     Toby E. Futter, Esq.
     David LeRay, Esq.
     Christopher M. Seck, Esq.
     Thomas Popejoy, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Telephone: (212) 849-7000
     Fax: (212) 849-7100
     Email: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
            tobyfutter@quinnemanuel.com
            davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
            christopherseck@quinnemanuel.com
            thomaspopejoy@quinnemanuel.com

            - and -

     Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
     865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 443-3000
     Fax: (213) 443-3100
     Email: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Huang Files Suit Asserting Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Huang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., CBOE Global Markets,
Inc., CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, and John Does, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-02460 (N.D. Ill., April 5, 2018), seeks treble damages
arising out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of
financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options
Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Commodities Exchange Act.

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

Volatility Index is a benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. It purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap
U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future.

Huang transacted in VIX-linked products.

John Does are an unnamed group of financial institutions, market
makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
Plaintiffs will be able to identify Defendants through discovery
and will request leave to amend this complaint upon learning the
identity of Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachary J. Ziliak, Esq.
     ZILIAK LAW, LLC
     141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 4048
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 462-3350
     Email: zachary@ziliak.com

            - and -

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     Brian Morrison, Esq.
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            cmcdonald@labaton.com
            mperez@labaton.com
            bmorrison@labaton.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
     Brian Levin, Esq.
     DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
     Grand Bay Plaza
     2665 S. Bayshore Drive
     Miami, FL 33133
     Tel: (305) 600-2528
     Email: jkaplan@dkrpa.com
            blevin@dkrpa.com


CHEMED CORP: Employee Suits vs. VITAS Pending
---------------------------------------------
Chemed 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's affiliate, VITAS Healthcare,
is facing multiple employee class action suits in California.

Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland
Empire program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a
lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.
She alleged VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed
to provide minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to
provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a
second meal period; (4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed
to indemnify for necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay
wages due at time of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair
business practices.  Seper seeks a state-wide class action of
current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in
California within the four years preceding the filing of the
lawsuit.

She seeks court determination that this action may be maintained
as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses,
designation as class representative, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or
overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments
for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all
applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS
Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857
on October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case").

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The
Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of
the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case. On December 16,
2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on
Seper.

Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program. On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide
overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all
hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods;
(5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all
reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9)
violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act.

Chhina seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide
class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed
with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the
filing of the lawsuit. He seeks court determination that this
action may be maintained as a class action for the entire
California class and subclasses, designation as class
representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages
(including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked
but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest period,
and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated
with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS
Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a
Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-
00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina case").
On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written
discovery on Chhina.

On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in
Sacramento) and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento)
filed a lawsuit against VITAS CA in Sacramento County Superior
Court, alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2)
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to
provide off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate
wage statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting
time penalties; (7) violations of unfair competition law; and (8)
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

The case is captioned: Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS
Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755.  Plaintiffs sought to pursue
these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current
and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS CA in
California within the four years preceding the filing of the
lawsuit. Plaintiffs served VITAS with the lawsuit on June 5,
2017. VITAS CA timely answered the Complaint generally denying
the Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has stayed all class
discovery in this case pending resolution of mediation in the
Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases.

There are currently three other lawsuits against VITAS pending in
the superior courts of other California counties that contain
claims and class periods that substantially overlap with
Phillips' and Moore's claims: the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina
cases, and Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, filed on May 22, 2017 in Alameda County Superior
Court, RG 17853886.

Jazzina Williams' (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento) lawsuit
alleges claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide off-
duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; and (7) violations of the Private Attorneys General
Act.  Williams seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a
state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt
employees.

Plaintiff served VITAS with the lawsuit on May 31, 2017. VITAS CA
timely answered the Complaint generally denying Plaintiff's
allegations. Williams is pursing discovery of her individual
claim and has agreed to a stay of class discovery pending
mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases. Defendant
filed and served each of Plaintiffs Williams, Phillips, and Moore
with a Notice of Related Cases on July 19, 2017.

Defendant understands that the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina
cases will be effectively consolidated in Los Angeles County
Superior court; Chhina will be dismissed as a separate action and
joined with Seper through the filing of an amended complaint in
Seper in which Chhina is also identified as a named plaintiff.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of
loss or range of loss for any of these lawsuits at this time.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations
in each of the above lawsuits. Regardless of the outcome of any
of the preceding matters, dealing with the various regulatory
agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us through
defense costs, potential payments, diversion of management time,
and related publicity.  Although the Company intends to defend
them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services
in the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The VITAS segment offers direct medical services, as
well as spiritual and emotional counseling services to terminally
ill patients. The company is based in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEN'S INC: Gratta Sues to Recover Illegally-withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Gratta, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chen's Inc. (d/b/a Sushi Ai), Jian Li
Chen and Rong Huang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00487 (E.D. Mo.,
March 30, 2018), seeks to recover withheld tips, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law.

Chen's Inc. owns/operates multiple restaurant locations under the
name "Sushi Ai" where Gratta worked as a server from March 2016
to March 6, 2018. Defendants required their servers and other
tipped employees to participate in an unlawful tip
pooling/sharing arrangement whereby the tipped employees had to
share their tips with food preparers who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips and who do not have sufficient customer
interaction to be lawful participants in a tip pooling/sharing
arrangement.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
     Samuel W. Moore, Esq.
     132 W. Washington Ave., Ste. 100
     Kirkwood MO 63122
     Tel: (314) 835-9100
     Fax: (314) 735-1054 fax
     Email: russ@rigganlawfirm.com


CHINA FINANCE: Plaintiffs Request for Final Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------
China Finance Online Co. 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 lead plaintiffs in
the consolidated class action suit filed in the Southern District
of New York have requested the court to authorize a second and
final distribution for the remaining settlement amount.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative securities
class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited,
1:15-cv-07894-RMB. The original complaint was filed on June 5,
2015 in the Central District of California. The case was
subsequently consolidated with several other similar actions and
transferred to the Southern District of New York, where an
amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2015.

The amended consolidated complaint alleged that the Company
violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to
disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi
Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party
transactions.

The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the
Company's current officers and its current and former auditors
and under Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its
current officers and former directors.

Lead plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed (without
prejudice) all defendants other than the Company from the action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8,
2016, to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 6, 2016 and
the Company filed a reply on May 13, 2016.

During a mediation session in May 2016, the parties agreed to
settle the action for $3.0 million. The settlement was
preliminarily approved on November 18, 2016 and notice of the
settlement was provided to putative class members. No class
members objected to the settlement and none requested exclusion.

The settlement includes a release of all claims asserted in the
Complaint (or any of the previous versions of the complaint) or
all claims that could have been asserted based on the same
operative facts at issue in the Complaint. This release applies
not only as to the Company, but also as to individuals and
entities included within the definition of "Releasees", which
definition includes, among others, current and former officers
and directors of the Company.

Following a March 21, 2017 fairness hearing, an order was entered
on March 24, 2017 approving the settlement. The order reflects
that a judgment in the action will be entered after lead
plaintiffs file their motion for final distribution of the
settlement amount. On June 23, 2017, the court granted the lead
plaintiffs' motion for a first distribution of the settlement
amount, less attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 28, 2017, lead
plaintiffs informed the court checks representing the net
settlement amount were mailed to class members.

On April 18, 2018, lead plaintiffs informed the court that checks
representing all but $2,759.76 of the net settlement amount had
been cashed, requested that the court authorize a second and
final distribution for the remaining amount, and requested that
the court enter the judgment.

The court has not yet responded to this request. Assuming the
court enters the judgment as anticipated by the settlement
approval order and there are no appeals, the approval of the
settlement will become final (and no longer subject to appeal) 30
days after the judgment is entered.

China Finance Online Co. Limited provides Web-based financial
services in the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong. The
company operates through three segments: Commodities Brokerage
Services; Online Financial Information and Advisory Service, and
Other Related Services; and Hong Kong Brokerage Services.


CHK UTICA: "Henceroth" Suit Seeks Damages Over Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Dale H. Henceroth and Marilyn S. Wendt, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHK UTICA, LLC,
Total E&P USA, Inc., Enervest Operating, L.L.C., Pelican Energy,
L.L.C., Jamestown Resources, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00753, (N.D. Ohio, April 3, 2018), seeks compensatory damages,
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs of suit
for breach of contract.

Plaintiffs own properties in Columbiana County, Ohio under lease
by Anschutz Exploration Corporation and later assigned by
Anschutz to Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C for oil and gas
royalties. CHK UTICA, LLC, Total E&P USA, Inc., Enervest
Operating, L.L.C., Pelican Energy, L.L.C., Jamestown Resources,
L.L.C. joined as lessees on the Anschutz leases and have the
obligation to pay royalties under those leases.

The complaint says rather than paying the royalties on the price
paid by the third-party buyers, the Defendants paid the royalties
on the price paid by the third-party buyers less the costs
incurred by the marketing affiliates between the well and the
downstream sale to the third-party buyers. These costs include
the costs of gathering, compression, dehydration, processing,
fractionation and interstate transportation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark A. Hutson, Esq.
     MARK A. HUTSON LAW OFFICE
     33 Pittsburgh Street
     Columbiana, OH 44408
     Tel: (330) 482-4040
     Fax: (330) 482-1953
     Email: mhutson@markhutsonlaw.com

            - and -

     James A. Lowe, Esq.
     LOWE EKLUND & WAKEFIELD CO., LPA
     1660 West Second Street
     610 Skylight Office Tower
     Cleveland, OH 44113-1454
     Tel: (216) 781-2600
     Fax: (216) 781-2610
     Email: jlowe@lewlaw.com

            - and -

     Robert L. Guehl, Esq.
     GUEHL LAW OFFICES
     2312 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 350
     Dayton, OH 45419
     Tel: (937) 479-5598
     Fax: (888) 547-2528
     Email: RGuehlEsq@gmail.com


CIGNA CORP: "Young" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Young, on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cigna Corporation and Cigna Life
Insurance Company Of New York, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03065,
(S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and
fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses
of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert
fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Cigna provides a variety of insurance options, insurance plans,
claims processing and a variety of healthcare related services.
It also markets, distributes, and/or sells insurance plans via
its website www.cigna.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-
impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
      175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10014
      Tel: (646) 770-3775
      Fax: (646) 867-2639
      Email: brad@markslawpc.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      Fax: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


CIT GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended "Wieck" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA WIECK, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIT GROUP, INC.; CIT BANK,
N.A.; FINANCIAL FREEDOM; SEATTLE SPECIALTY INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC.; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYD'S, LONDON; and, GREAT LAKES
REINSURANCE (UK), PLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-00596 JMS-RLP (D.
Haw.), Judge J. Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint
("FAC").

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, alleging several causes of action based on lender-
placed insurance ("LPI") or "force-placed" insurance on her
reverse mortgage -- specifically, hurricane coverage.  Wieck
claims the Defendants overcharged her and improperly benefitted
from the placement in violation of state and federal laws.

The FAC alleges the following Counts: (i) Count One (Breach of
Contract) against CIT; (ii) Count Two (Breach of Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) against CIT; (ii) Count Three
(Violations of Hawaii Revised Statute ("HRS") Section 480-2)
against CIT; (iv) Count Four (Violations of HRS Section 480-2)
against Seattle Specialty and the Insurer Defendants; (v) Count
Five (Tortious Interference with Business Relationship) against
Seattle Specialty and the Insurer Defendants; (vi) Count Six
(Violations of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) against all the
Defendants; (vii) Count Seven (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C.
1962(d) (conspiracy) against all the Defendants; and (viii) Count
Eight (Violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
1601 et seq. against CIT.

After several stipulations extending the time to respond to the
FAC, three separate Motions to Dismiss were filed by CIT, Seattle
Specialty, and the Insurer Defendants.  Oppositions were filed on
Aug. 7, 2017, along with the Plaintiff's Motion Requesting
Judicial Notice of Official Government Reports.  Corresponding
Replies were filed on Aug. 21, 2017.  The Motions were heard on
Sept. 11, 2017.

Following the hearing, supplemental briefing by CIT was filed on
Sept. 25, 2017, and Sept. 26, 2017.  An Opposition was filed by
the Plaintiff on Oct. 10, 2017, with a Reply by CIT on Oct. 17,
20178.  Further supplemental briefing was filed by the Plaintiff
and CIT on March 23, 2018.

The Defendants argue that Wieck lacks standing to bring claims to
the extent they are based on LPI and wrongful foreclosure.  They
contend that it is undisputed that all premiums and interest
charged to Wieck in connection with LPI were refunded before
Wieck filed suit on Nov. 4, 2016, and therefore, she has suffered
no "injury in fact" for purposes of Article III standing.

Judge Seabright disagrees.  He finds that Wieck seeks enough
damages and other relief to support having standing to bring LPI
and foreclosure-related claims.  Whether her claims might
otherwise fail does not mean there is no standing to assert them.

CIT argues that Wieck's state-law claims against it (breach of
contract, violations of HRS chapter 480) are preempted by HOLA,
which has implementing regulations that the Ninth Circuit
describes as so pervasive as to leave no room for state
regulatory control.  Despite this pervasiveness, however, the
Judge finds that HOLA does not preempt all state laws.
Preemption depends on the status of the financial institution.

Although Wieck's breach-of-contract claim would likely "affect"
lending -- leading to a presumption of preemption in accordance
with Section 560.2(a) -- it fits squarely within the contract and
commercial law exception under Section 560.2(c)(1), and would
only incidentally affect lending operations.  Hence, this breach
of contract claim is not preempted.

CIT next contends that HOLA preempts Wieck's HRS chapter 480
claims.  The Judge will grant in part and deny in part CIT's
Motion as to preemption of Wieck's chapter 480 claims.  Such
claims are preempted to the extent they are premised on a failure
to disclose information, or are being used either to limit CIT's
ability to force place insurance on properties securing loans, or
CIT's choice of insurers or premiums to be charged on the forced
placement of insurance.  But to the extent they are based on
CIT's affirmative misrepresentations, they survive CIT's HOLA
preemption challenge.  The Judge, however, will not parse the
FAC's lengthy allegations to excise the preempted aspects of the
claims.  Going forward, however, only those aspects of the FAC's
chapter 480 claims that are grounded in affirmative
misrepresentation are actionable against CIT.

Next, because the Judge has found at least some claims to be
preempted, he must determine whether preemption applies to any
actions taking place after Feb. 28, 2014 (the date CIT's
affiliate, OneWest Bank changed its charter from a federal
savings bank to a national association) -- in other words,
whether HOLA preemption attaches to the loan.  And after
carefully considering the split in views among district courts,
he agrees with those courts that have applied HOLA preemption
only to conduct occurring before the loan changed hands from the
federal savings association or bank to the entity not governed by
HOLA.

Just as he does not parse the FAC's allegations between preempted
and saved chapter 480 claims (i.e., claims that are actionable as
to affirmative misstatements), the Judge will also not parse the
FAC's allegations of wrongdoing between pre-and post-Feb. 28,
2014 conduct.  During oral argument, Wieck's counsel indicated
that, she would request leave to file a second amended complaint
to clarify whether or to what extent her claims are not
preempted.  The Judge agrees to such a request, and will grant
leave to amend to allow Wieck to attempt to assert non-HOLA
preempted chapter 480 claims.  This leave extends both to
clarifying whether claims are based on affirmative
representations and whether they occurred before or after Feb.
28, 2014.

CIT next argues that, to the extent the breach of contract and
chapter 480 claims are not preempted by HOLA, they nevertheless
fail to state a claim on the merits.  The Judge Seabright
disagrees, at least in part.  Among other things, (i) he is not
convinced by CIT's argument that the claims fail because the
mortgage expressly permits the allegedly wrongful conduct, (ii)
he is not convinced by the argument that Wieck may not assert a
breach-of-contract claim because she failed to perform first; and
(iii) he rejects CIT's argument that the breach-of-contract and
chapter 480 claims fail for lack of damages.

For largely the same reasons that Wieck's chapter 480 claims
survive CIT's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge says they also survive
Seattle Specialty and the Insurer Defendant's Motions.  In this
regard, he recognizes that claims preempted by HOLA as to CIT are
not preempted as to the other Defendants.  For that reason,
claims of deceptive or unfair practices based on non-disclosure
of material information (as opposed to affirmative
misrepresentation) may also be considered as to those Defendants.
In short, although the Defendants' Motions as to Count Four are
denied, Wieck is nevertheless granted leave to amend Count Four
to explain the basis of her claims in more detail.

Next, the Defendants challenge Counts Six and Seven, which allege
violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").  Judge Seabright agrees that these
counts fail to state plausible claims for relief.  He finds that
Wieck fails to state plausible RICO claims.  Nevertheless, he
will grant Wieck leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to
attempt to rectify these pleading deficiencies.  Count Five will
be dismissed without prejudice.  He says Wieck may attempt to
cure its deficiencies in an amended complaint.

CIT moves to dismiss Count Eight, which seeks damages against CIT
for violating the Truth in Lending Act by (1) failing to provide
new TILA disclosures when charges for LPI were added to the loan
balance, and (2) failing to disclose the amount and nature of the
"compensation" that was received from the other Defendants as a
result of the purchase of LPI.  The Judge explains that even if
the amount and nature of the "cost" of the premium was not
disclosed (something a TILA disclosure might have revealed), the
fact that the premiums were being added to the loan balance was
fully disclosed and not actively concealed.  Accordingly, Count
Eight will be dismissed without prejudice.  He will allow Wieck
an opportunity to amend her TILA claim, if possible, with non-
time-barred allegations, or to provide additional facts
justifying equitable tolling.

Finally, CIT moves to dismiss it because it is named only as a
parent holding company.  And reviewing the 73-page FAC, Judge
Seabright agrees that no substantive allegations are made as to
CIT.  Accordingly, CIT will be dismissed without prejudice.
Wieck may attempt to assert claims directly against CIT in a
Second Amended Complaint, if possible.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Seabright granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motions.  He granted leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint by May 11, 2018.  The leave is granted
solely as permitted in the Order.  If an amendment is not filed
by that date, the action will proceed with the remaining claims
of the FAC as set forth in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/5tKjrF from Leagle.com.

Julia Wieck, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Gallagher Morgan --
morgan@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, Catherine E. Anderson --
canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, pro
hac vice, James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- Bickerton
Dang LLLP, Roosevelt N. Nesmith -- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com --
Law Office of Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, pro hac vice & Stephen
M. Tannenbaum -- tannenbaum@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP.

CIT Group, Inc., CIT Bank, N.A. & Financial Freedom, Defendants,
represented by Judy A. Tanaka -- Judy.Tanaka@ahfi.com -- Alston
Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis Smith -- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice & Michelle N. Comeau, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing.

Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Andrew James Lautenbach --
alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Judy
A. Tanaka, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Mark J. Bennett --
mbennett@starnlaw.com -- Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Robyn C.
Quattrone -- rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Sakiyama -- ssakiyama@buckleysandler.com
-- BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen LeBlanc --
sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London & Great Lakes Reinsurance
(UK), PLC, other Great Lakes Reinsurance SE, Defendants,
represented by Eileen T. McCabe --eileen.mccabe@mendes.com --
Mendes & Mount, LLP, pro hac vice, Judy A. Tanaka, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Stephen Thomas Roberts -- stephen.roberts@mendes.com
-- Mendes & Mount, LLP, pro hac vice & Steven M. Egesdal --
segesdal@carlsmith.com -- Carlsmith Ball LLP.


CITIGROUP INC: "Contant" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on March 15, 2018,
the court in CONTANT, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET
AL. granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim. On April 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a second consolidated class action
complaint.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions. The company operates
through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). The company is based in New
York.


CITIGROUP INC: Oklahoma Firefighters Sue over Mexican Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Electrical
Workers Pension Fund Local 103 has filed a class action lawsuit
against Citigroup Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On March 30, 2018, a new putative class action captioned OKLAHOMA
FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS
PENSION FUND LOCAL 103 v. BANCO SANTANDER S.A., ET AL. was filed
against numerous defendants, including Citigroup, CGMI, Citigroup
Financial Products Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.,
and Citibanamex in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices in the Mexican
sovereign bond market from 2006 to 2017, and asserts antitrust
and unjust enrichment claims against the Citi defendants, as well
as a number of other banks. Plaintiffs seek treble damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions. The company operates
through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). The company is based in New
York.


CIVEO CORP: Injunction Motion Withdrawn in "Suhr" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Civeo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Philip Suhr has withdrawn his preliminary
injunction motion.

In connection with the Noralta acquisition, on January 26, 2018,
a putative class action captioned Philip Suhr v. Civeo
Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against Civeo and members of its board
of directors. The complaint alleges that Civeo filed a materially
incomplete and misleading proxy statement in connection with the
Noralta acquisition, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The complaint originally
sought injunctive relief, including to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the Noralta acquisition as well as the acquisition
itself, damages and an award of attorneys' fees, in addition to
other relief.

On February 5, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction (the "Preliminary Injunction Motion") to
prevent the shareholder meeting on March 28, 2018 from taking
place. On March 22, 2018, the plaintiff withdrew the Preliminary
Injunction Motion on the grounds that additional disclosures
contained in Civeo's March 22, 2018 Current Report on Form 8-K,
which Civeo believes were immaterial, mooted the claims raised in
the plaintiff's complaint and asserted as the basis for the
Preliminary Injunction Motion.

Civeo believes that the pending lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend vigorously against it.

Civeo Corporation offers workforce accommodation, logistics, and
facility management services to the natural resource industry in
Canada, Australia, the United States, and internationally. The
company develops lodges and villages; open camps; and mobile
camps, including modular, skid-mounted accommodation, and central
facilities that provide long-term and temporary work force
accommodations. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


CNX RESOURCES: Final Approval Hearing in "Hale" Set for Aug. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court will
conduct a hearing in the Hale Litigation for August 23, 2018, to
consider final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement and
Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of force-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting claimants or
deemed lessors or paid them less than required because of the
alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking
alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas appealed the Order to the U.S.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the Fourth
Circuit agreed with CNX Gas, reversed the Order certifying the
class and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the decision. On April 23, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification, which
CNX opposed.

On March 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order certifying four
issues for class treatment: (1) allegedly excessive deductions;
(2) royalties based on purported improperly low prices; (3)
deduction of severance taxes; and (4) Plaintiffs' request for an
accounting. On April 13, 2017, CNX filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Fourth Circuit, and on May 22, 2017 the
Petition was denied.

CNX and plaintiffs' counsel have reached an agreement in
principal to settle the certified class claims. On March 20,
2018, the Court preliminarily approved the class settlement, and
on August 23, 2018, the Court will conduct a hearing to consider
final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement and Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees.

The Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the
overall financial position of CNX and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CNX Resources Corporation, an independent oil and natural gas
company, explores for, develops, and produces natural gas in the
Appalachian Basin. The company is based in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.


CNX RESOURCES: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in "Addison"
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that CNX and plaintiff's
counsel reached an agreement to settle the Addison lawsuit, and
filed with the Court a joint a Stipulation of Dismissal with
prejudice on March 6, 2018.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas appealed the Order to the U.S.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the Fourth
Circuit agreed with CNX Gas, reversed the Order certifying the
class and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the decision. On April 23, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification, which
CNX opposed.

On March 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying class
certification in this matter. CNX and plaintiff's counsel reached
an agreement to settle this lawsuit, and filed with the Court a
joint a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice on March 6, 2018.

The Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the
overall financial position of CNX and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CNX Resources Corporation, an independent oil and natural gas
company, explores for, develops, and produces natural gas in the
Appalachian Basin. The company is based in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: $12.5MM Settlement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
approved a settlement in the case, In re Commvault System, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-5628 (PGS)(LHG).

The Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, on behalf of itself and the other members of the
Settlement Class, has reached a settlement with Defendants for
$12,500,000 in cash that resolves all claims in the Action.  On
May 14, 2018, following a hearing, the Court approved the
Settlement.

Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, that on September 10, 2014,
a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-05628-MAS-LHG).

The suit alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts,
regarding the Company's financial results, business, operations
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014, and seeks compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other
relief.

Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the
defendant's motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case
dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file
their claim, which they did on February 5, 2016.  Defendants
filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which was
denied by the court on September 30, 2016. Thereafter, discovery
commenced.

On October 2, 2017, the parties entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the action for $12,500. The parties signed a
stipulation of settlement on November 30, 2017. The settlement
remains subject to court approval; the court has scheduled a
hearing for May 14, 2018 to consider whether to approve the
settlement.

The settlement amount has been funded solely by the Company's
insurers. There can be no assurance that the settlement will
ultimately be approved or that it will become final. If the
settlement does not occur and litigation against the Company
continues, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to defend the case vigorously. However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter if the
litigation continues.

Commvault is a leading provider of data and information
management software products and related services. Commvault was
incorporated in 1996 as a Delaware corporation. The Commvault
software platform is an enterprise level, integrated data and
information management solution, built from the ground up on a
single platform and unified code base. The company is based in
Tinton Falls, New Jersey.


CORECIVIC INC: Must Defend Against "Grae" Suit
----------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the case captioned as Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., has been denied.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267. The
lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders
who purchased or acquired our securities between February 27,
2012 and August 17, 2016.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the
company's public statements were false and/or misleading
regarding the purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result,
the company's stock price was artificially inflated. The lawsuit
alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on August 18,
2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share price of
our stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative class
of shareholders.

On May 12, 2017, the company submitted a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On December
18, 2017, the District Court entered an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss.

CoreCivic said, "We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it. In addition, we
maintain insurance, with certain self-insured retention amounts,
to cover the alleged claims which mitigates the risk such
litigation would have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company
with the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. Through three
segments, CoreCivic Safety, CoreCivic Properties, and CoreCivic
Community, the company provides a broad range of solutions to
government partners that serve the public good through
corrections and detention management, government real estate
solutions, and a growing network of residential reentry centers
to help address America's recidivism crisis. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.


COSAN LIMITED: Has R$471.MM Labor Claim Provisions as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosan 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 provisions for labor claims,
including those in class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's
office, amounted R$471.3 million as of December 31, 2017.

Cosan, its subsidiaries and jointly-controlled entities are
parties to a number of labor claims filed by former employees and
service providers challenging, among other matters, the payment
of overtime, night shift premiums and risk premiums, the
recognition of employment relationships and the reimbursement of
discounts from payroll, such as social contribution and trade
union charges.

Additionally, the company is involved in several labor
administrative and judicial proceedings such as labor
investigations and class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's
office regarding alleged non-compliance with certain labor
regulations, including work and safety rules, labor conditions
and work environment, and social assistance plans. Moreover, the
company entered into certain consent orders (Termos de
Ajustamento de Conduta) with Brazilian authorities and in the
event the company fails to comply with such consent orders, the
company could be subject to fines. Provisions for labor claims as
of December 31, 2016 amounted to R$445.0 million and R$471.3
million as of December 31, 2017.

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel
and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and
ethanol, and fuel businesses primarily in Brazil and
internationally.


COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Civil Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Cosan 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 an environmental civil class action in
Brazil against the company remains suspended.

Cosan is being sued by the Municipality of Ulianopolis, by means
of the civil class action No. 0000749-68.2011.8.14.0130, for
environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal
in a landfill located in the Municipality of Ulianopolis, in the
state of Para. Eight other companies are involved in the same
lawsuit, and the plaintiff intends to declare all of them as
jointly liable for restoring the environmental damage involved
therein.

The plaintiff seeks R$145.7 million but the specific amount
needed to restore the damage cannot be estimated. It is also
important to highlight that more than 50 companies are involved
in the same matter by means of other lawsuits and a civil
investigation currently being held by the State of Para's Public
Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, it is expected by some of these
companies that any settlement or condemnation in this matter
should comprise all of them.

The lawsuit is currently suspended due to a plea from the Public
Prosecutor's Office. According to the Company's information, the
amount under discussion in these proceedings is R$156.5million,
of which R$14.3 million is classified as a possible risk of loss
and R$142.2 million is classified as a remote risk of loss.

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel
and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and
ethanol, and fuel businesses primarily in Brazil and
internationally.


CREDITORS RELIEF: Menichiello Hits Autodialed Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Creditors Relief LLC, and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00585 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
Defendants' contacting of Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions.

Creditors Relief LLC is an online debt resolution company.
Sometime April of 2017, it contacted Menichiello in an attempt to
solicit Plaintiff to purchase their services using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming
calls. Menichiello in on the National Do-not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Deal Reached in California Trucking Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in
the California trucking lawsuit have executed a Stipulation of
Settlement of Class Action and Release of Claims.

On March 13, 2017, a former Crestwood truck driver filed a
lawsuit in the Superior Court for Kern County, California on
behalf of all Crestwood Transportation LLC's California drivers
alleging that Crestwood Equity and its officers, directors and
employees violated the California wage and hour laws by failing
to comply with certain requirements of the laws. The plaintiffs
currently include a total of 13 former and current Company
drivers, however they are seeking to certify this lawsuit as a
class action, which could potentially include approximately 160
drivers.

On February 26, 2018, the parties entered into a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) with respect to the lawsuit. The finalization of
the MOA is subject to a number of conditions, including the
drafting and signing of the Stipulation of Settlement of Class
Action and Release of Claims, which was executed on April 16,
2018.

Crestwood Equity said, "Although our insurance policies would not
cover this action, we believe we have meritorious defenses to
this lawsuit and will vigorously defend ourselves. We are unable
to predict the outcome or to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss for this matter."

Crestwood Equity, a Delaware limited partnership formed in March
2001, is a master limited partnership (MLP) that develops,
acquires, owns or controls, and operates primarily fee-based
assets and operations within the energy midstream sector.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, the Company provides broad-
ranging infrastructure solutions across the value chain to
service premier liquids-rich natural gas and crude oil shale
plays across the United States.  The Company owns and operates a
diversified portfolio of crude oil and natural gas gathering,
processing, storage and transportation assets that connect
fundamental energy supply with energy demand across North
America. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


CSK AUTO: Court Continues CMC in "Melgar" Suit to June 21
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OSMIN MELGAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CSK AUTO, INC., an
Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-
CV-03769 (EMC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Norther District of California continued
the Case Management Conference until June 21, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

The Parties have reached an agreement to settle the case, have
finalized the formal settlement agreement and related class
notice documents, and are in the process of circulating the
agreement to the Parties for signature.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
has drafted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, and anticipates filing the motion by April 27, 2018.

Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully requested, and
the Judge approved that the Case Management Conference currently
scheduled for April 26, 2018 is continued to June 21, 2018 at
1:30 p.m. to coincide with the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/W4tAvL from Leagle.com.

Osmin Melgar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Karo Khatchadoorian, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
Malk -- mm@malklawfirm.com -- Michael Malk, ESQ, APC.

CSK Auto, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Defendant, represented by
James Michael Peterson, Esq. -- peterson@higgslaw.com -- Higgs
Fletcher and Mack LLP, Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq. --
boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP & Jason
Conroy Ross, Esq. -- rossj@higgslaw.com -- at Higgs Fletcher
Mack.


CUBESMART: Settlement in NJ Class Suit Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
CubeSmart 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 granted final approval of the settlement
in the putative class action filed against the Company in the
Federal District Court of New Jersey.

On July 13, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to
obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company
of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On April 19, 2018, the court granted final approval of a
settlement for the class action. The settlement and associated
expenses, which were previously reserved for, did not have a
material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position
or results of operations.

CubeSmart is an integrated self-storage real estate company, and
as such we have in-house capabilities in the operation, design,
development, leasing, management and acquisition of self-storage
properties. The Parent Company's operations are conducted solely
through the Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries.  The
Parent Company has elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. The company is based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania.


DIAMOND RESORTS: Reply Deadline in "Dropp" Moved
------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada has entered an order extending the time for
the parties to respond to the pending motions in the case
captioned JOSEPH M. DROPP, MARY E. DROPP, ROBERT LEVINE, SUSAN
LEVINE, and KAARINA PAKKA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DIAMOND RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC; DIAMOND
RESORTS CORPORATION; DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL CLUB, INC.,
a/k/a THE CLUB OPERATING COMPANY; DIAMOND RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; DIAMOND RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION MEMBERS
ASSOCIATION; APOLLO MANAGEMENT VIII, L.P., APOLLO GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, MICHAEL FLASKEY; and KENNETH SIEGEL, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00247-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.).

The parties agreed and stipulated, and Judge Boulware granted,
that the Plaintiffs will have up to and including May 15, 2018 to
file an opposition to the following motions filed by the
Defendants: (i) Apollo Motion to Compel Arbitration; (ii)  Apollo
Motion to Dismiss; (iii) Apollo Motion to Strike Class Action
Allegations; (iv)  Apollo Motion to Sever Pakka's Claims; (v)
Apollo Motion to Transfer Venue to Hawaii; (vi) Diamond Motion to
Sever Pakka's Claims; (vii) Diamond Motion to Transfer Venue to
Hawaii; (viii) Diamond Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration;
and (ix) Diamond Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations.

The parties further agreed, and the Judge granted, that the
Defendants will have to and including May 15, 2018 to file a
response to the following motions filed by the Plaintiffs: (i)
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) Motion for
Approval of Plaintiffs' Selection of Counsel; and (iii) Motion
for Consolidation of Later-Filed Related Actions.

All parties will have to and including May 31, 2018 to file Reply
Briefs in support of their respective motions listed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rorzrI from Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Dropp, Mary E. Dropp, Robert Levine, Susan Levine &
Kaarina Pakka, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Chris Albright,
Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright, Lawrence P. Kolker --
kolker@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
pro hac vice, Lydia Keaney Reynolds -- Reynolds@whafh.com -- pro
hac vice & Mark Albright -- gma@albrightstoddard.com -- Albright
Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc., Diamond Resorts Holding,
LLC, Diamond Resorts International Club, Inc., also known as Club
Operating Company, Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development,
LLC & Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Members Association,
Defendants, represented by Aleem Dhalla -- adhalla@swlaw.com --
Snell & Wilmer & John S. Delikanakis -- jdelikanakis@swlaw.com --
Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts Corporation, Michael Flaskey & Kenneth Siegel,
Defendants, represented by John S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer
LLP.

Apollo Management VIII, L.P. & Apollo Global Management, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich --
aehrlich@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Kamil Ammari -- kammari@paulweiss.com
-- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice,
Lewis R. Clayton -- lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz
-- rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Rosa Solis-Rainey --
rsr@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group.


DRIVELINE RETAIL: "Lavender" Sues Over Compromised Personal Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Lavender, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Driveline Retail Merchandising, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02097, (C.D. Ill., April 2, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to enjoin Driveline from providing false
or misleading descriptions and misrepresentations of fact; and
damages and disgorgement of profits for violation of the Lanham
Act (False Advertising) and New York General Business Law.

Driveline Retail Merchandising provides retail merchandising
services, setting up product displays and or shelve products at
big-box retail establishments in the continental United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

Driveline maintains personal and tax information, including the
name, address, zip code, date of birth, wage and withholding
information and Social Security number, of each current and
former employee. On or about February 14, 2017, Defendant
announced that their 2016 W-2 tax form information had been
subjected to a data breach resulting in an  unauthorized
disclosure of the personal data of its employees to a third
party. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
     CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 899-9090
     Fax: (312) 345-1565
     Email: smm@cliffordlaw.com

            - and -

     John Yanchunis, Esq.
     Marisa Glassman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
            mglassman@forthepeople.com

            - and -

     Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
     2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Telephone: (910) 292-6676
     Email: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

            - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Phone: (303) 861-8800
      Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com


E TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Rayner" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
The appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit by Ty
Rayner remains pending, E Trade Financial Corporation said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2018.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and
unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its
customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company,
and attorneys' fees. On April 2, 2017, the District Court
dismissed the complaint in Rayner.

The plaintiffs in Rayner appealed and the oral argument was heard
by the Second Court of Appeals on December 7, 2017. The Company
will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

E Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company
that provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors. The company is based in
New York.


E TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Schwab" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
E Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the putative class action suit filed by Craig L. Schwab, has
filed an appeal.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities, and
former Company executives as defendants.

The complaint alleges that E*TRADE violated federal securities
laws in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to
various market-makers and exchanges. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution,
disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys'
fees.

By stipulation both matters are now venued in the Southern
District of New York. On July 10, 2017 the Court dismissed the
Schwab claims without prejudice. The plaintiff in Schwab filed a
third amended complaint on August 9, 2017, which E*TRADE moved to
dismiss. On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims with
prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed.

E Trade Financial said, "The Company will continue to defend
itself vigorously in these matters."

E Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company
that provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors. The company is based in
New York.


EDISON INT'L: At Least 52 Suits Filed Related to Thomas Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company, together
with Southern California Edison Company, is facing multiple class
action suits related to Thomas Fire.

In December 2017, several wind-driven wildfires impacted portions
of SCE's service territory and caused substantial damage to both
residential and business properties and service outages for SCE
customers. The largest of these fires, known as the Thomas Fire,
originated in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both
Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. According to the most recent
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection incident
information reports, the Thomas Fire burned over 280,000 acres,
destroyed an estimated 1,063 structures, damaged an estimated 280
structures and resulted in one fatality.

Edison International said, "As of April 27, 2018, Southern
California Edison Company (SCE) was aware of at least 52 lawsuits
related to the Thomas Fire naming SCE as a defendant. Seventeen
of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant
and at least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported class
actions."

The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among
other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes. The Chair of the California Judicial Council has
ordered that the lawsuits be coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, generate and
distribute electric power, and invest in energy services and
technologies, including renewable energy. The company is based in
Rosemead, California.


EDISON INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Case Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiff have
appealed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit handed down by
the federal court.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as
a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the
securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International
had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San
Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than
initially reported.

The initial complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class
of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between
March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In
September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend
the complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in
October 2016, which the federal court dismissed again with an
opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint in May 2017, which the federal
court dismissed with prejudice in March 2018. Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, generate and
distribute electric power, and invest in energy services and
technologies, including renewable energy. The company is based in
Rosemead, California.


EDISON INT'L: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is
awaiting the court to rule on its motion to dismiss a class
action suit related to the company's 401(k) plan.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison
International employee, alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be
filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who
were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested
in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and
June 24, 2015.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties because they knew or should have known that investment in
the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the
price of Edison International common stock was artificially
inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to
disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-
makers related to the San Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to
amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July
2016, that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant
and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August
2016. These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November
2016. In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the
plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in early July 2017. Defendants have filed motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which was heard by the court in
October 2017, and are awaiting a ruling.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, generate and
distribute electric power, and invest in energy services and
technologies, including renewable energy. The company is based in
Rosemead, California.


EL CAJON, CA: Murphy Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Murphy and Joshua Pittsley, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of El
Cajon and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-00698, (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's
fees and costs under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

El Cajon is a political subdivision in the state of California
where Plaintiffs worked. The City failed to pay premium overtime
compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of
payment for the hundreds of hours the Plaintiffs worked in excess
of forty in a seven-day work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Conger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER
      16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14
      P.O. Box 9374
      Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
      Telephone: (858) 759-0200
      Facsimile: (858) 759-1906
      E-Mail: congermike@aol.com


ELBIT IMAGING: "Gadish" Settlement Funds Held in Escrow
-------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. 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 funds in the Gadish case settlement
is being held by the Plaintiff's attorney in escrow, according to
a court ruling.

Elbit Imaging said in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that in November 1999 a claim was
initiated against the company and certain other third parties,
including former directors of the Company and Elscint Ltd., in
connection with the change of control of the company and its
former subsidiary Elscint Ltd. ("Elscint," which was merged into
us in 2010) in May 1999 and the acquisition of the hotel
businesses and the Arena Commercial Center in Israel by Elscint
in September 1999 from Europe Israel (the Company's former
controlling shareholder prior to the Debt Restructuring), as well
as motions to certify certain of such claims as class actions
(Gadish et al v. Elscint et al).  On May 28, 2012, the Supreme
Court certified the lawsuit as a class action with respect to the
claim that the hotels and the Arena Commercial Center were
allegedly sold to us at a price higher than the then-current fair
value and that Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. (an unrelated
third party) had breached certain minority rights in the
framework of the sale of Elscint's shares to Europe Israel, and
the case was remanded to the Court for hearing the case without
prejudicing the parties' rights and arguments with respect to a
derivative action.

On September 27, 2017, the company announced that the district
court in Israel approved in principle a settlement with the
plaintiffs int he November 1999 claim initiated against the
company and certain other third parties, including former
directors of the Company and Elscint Ltd. (the company's former
subsidiary), in connection with the change of control in the
Company and in Elscint and the acquisition of the hotel
businesses and the Arena Commercial Center in Israel by Elscint
in September 1999 from Europe Israel (the company's former
controlling shareholder) (Gadish et al v. Elscint et al). This
lawsuit was later certified in part as a class action.

According to the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive
compensation in the total amount of NIS 50 million (approximately
$14 million). The Company is expected to pay NIS 4.65 million
(approximately $ 1.3 million) of the said amount.

On January 17, 2018 the Company announced that the court has
given its final approval of the settlement.

However, one of the plaintiffs initiated a motion for leave to
appeal against the settlement claiming, rather superficially,
that the settlement agreement is a result of a conspiracy in
which the defendants "bought" the plaintiffs in order to dismiss
their claim.

On April 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided that the appellant
is exempted from paying court fees but obligated to pay a NIS
5,000 deposit until May 6, 2018. Failing to pay the deposit could
lead to striking out the appeal.

Also on April 20, the District Court decided that the
compensation for the plaintiffs will be held by the Plaintiff's
attorney in escrow and will not be distributed until it is clear
that: (a) the appellant did not initiate an appellate procedure;
or (b) an appellate procedure, if filed, and it ended without
significantly changing the settlement agreement.

Elbit Imaging Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, operates in
commercial centers, hotels, medical industries, and plots
businesses in Central and Eastern Europe, and internationally. It
initiates, constructs, and sells commercial centers and other
mixed-use real property projects.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Actos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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 itself
together with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. multiple class
action suits related to the drug Actos.

Eli Lilly was named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in
approximately 6,700 product liability cases in the U.S. related
to the diabetes medication Actos, which the company co-promoted
with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general,
plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or
contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of these cases
were included as part of a resolution program announced by Takeda
in April 2015 in which Takeda has paid approximately $2.4 billion
to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability
lawsuits involving Actos. Although the vast majority of U.S.
product liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the
resolution program, there may be additional cases pending against
Takeda and the company following completion of the resolution
program.


The company said, "We are also named along with Takeda as a
defendant in three purported product liability class actions in
Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et
al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in
Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta
(Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We promoted Actos in Canada until
2009."

Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, with offices in 18
countries. Its products are sold in approximately 125 countries.
The company was founded in 1876 by Col. Eli Lilly, a
pharmaceutical chemist and veteran of the American Civil War,
after whom the company was named.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend "Bentele" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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 itself in
Bentele et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

The company said, "We, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were
named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action
lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District
Court of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing, which was later
amended to name only Sanofi and Novo Nordisk as defendants. We
have since been named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Bentele et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., in the U.S. District
Court of Rhode Island relating to insulin pricing. Plantiffs in
this case are seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (federal RICO Act). We believe these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, with offices in 18
countries. Its products are sold in approximately 125 countries.
The company was founded in 1876 by Col. Eli Lilly, a
pharmaceutical chemist and veteran of the American Civil War,
after whom the company was named.


ELI LILLY: Suit by MSP Recovery Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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 defending against the case,
MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S.
LLC, in the District of New Jersey.

The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP Recovery
Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC, in the
District of New Jersey seeking damages under various state
consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment,
and the federal RICO Act.

The company said, "We received interrogatories from the
California Attorney General's Office regarding competition to
Lantus(R) in the insulin market. We are cooperating with this
investigation."

Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, with offices in 18
countries. Its products are sold in approximately 125 countries.
The company was founded in 1876 by Col. Eli Lilly, a
pharmaceutical chemist and veteran of the American Civil War,
after whom the company was named.


ENEL CHILE: Consumer Class Action vs. Unit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Enel Chile S.A. 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 summons to the reconciliation hearing
is pending in the class action lawsuit sponsored by the National
Consumer Board against Enel Distribucion Chile S.A.

A class action lawsuit sponsored by the National Consumer Board
(SERNAC) for alleged breach of the collective, diffuse interest
of the consumers as provided for in the Consumer Protection Law,
for which they petitioned that Enel Distribucion Chile S.A.
should be fined for the breach of the above law, and also that it
should be sentenced to paying compensation for damages caused to
all of the consumers as a result of the interruption of the
supply that affected a large part of the Metropolitan Region
Distribution Center as a result of the inclement weather front,
specifically a snowstorm, in July 2017.

On November 13, 2017, Enel Distribucion Chile filed the plea for
the defense and the summons to the reconciliation hearing is
pending.

Enel Chile S.A., an electricity utility company, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in
Chile. The company operates through Generation Business and
Distribution Business segments. It transmits and distributes
electricity in 33 municipalities of the Santiago metropolitan
region.


ENERGY PROFESSIONALS: "Nigh" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Nigh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Professionals Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01103, (S.D. Tex., April 9, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Energy Professionals is a global oil and gas staffing company
operating worldwide and throughout the United States where Nigh
worked as a Flowback Consultant since approximately November
2017. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week without
overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             litkin@ mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


EQUIFAX INFO: Hotchkiss Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hotchkiss, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00060, (D. Vt., March 30, 2018),
seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief,
restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with
accompanying identity theft insurance and injunctive relief
including an order requiring Equifax to improve its data security
pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Vermont
Consumer Protection Act.

On March 6, 2017, a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien
was recorded in the office of the Essex, Vermont Town Clerk,
indicating that Ms. Hotchkiss had satisfied and was released from
her obligations noted on the 2011 Notice of Federal Tax Lien.
After the tax lien was satisfied and the public record reflected
that fact, Equifax nevertheless continued to report the lien as
unsatisfied to Ms. Hotchkiss's existing or potential creditors
including DirectTV, which used Equifax's report to evaluate Ms.
Hotchkiss's creditworthiness on or about May 22, 2017.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, Suite 1902
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 735-8600
      Fax: (215) 940-8000
      Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

ETOWAH COUNTY, AL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Brannon"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY BRANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ETOWAH COUNTY
COURT REFERRAL PROGRAM, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:13-
CV-1229-VEH (N.D. Ala.), Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle
Division, granted in part and otherwise denied or termed as moot
the Amended/Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the
remaining Defendants -- the Etowah County Court Referral Program,
LLC ("ECCRP") and the ECCRP's Executive Director, Lenesha Zaner
("Ms. Zaner") -- on June 30, 2017.

All the Plaintiffs have been convicted and/or pled guilty to one
or more misdemeanor offensives within the jurisdiction of the
Gadsden Municipal Court ("GMC").  The Plaintiffs' civil rights
suit challenges the Defendants' practices under a court referral
program ("CRP") that the GMC ordered the Plaintiffs to
participate in as a requirement of their probation and a
suspension of their sentences tied to their misdemeanor cases.

The Plaintiffs initiated the civil rights lawsuit and purported
class action on July 1, 2013, against Defendants City of Gadsden
("COG"), ECCRP and Ms. Zaner.  The Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint multiple times.  The last version was filed on April 9,
2015.  By virtue of the pro tanto stipulated dismissal entered on
July 12, 2017, COG is no longer a party to the action.

The Plaintiffs' third amended and restated complaint has 21
separate counts (asserting both federal and state law claims).
Expressly referencing Counts One, Seven, and Seventeen (as well
as other allegations), the Plaintiffs maintain in their
opposition to the Motion that the gravamen of their complaint is
that Ms. Zaner and ECCRP routinely restarted each of the
Plaintiffs on ECCRP requirements without and/or beyond orders to
do so and beyond any conceivable statutory maximum allowable by
law.

The Plaintiffs then attempt to clarify which of their claims they
believe are (due to various procedural developments) beyond the
scope of the Defendants' Motion: As a result of the bifurcation
of the case from the Cantrell v. Attalla case, and in conjunction
with the discovery obtained and the arguments made in support of
summary judgment, the following counts in the Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint are no longer pertinent to the motion for
summary judgment: Counts Four, Six, Nine, Ten, Twelve, Thirteen,
Fifteen, Sixteen, Nineteen, and Twenty.  Similarly, the parties
filed a joint stipulation of dismissal dismissing the City of
Gadsden as a party to this action, rendering the following counts
associated with the City of Gadsden irrelevant to the motion for
summary judgment: Counts Two, Five, Eight, Eleven, Fourteen, and
Eighteen.

Based upon this, the Court (by process of elimination) has
identified those counts that the Plaintiffs have indicated remain
relevant to the Motion.  Those five counts are Counts One, Three,
Seven, Seventeen, and Twenty-One.  However, because Count Three
involves only the Attalla Plaintiffs and the COA, this particular
count also falls outside the scope of the Defendants' Motion,
leaving only four counts pursued by these Plaintiffs against
these Defendants.

The two federal counts not abandoned by the Plaintiffs thus are:
The Plaintiffs' Federal Constitutional Counts: (i) Count One -
Denial of Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment by the ECCRP
and/or Ms. Zaner in her Personal Capacity Applicable to All
Plaintiffs; and (ii) Count Seven - Violation of the Eighth
Amendment by the ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner in her Personal Capacity
Applicable to All Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' remaining counts include: (a) State Law Count:
(i) Count Seventeen - Negligent, Reckless and/or Wanton Training
and/or Supervision by the ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner Applicable to
All Plaintiffs; and (b) Injunctive Count: Count Twenty-One-
Injunctive Relief.

Those counts that the Plaintiffs agree are subject to dismissal
in light of the Defendants' Motion and the prior dismissal of the
COG are Counts Two, Four, Five, Eight, Ten, Eleven, Thirteen,
Fourteen, Sixteen, Eighteen, and Twenty.  Thus, the Defendants'
Motion is due to be granted as conceded and/or uncontested with
respect to Counts Four, Ten, Thirteen, Sixteen, and Twenty.
Further, Counts Two, Five, Eight, Eleven, Fourteen, and Eighteen
are due to be dismissed in accordance with the previously entered
stipulated dismissal as those claims all pertain solely to the
COG.

Pending before the Court is the Amended/Corrected Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by the remaining Defendants -- Ms. Zaner
and the ECCRP.  Judge Hopkins has reviewed the parties' filings
offered in support of and opposition to the Motion.

As to the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment Claims, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to
show a triable claim under either the Fourteenth or Eighth
Amendment.  The Plaintiffs' nebulous efforts do not satisfy their
Rule 56 burden to show how their facts, if proven to a jury,
constitute a cognizable claim under either the Fourteenth or the
Eighth Amendment.  Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is due to
be granted as to Counts One and Seven in light of the Plaintiffs'
failure to carry their burden as the non-movants.

The Judge next finds that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims
also fail because they have not demonstrated that their probation
terms violated state law.  Thus, the Motion is due to be granted
on the Plaintiffs' Counts One and Seven for the alternative
reason that they have not shown that their time spent in the CRP
exceeded the two-year limitation for misdemeanor probation.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to present
proof from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the
Defendants caused or were the moving force behind extending the
Plaintiffs' probationary term (through continuation of the CRP)
beyond the state statutory maximum without prior notice and an
opportunity to be heard.  Thus, the Motion is due to be granted
as to Counts One and Seven due to the absence of a triable issue
of Section 1983 causation against these Defendants.

Having found that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims do
intersect with Ms. Zaner's exercise of discretionary authority,
qualified immunity applies because they have failed to establish
a triable constitutional claim.  In the absence of a viable
constitutional claim, Ms. Zaner cannot be personally liable to
Plaintiffs under Section 1983 for her own conduct or in a
supervisory capacity.  Alernatively, even when assuming that the
Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence from which a
reasonable jury could find a Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment
violation, they've not pointed to (and the Court has not
independently found) any clearly established law that would have
put Ms. Zaner on notice of her unconstitutional conduct.  Thus,
qualified immunity provides an alternative basis for granting
summary judgment to Ms. Zaner on the Plaintiffs' constitutional
claims.

The Defendants also assert that they are entitled to quasi-
judicial immunity.  While Judge Hopkins disagrees with the
Defendants that such a defense is available to the ECCRP as an
entity, conceivably Ms. Zaner might have a right to rely upon
that immunity.  However, unlike the Defendants' qualified
immunity argument, Defendants have provided no examples of cases
in which a private individual (as opposed to a public non-
judicial official) was protected by such a defense.  Therefore,
he rejects this part of the Defendants' Motion as underdeveloped.

The remaining grounds that the Defendants rely upon in support of
dismissing the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment claims
include statute of limitations, Rooker-Feldman, and Heck v.
Humphrey's favorable-termination rule.  In light of the foregoing
analysis, the Judge finds that reaching these remaining issues is
unnecessary.  This is particularly so as the Defendants' statute-
of-limitations defense is a partial one that seeks only to
dismiss alleged misconduct that occurred before July 1, 2011, and
because the Court has previously explained why Rooker-Feldman and
Heck v. Humphrey do not bar the Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Accordingly, those portions of the Defendants' Motion challenging
the Plaintiffs' federal claims are due to be termed as moot.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Count Seventeen
alternatively fails because no reasonable jury could find that
the ECCRP had or reasonably should have had notice of Ms. Zaner's
incompetence.  As the record lacks any straightforward statutory
wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Zaner, the ECCRP cannot be subject
to liability for failing to reasonably take notice of such
dubious incompetence.

Finally, the Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' ability to
assert claims for injunctive relief on the grounds that they lack
standing to do so or that the relief they seek has been rendered
moot in light of the GMC Standing Order governing probation.  In
their opposition brief, the Plaintiffs do not counter either one
of these jurisdictional contentions or otherwise resist the
dismissal of their injunctive count.  Thus, due to abandonment,
the Plaintiffs' Count Twenty-One is due to be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Consistent with this analysis, Judge Hopkins granted in part and
otherwise denied or termed as moot the Defendants' Motion.
Further, with no pending claims remaining, she will enter a
separate final judgment order dismissing the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://goo.gl/DNTfPJ from Leagle.com.

Joseph R. Dubose, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Dustin A. Loyd, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Jason L. Lynn, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Erica Snow, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Roy Myers,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Mary Brannon, Personal Representative for the Estate of Kimberly
Lisa Brannon, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles J. Lorant,
LORANT LAW GROUP.

Lenesha Zaner & Etowah County Court Referral Program, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Robert M. Ronnlund --
Ronnlund@sssandf.com -- SCOTT SULLIVAN STREETMAN & FOX PC &
William A. Scott, Jr. -- wscott@sssandf.com -- SCOTT SULLIVAN
STREETMAN & FOX PC.


ETOWAH COUNTY, AL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Hunter"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKY L. HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ETOWAH
COUNTY COURT REFERRAL PROGRAM, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:15-CV-0839-VEH (N.D. Ala.), Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Middle Division, granted in part and otherwise denied and/or
termed as moot both the ECCRP Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and the City's Motion for Summary Judgment; and termed
as moot the Plaintiffs' Objection to Admissibility and Motion To
Strike Declaration of Richard Rhea.

Both Hunter and Dustin A. Lloyd have been convicted and/or pled
guilty to misdemeanor offensives within the jurisdiction of the
Attalla Municipal Court ("AMC").  They initiated the civil rights
lawsuit and purported class action on July 1, 2013, against
Defendants City of Attalla, the Etowah County Court Referral
Program, LLC ("ECCRP"), and the ECCRP's Executive Director,
Lenesha Zaner.

The Plaintiffs' civil rights suit challenges the Defendants'
practices under a court referral program ("CRP") that the AMC
ordered them to participate in as a requirement of their
probation and a suspension of their sentences tied to their
misdemeanor convictions.  They have amended their complaint
multiple times.  The last version was filed on April 9, 2015.  By
virtue of the pro tanto stipulated dismissal entered on Aug. 9,
2016, Plaintiff Charles Cantrell is no longer a party to the
action.

The Plaintiffs' third amended and restated complaint has 21
separate counts (asserting both federal and state law claims).
Because the case was originally part of the Brannon lawsuit, some
of the counts included in the operative complaint are beyond the
scope of the City's Motion and the ECCRP Defendants' Motion as
they relate only to the City of Gadsden, a non-party in the case.
The non-applicable counts are Counts Two, Five, Eight, Eleven,
Fourteen, and Eighteen.  Those counts which remain pertinent are
summarized as:

     a. The Plaintiffs' Constitutional Counts: (i) Count One -
Denial of Due Process by the ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner in her
Personal Capacity Applicable to All Plaintiffs; (ii) Count Three
- Denial of Due Process by the City Applicable to Plaintiffs
Hunter and Loyd; (iii) Count Four - Violation of the Fourth
Amendment by ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner in her Personal Capacity
Applicable to All Plaintiffs; (iv) Count Six - Violation of the
Fourth Amendment by the City Applicable to Plaintiffs Hunter and
Loyd; (v) Count Seven - Violation of the Eighth Amendment by the
ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner in her Personal Capacity Applicable to All
Plaintiffs; (vi) Count Nine - Violation of the Eighth Amendment
by the City Applicable to Plaintiffs Hunter and Loyd; (vii) Count
Ten - Denial of Equal Protection by the ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner in
her Personal Capacity Applicable to All Plaintiffs; and (viii)
Count Twelve - Denial of Equal Protection by the City Applicable
to Plaintiffs Hunter and Loyd.

     b. The Plaintiffs' Alabama Common-Law Counts: (i) Count
Thirteen - False Imprisonment and False Arrest by ECCRP and/or
Ms. Zaner Applicable to All Plaintiffs; (ii) Count Fifteen -
False Imprisonment and False Arrest by the City Applicable to
Plaintiffs Hunter and Loyd; (iii) Count Sixteen - Abuse of
Process by ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner Applicable to All Plaintiffs;
(iv) Count Seventeen - Negligent, Reckless and/or Wanton Training
and/or Supervision by the ECCRP and/or Ms. Zaner Applicable to
All Plaintiffs; and (v) Count Nineteen- Negligent, Reckless
and/or Wanton Training and/or Supervision by the City Applicable
to Plaintiffs Hunter and Loyd.

Although Counts One, Three, Seven, and Nine are brought pursuant
to Section 1983, they also contain fleeting shotgun references to
Alabama constitutional law.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs
wanted to pursue state constitutional claims against the
Defendants, they were required to replead them in separate
counts.  Nonetheless, those purported state constitutional
claims, asserted in violation of the Court's repleader
requirements, fail for other reasons.

The Plaintiffs' remaining counts include (i) Count Twenty -
Declaratory Relief and (ii) Count Twenty-One - Injunctive Relief.

Pending before the Court are the following motions: (i) Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by the City on May 22, 2017; (ii)
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the ECCRP and Ms. Zaner on
May 25, 2017; and (iii) Objection to Admissibility and Motion To
Strike Declaration of Richard Rhea filed by Plaintiffs (the
Strike Motion) on Oct. 19, 2017.

Judge Hopkins finds that when a defendant argues that a claim is
factually and/or legally insufficient on summary judgment, it is
the plaintiff's job, as the non-movant, to make it clear to the
Court why a triable claim does, in fact, exist.  Scrutiny through
a Rule 56 lens typically demands much more from a plaintiff than
a showing of Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility; an unclearly developed
claim is not a triable one.  Here, she says the Plaintiffs'
nebulous efforts do not satisfy their Rule 56 burden to show how
their facts, if proven to a jury, constitute a cognizable
constitutional claim under either federal or state law against
any Defendant.  Accordingly, summary judgment is due to be
granted as Counts One, Three, Four, Six, Seven, Nine, Ten, and
Twelve in light of the Plaintiffs' failure to carry their burden
as the non-movants.

The Judge next finds that the Plaintiffs' calculation of the
maximum probation period under the APS and the AMCPS is
substantively wrong because it fails to account for return to
court orders, arrest warrants, and other events that support
tolling.  Further, it is not the Court's responsibility to figure
out the proper calculation for them in light of the various
return to court orders and warrants issued for their
concompliance with the CRP.  Thus, summary judgment is due to be
granted in favor of the Defendants on the Plaintiffs'
constitutional counts for the alternative reason that they have
not shown that their time spent in the CRP -- when factoring in
tolling-exceeded the two-year limitation for misdemeanor
probation under Alabama law.

The Judge then focuses upon Section 1983 causation as it pertains
to the Defendants' alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process
violation for keeping Plaintiffs in the CRP too long.  As set
out, the Plaintiffs have not established how any of the other
alleged wrongful conduct engaged in by the ECCRP Defendants rises
to the level of a federal constitutional concern.  Consequently,
she says there is no need to reach the causation element for
those purported offenses against the ECCRP Defendants.  Also, the
Plaintiffs have limited their federal claim against the City to
their maximum probation period theory.

As to federal constitutional claims against the ECCRP Defendants,
the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs could have brought a habeas
challenge, which apparently at least one plaintiff in the Brannon
action attempted (unsuccessfully) to do.  Regardless, the Judge
says the Plaintiffs have failed to present proof from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the ECCRP Defendants caused
or were the moving force behind extending Plaintiffs'
probationary term (through continuation of the CRP) beyond the
state statutory maximum without prior notice and an opportunity
to be heard.  Thus, summary judgment is alternatively due to be
granted due to the absence of a triable issue of Section 1983
causation against the ECCRP Defendants with respect to any
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (or any other federal
claim) tied to the two-year maximum probation period.

As to federal constitutional claims against the City and Ms.
Zaner, she finds that the Plaintiffs fail to identify what
evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could conclude that
the AMC is a policymaker for the City.  Thus, their federal
claims brought against the City are alternatively subject to
summary judgment due to the absence of a triable issue of Section
1983 causation.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs contend that
Ms. Zaner violated any other federal constitutional rights, they
have offered no clearly-established controlling case authority
for that supposed violation.  Thus, qualified immunity provides
an alternative basis for granting summary judgment to Ms. Zaner
on the Plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims.

After evaluating the Plaintiffs' Alabama common-law counts
asserted against the Defendants, Judge Hopkins finds that the
Plaintiffs have abandoned their abuse of process claim against
the ECCRP Defendants, thus, summary judgment is appropriate on
their Count Sixteen.  Because the Plaintiffs have abandoned their
false arrest/false imprisonment claims against all the
Defendants, summary judgment is appropriate on their Counts
Thirteen and Fifteen.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs cannot support a
negligent training and/or supervision claim against any
Defendant.  Thus, summary judgment is appropriate on their Counts
Seventeen and Nineteen for these alternative reasons.  Because
the City cannot be held liable to Mr. Loyd on any state law
claims because there is no proof that he ever filed a sworn
statement of claim as required under Alabama law.  Accordingly,
summary judgment for the City on Mr. Loyd's state law claims is
alternatively appropriate due to the absence of any proof that he
complied with Ala. Code Section 11-47-192.

In light of this analysis, the Judge finds that reaching the
remaining issues pertaining to the Plaintiffs' common-law claims
is unnecessary.  This includes the disputed issue of whether Mr.
Hunter's notice of claim was timely filed.  Thus, any remaining
portions of the City's Motion or the ECCRP Defendants' Motion
relating to the Plaintiffs' common-law claims is due to be termed
as moot.

As to the Defendants' challenge on the Plaintiffs' ability to
assert claims against them for declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs
in opposition, do not address the viability of their declaratory
count.  Consequently, the Judge finds that they have abandoned
it.  Thus, she concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on
the Plaintiffs' Count Twenty.

Because she finds that the Plaintiffs have abandoned pursuit of
their injunctive claim by not addressing the Defendants'
arguments about the absence of standing, Judge Hopkins agrees
with the Defendants that because the Plaintiffs are no longer
subject to the CRP, they are unable to show a sufficient
likelihood that [they] will be affected by the allegedly unlawful
conduct in the future.  Thus, the Plaintiffs' Count Twenty-One is
due to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Finally, in their Strike Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to strike
the declaration of Richard Rhea and all references thereto in the
Defendant's Reply Brief.  Because the Judge's analysis on summary
judgment does not rely on that challenged declaration or the
parts of any reply briefs that refer to it, the Plaintiffs'
Strike Motion is due to be termed as moot.

Consistent with her foregoing reasoning, Judge Hopkins granted in
part both the ECCRP Defendants' Motion and the City's Motion and
otherwise denied and/or termed as moot.  Further, she termed as
moot the Plaintiffs' Strike Motion.  Finally, with no pending
claims remaining, the Judge will enter a separate final judgment
order dismissing the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://goo.gl/5MQ6aF from Leagle.com.

Ricky L. Hunter & Dustin A. Loyd, Plaintiffs, represented by
Charles J. Lorant, LORANT LAW GROUP.

City of Attalla, Defendant, represented by Bradley W. Cornett --
ad@FordHowardCornett.com -- FORD HOWARD & CORNETT PC, David J.
Canupp -- DJC@LanierFord.com -- LANIER FORD SHAVER & PAYNE PC &
George W. Royer, Jr. -- GWR@LanierFord.com -- LANIER FORD SHAVER
& PAYNE.

Etowah County Court Referral Program, LLC & Lenesha Zaner,
Defendants, represented by Robert M. Ronnlund --
-- SCOTT SULLIVAN STREETMAN & FOX PC & William A. Scott, Jr. --
wscott@sssandf.com -- SCOTT SULLIVAN STREETMAN & FOX PC.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Expedia 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 plaintiffs in the Buckeye Tree Lodge/2020 O
Street Corporation Lawsuits filed on February 22, 2018, a motion
for class certification, which defendants have opposed. The court
scheduled argument on the motion for May 17, 2018.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an online travel company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway,
and Egencia segments. The company facilitates the booking of
hotel rooms, airline seats, car rentals, and destination services
from its travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the
transactions. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Arnold" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia 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 in Arnold v. HomeAway.com, Inc. and
Kilpatrick v. HomeAway, Inc. (formerly Brickman v. HomeAway,
Inc.) matters, the magistrate judge on April 17, 2018, issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the district court
dismiss the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim with prejudice
and deny HomeAway's motion to strike class allegations as
premature.

Plaintiffs have objected to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendations and HomeAway on May 15, 2018, filed its response
the Objection to Report and Recommendations.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an online travel company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway,
and Egencia segments. The company facilitates the booking of
hotel rooms, airline seats, car rentals, and destination services
from its travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the
transactions. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: "Dupler" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
In the case, Timothy Dupler v. Orbitz, LLC et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-02303 (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2018), the Plaintiff filed on
May 25, 2018, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the lawsuit as
to Expedia, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and Orbitz, LLC.

The Notice of Dismissal was made after the Plaintiff on May 21,
2018, filed a First Amended Complaint.

Expedia 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 on March 21, 2018, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against Orbitz LLC, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and
Expedia, Inc. (WA) in California federal court.  Dupler v. Orbitz
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02303 (U.S. District Court, Central
District of California).

The Complaint alleges claims for breach of implied contract,
negligence, negligence per se, violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and other state unfair and deceptive business
practices laws, invasion of privacy, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and violations of various state data
breach acts.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an online travel company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway,
and Egencia segments. The company facilitates the booking of
hotel rooms, airline seats, car rentals, and destination services
from its travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the
transactions. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.


FACEBOOK INC: Johnson Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Carol Johnson, Daniel Paul and Steve Mortillaro, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, v.
Facebook, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02127, (N.D. Cal.,
April 9, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
compensatory damages resulting from violations of the Stored
Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the Video Privacy Protection Act.  The complaint also asserts
invasion of privacy, negligence and violations of California's
Invasion of Privacy Act and constitutional rights of privacy.

Facebook's Graph API was a developer, or app-level, interface
which, through the Friends Data Scrape Feature, allowed third
parties to collect enormous amounts of Facebook users' profile
data, regardless of whether it was designated private or public.
It allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least 50
million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information for
political marketing purposes, without their authorization. This
personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
its headquarters and principal place of business in Menlo Park,
California.

Plaintiffs are Facebook users whose private profile information
was accessed by Cambridge. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

             - and -


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


FACEBOOK INC: Wing Files Suit Over Personal Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Iron Wing And Ryan McGrath, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, v. Facebook, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02122, (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2018),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
resulting from violations of the Stored Communications Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Video Privacy
Protection Act.  The lawsuit also asserts invasion of privacy,
negligence and violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act
and constitutional rights of privacy.

Facebook's Graph API was a developer, or app-level, interface
which, through the Friends Data Scrape Feature, allowed third
parties to collect enormous amounts of Facebook users' profile
data, regardless of whether it was designated private or public.
It allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least 50
million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information for
political marketing purposes, without their authorization. This
personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Plaintiffs are Facebook users whose private profile information
was accessed by third parties via Facebook's Friends Data Scrape
Feature. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
      Paula R. Brown, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100
      Fax: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com
             pbrown@bholaw.com

             - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
      Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 621-2000
      Fax: (312) 641-5504
      Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
             e.schork@barnowlaw.com
             j.blake@barnowlaw.com
             aparkhill@barnowlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Kooser Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Debra Kooser and Margaret Frankiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Facebook, Inc.,
Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, Limited and Global Science
Research LTD, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02009, (N.D. Cal., March
30, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
compensatory damages pursuant to California's Unfair Competition
Law and the Stored Communications Act.

Facebook allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least
50 million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information
for political marketing purposes, without their authorization.
This personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

SCL Group created and operated Cambridge Analytica using software
developed by Global Science Research to conduct the unauthorized
mining of the personal information of affected users.

Plaintiffs are Facebook users who alleged manipulation of their
accounts for political purposes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      Email: jwatson@justice4you.com

             - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Phone: (303) 861-8800
      Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: O'Hara Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Jordan O'Hara, Brent Collins and Olivia Johnston, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Facebook, Inc., Cambridge Analytica, Aleksandr Kogan and Stephen
K. Bannon, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00571, (C.D. Cal., April 4,
2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory
damages resulting from intrusion upon seclusion, negligence,
negligence per se, breach of written contract and violation of
the Stored Communications Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Invasion of Privacy Act and California's Consumer
Records Act.

Facebook allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least
50 million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information
for political marketing purposes, without their authorization.
This personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is a privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Aleksandr Kogan's Global Science Research, Ltd. created a
Facebook app called "ThisIsYourDigitalLife" that consisted of a
personality quiz. People who had taken the personality test,
around 320,000 in total, unwittingly gave access to at least 160
other people's profiles.

Plaintiffs are Facebook users who alleged manipulation of their
accounts for political purposes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
      Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq.
      Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
      Ben Travis, Esq.
      COAST LAW GROUP LLP
      1140 S. Coast Highway 101
      Encinitas, CA 92024
      Telephone: (760) 942-8505
      Facsimile: (760) 942-8515
      Email: helen@coastlaw.com
             amy@coastlaw.com
             andy@coastlaw.com
             ben@coastlaw.com

             - and -

      Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA LLP
      4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20016
      Telephone: 202-789-3960
      Facsimile: 202-789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1490
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 339-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: "Haslinger" Suit Hits Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Suzie Haslinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cambridge Analytica LLC, Facebook, Inc.,
Mark Zuckerberg and John and Jane Does 1-100, Case No. 18-cv-
01984, (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2018), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages pursuant to
California's Unfair Competition Law, Stored Communications Act
and the Federal Wiretap Act.

Facebook allegedly allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain at least
50 million Facebook users' highly sensitive personal information
for political marketing purposes, without their authorization.
This personal information includes users' names, birthdates,
hometowns, addresses, locations, interests, relationships, email
addresses, photos and videos.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Haslinger is a citizen and resident of Virginia. Plaintiff has
held a Facebook account for approximately ten years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Springer, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      801 Garden Street, Suite 301
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 456-1496
      Fax (805) 456-1497
      Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


FEDERATED PAYMENT: Atkinson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Federated Payment Systems USA,
Inc., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00896,
(D. Minn., March 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin Federated Payment
and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other related entities from
engaging in the unlawful telemarketing calls.  The Plaintiff
further seeks damages and such other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a company that specializes in providing payment
processing systems to businesses all over the United States and
Canada. It initiated pre-recorded telemarketing calls to
Atkinson's cellular phone, using an automated dialing system.
Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karin Ciano, Esq.
      KARIN CIANO LAW PLLC
      310 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 5010
      Minneapolis, MN 55415
      Phone: (612) 367-7135
      Fax: (612) 437-4440
      Email: karin@karincianolaw.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26TH Street
      Miami, Florida 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


FINNEGANS WAY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Altagracia Jimenez and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Finnegans Way Inc., Leo Rodriguez, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-21354 (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2018), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court
costs, interest and any other relief.

Finnegan's Way -- www.finnegansbars.com -- is a restaurant in
Miami Beach FL. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cook from on
or about November 13, 2001 through about December 23, 2017. He
claims to be denied paid time and one-half her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of forty within a work week.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


FIRST SOLAR: Asks 9th Circuit to Reconsider Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
First Solar, 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 panel
rehearing or rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which remains pending.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action").

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims
for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes
it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this
action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation
Scheme (collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes
filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains
similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original
complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted
the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and
certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company
between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged
thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits
discovery closed on February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted
defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified
an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition
was granted on November 18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth
Circuit issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's
order denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. On
March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing
or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit, which remains
pending.

First Solar said, "This lawsuit asserts claims that, if resolved
against us, could give rise to substantial damages, and an
unfavorable outcome or settlement may result in a significant
monetary judgment or award against us or a significant monetary
payment by us, and could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, or results of operations. Even if
this lawsuit is not resolved against us, the costs of defending
the lawsuit may be significant, as may be the cost of any
settlement, and would likely exceed the coverage limits of, or
may not be covered by, our insurance policies. Given the need for
further expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, at this
time we are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any."

First Solar, Inc. is a global provider of comprehensive PV solar
energy solutions. The company designs, manufactures, and sells PV
solar modules with an advanced thin film semiconductor technology
and also develop, design, construct, and sell PV solar power
systems that primarily use the modules the company manufactures.
The company is based in Tempe, Arizona.


FRENCHRESTO LLC: "Damavolitis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aristeidis Damavolitis and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Frenchresto LLC, d/b/a El Pollo Supremo Yolande
Cortese, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-21205 (S.D.
Fla., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
wages for every hour in excess of 40 that the Plaintiff worked,
liquidated damages, retaliatory damages, and any other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired to perform
general restaurant work, cooking, cleaning and dishwashing,
always working seven days per week, resulting in 101 working
hours per week and was unable to take bona-fide lunch periods.
Damavolitis did not receive any additional compensation for
overtime hours. On or about December 14, 2017, he was fired after
demanding to be paid his unpaid regular and overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FUNKO INC: "Jacobs" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
Keith Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Russell
Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles Denson, Adam Kriger,
Richard Mcnally, Diane Irvine, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co., Jefferies LLC, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp. and
Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv -
00481 (W.D. Wash., April 2, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Funko claims to be a pop culture consumer products company. Funko
purportedly creates licensed toys, collectibles, and other
consumer goods, including figures, plush toys, accessories,
apparel and homewares.

On November 3, 2017, the Company filed its initial public
offering (IPO) prospectus with the SEC, which forms part of its
Registration Statement that was declared effective on November 1,
2017. Said registration statement omitted to state that Funko's
profits and growth were not as positive as they represented.

On November 2, 2017, Funko's stock price closed at $7.07 per
share, which was a decline of $4.93, or 41%, from the IPO price
of $12.00 per share.

Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo,
Charles Denson, Adam Kriger, Richard Mcnally and Diane Irvine are
members of Funko's board of directors. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co., Jefferies LLC, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp. and
Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. were underwriters of Funko's
IPO. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
     NELSON BOYD, PLLC
     411 University Street, Suite 1200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 971-7601
     Email: nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com
            boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com

            - and -

     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

            - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Telephone: (215) 638-4847
     Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


GC SERVICES LTD: Parsons Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------
Amber Parsons (f/k/a Allen), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited
Partnership and ORG GC GP Buyer, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00564, (N.D. Ala., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

GC Services Limited Partnership and ORG GC are debt collectors
who attempted to collect a debt from Parsons allegedly owed for a
Macy's/Department Stores National Bank account. They sent
collection letter threatening to take legal action that they did
not intend to pursue and threatening to impose additional
interest, late charges, and other charges. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

             - and -

      Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES, REESE & SHINN, P.C.
      600 University Park Place Suite 510
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 802-2200
      Fax: (205) 802-2209
      Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com


GENT'S PLACE: "Kaplan" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Kaplan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Gent's Place Men's Fine Grooming,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02384 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2018),
seeks an injunction for Defendant to cease all unsolicited text
message activities; an award of statutory damages; and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

On February 8, 2018, Defendant sent an unsolicited text message
to Kaplan's wireless telephone, promoting their Valentine's Day
grooming services. These were sent without prior express notice
from the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


GRUPO AVAL: Defending Suits over Pension Funds, Mortgage Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. 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, its
banking subsidiaries, Corficolombiana, Porvenir and the company's
other subsidiaries are party to collective or class actions
("acciones populares" or "acciones de grupo," respectively).

Collective actions are court actions where an individual seeks to
protect collective rights and prevent contingent damages, obtain
injunctions and damages caused by an infringement of collective
rights of which the following are the most significant.

All administrators of pension and severance funds in Colombia,
including Porvenir, are subject to two collective actions in
which certain persons allege that pension funds managers have
caused damages to their clients by (1) paying returns from
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance; and (2) excess collections for the
concept of commission for the administration of contributions to
mandatory pension funds.

No provisions have been established in relation to these three
constitutional actions because the amount is not quantifiable,
and we consider the probability of loss remote.

Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente Banco Popular and
Corficolombiana are subject to a constitutional action filed by
certain individuals on behalf of the Department of Valle del
Cauca (Departamento del Valle del Cauca) against several
financial institutions (including Banco de Bogota, Banco de
Occidente, Banco Popular and Corficolombiana) claiming that the
Department has paid interest in a manner prohibited by law, in
connection with a credit facility granted to the Department.

In addition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the defendants did
not pay the alleged real value of the shares of Sociedad
Portuaria de Buenaventura and Empresa de Energia del Pacifico, on
a sale transaction of said shares.

"We consider the probability of loss in connection with this
constitutional action to be low (eventual) and, therefore, have
not recorded any provision," the Company said.

Banco AV Villas is subject to constitutional actions brought
against several companies in the financial sector in Colombia in
connection with the recalculation of mortgage interests that
allegedly damaged several mortgage lenders.

Grupo Aval said, "We believe that the probability of loss in
connection with these constitutional actions is remote."

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

Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. provides a range of financial
services and products to public and private sector customers in
Colombia and Central America. It operates through Banco Bogota
S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A., Banco AV
Villas S.A., and Corficolombiana S.A. segments.  The Company was
founded in 1870 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


HARDINGE INC: Assad Trust Seeks to Halt Sale to Privet Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy P. Assad Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hardinge Inc., Richard R.
Burkhart, B. Christopher Disantis, Charles P. Dougherty, Ryan
Levenson, Mitchell I. Quain, Benjamin Rosenzweig, James Silver
and Tony Tripeny, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00416, (W.D. N.Y.,
April 4, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Hardinge Inc. by affiliates of Privet
Fund Management LLC and Privet Fund LP, rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the transaction, Hardinge's shareholders will receive
$18.50 in cash for each share they own.

Hardinge designs, manufactures and distributes machine tools in
the Americas, Europe and Asia with manufacturing facilities
located in China, Switzerland, Taiwan, Germany, France, India,
the United Kingdom and the United States.

The complaint says the Defendants filed a proxy statement that
failed to include its financial projections and the valuation
analysis performed by the company's financial advisor, BMO
Capital Markets Corp. Said financial information provides
stockholders with a basis to project the future financial
performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better
understand its fairness opinion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth A. Keller, Esq.
      HYNES KELLER & HERNANDEZ, LLC
      118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100
      Mount Kisco, NY 10549
      Telephone: (914) 752-3040
      Facsimile: (914) 752-3041
      Email: bkeller@hkh-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Faces "Rodgers" Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is
defending against a purported class action suit entitled,
Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries and Members were named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et
al. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute and federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, unjust
enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. is a global nutrition company that sells
weight management, targeted nutrition, energy, sports & fitness,
and outer nutrition products to and through independent members,
or Members.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Investors Drop Federal-Mogul Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit under the
caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 12790-CB have dismissed the action, without
prejudice as to the named plaintiffs.

On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and
October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions,
captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v.
Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A.
No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the Board of Directors of Federal-Mogul (the "FM Board") and
Icahn Enterprises, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, certain of their
affiliates and Icahn Enterprises' Board of Directors (the "Icahn
Defendants"), and, in the case of Raul, Federal-Mogul.

The complaints allege that, among other things, the FM Board
breached its fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger
Agreement, that the Icahn Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the minority stockholders of Federal-Mogul and/or aided
and abetted the FM Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as
well as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in
the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Federal-Mogul (the "Schedule 14D-9").
The complaints allege that, among other things, the then-Offer
Price was inadequate and, together with that the Merger
Agreement, was the result of a flawed and unfair sales process
and conflicts of interest of the FM Board and the special
committee of independent directors of Federal-Mogul (the "Special
Committee"), alleging that the Special Committee and Federal-
Mogul's management lacked independence from the Icahn Defendants.

In addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement
contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions,
including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things,
the complaints sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Raul and Mercado complaints further seek to rescind the
transaction or award rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul)
award a quasi-appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction
was consummated, as well as award money damages. On October 28,
2016, all four actions were consolidated under the caption In re
Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No.
12790-CB (the "Delaware Action").

On March 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint that does not name Federal-Mogul as a defendant. Among
other things, the consolidated amended complaint also adds
allegations regarding the commencement and extension of the
Offer, the increase in the Offer price, the closing of the
transaction, Federal-Mogul's subsequent performance and public
statements, Mr. Ninivaggi's post-merger employment with Icahn
Enterprises and the independence of the chairman of the Special
Committee.

The Icahn Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint
and discovery was stayed pending determination of that motion. In
lieu of proceeding with the October 12, 2017 hearing on the Icahn
Defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Action dismissed the Delaware Action, without prejudice as to the
named plaintiffs.

Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers investment and food
packaging services, automotive and energy products, home fashion
commodities, real estate assistance, and gaming services.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Investors Drop Federal-Mogul Suit in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
plaintiffs have dismissed lawsuits in Michigan, without prejudice
as to the named plaintiffs.

On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v.
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of
Michigan against Federal-Mogul, the FM Board and the Icahn
Defendants (the "Michigan Action").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the FM Board
breached its fiduciary duties and that Federal-Mogul and the
Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the FM Board's breaches of its
fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain material
misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9. The complaint
alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer Price was unfair
and the result of an unfair sales process that included conflicts
of interest.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement
contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions,
including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things,
the complaint sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, or, in the event that the transactions were
consummated, rescind the transactions or award rescissory
damages, as well as award money damages and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, dropped Federal-Mogul as a defendant.
The amended complaint also: named certain additional Icahn-
affiliated individuals and entities as defendants; deleted
various allegations relating to process and purported disclosure
deficiencies; added allegations regarding the commencement and
extension of the Offer, the increase in the Offer price, the
closing of the transaction, Federal-Mogul's subsequent
performance and public statements, Mr. Ninivaggi's post-merger
employment with Icahn Enterprises, and the independence of
certain directors; and eliminated the request for injunctive
relief given the consummation of the transaction.

On April 4, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated order staying
the Michigan Action pending final determination of the Delaware
Action. On October 16, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Michigan
Action dismissed the Michigan Action, without prejudice as to the
named plaintiffs.

Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers investment and food
packaging services, automotive and energy products, home fashion
commodities, real estate assistance, and gaming services.


IZEA INC: "Perez" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------
Julian Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Izea, Inc., Edward Murphy and Leann C.
Hitchcock, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02784 (C.D. Cal., April 4,
2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5.

IZEA operates online marketplaces that facilitate transactions
between marketers and content creators. Its securities are traded
on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "IZEA." Beginning in January
2017, it had a specific category entitled "Content Workflow"
revenue taken from the self-service use of their proprietary
platform by news agencies to handle their content workflow from
initial content request to payment of content received.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to disclose that IZEA
was misreporting revenue from the Content Workflow services as
gross amounts billed to marketers instead of on a net transaction
basis and that it lacked adequate internal controls.

On this news, shares of IZEA fell $0.58 per share or over 19% to
close at $2.42 per share on April 3, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


JACKSON HEWITT: 3rd Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in "Scoma" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., JACKSON
HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, JOHN DOES
1-5 and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM
(M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division,
denied Hewitt's Third Motion to Bifurcate Discovery filed on Jan.
9, 2018.

Hewitt seeks to bifurcate discovery into two phases, individual
merits discovery and class discovery.  The Plaintiff opposes the
requested relief.

On Jan. 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against various Defendants including Hewitt under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Junk Fax Prevention.  On Feb. 10,
2017, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint, which U.S.
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted and dismissed the
Amended Complaint without prejudice.

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, the operative complaint.  It alleges that on
Dec. 23, 2016, the Defendants sent an unsolicited facsimile to
the Plaintiff.  The Defendants again moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint, which Judge Chappell denied.

While the Defendants' motions to dismiss were pending, Hewitt
twice moved to stay and bifurcate discovery.  Magistrate Judge
Mirando twice stayed all discovery pending a determination of the
motions to dismiss and denied without prejudice Hewitt's requests
to bifurcate discovery.

On Dec. 11, 2017, when Judge Chappell denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint,
Judge Chappell lifted the discovery stay and directed the parties
to file an amended Case Management Report.  On Dec. 19, 2017, the
parties filed a Case Management Report - Amended, indicating the
Plaintiff wishes to conduct Rule 23 class discovery first whereas
Hewitt proposes to conduct individual discovery first and then
file dispositive motions on individual issues.

Hewitt seeks to first conduct discovery on the merits of the
Plaintiff's individual claim because after individual merits
discovery, Hewitt argues it anticipates to file a meritorious
motion for summary judgment.  Hewitt asserts the motion may
resolve the entire case or streamline the proceedings because the
Plaintiff requested to receive a facsimile, and Defendants Astro
Tax Services, LLC and Naveen Mathur sent a facsimile to the
Plaintiff without Hewitt's approval or involvement.  Hewitt seeks
not to bear unnecessary discovery costs until the Court rules on
the merits of the Plaintiff's individual claim against Hewitt.
It further argues bifurcating discovery will not prejudice the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff responds Hewitt's grounds for its anticipated
motion for summary judgment lack merit.  It further argues
phasing discovery will prejudice it and unnecessarily delay the
case because it will take approximately four to six months until
the Court rules on Hewitt's anticipated motion for summary
judgment.

Magistrate Judge Mirando will deny Hewitt's motion to bifurcate
discovery because she does not find bifurcated discovery will
serve the interests of judicial economy.  She finds that Hewitt's
anticipated motion for summary judgment is based on two grounds:
the Plaintiff requested other Defendants to send a fax
advertisement, and Hewitt is not a sender of the fax at issue
within the TCPA.  She finds the merits of these grounds are not
clear at this stage, and thus bifurcating discovery will not
conserve resources of the parties or the Court.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge finds that the parties have a
factual dispute over whether the Plaintiff requested the other
Defendants to send a fax because the Plaintiff contends Hewitt
did not have its prior invitation or permission to send a fax
advertisement, and Hewitt's evidence supporting its claim is
false.  Given the parties' factual and legal disputes, she cannot
conclude Hewitt's likelihood of success on its anticipated motion
for summary judgment is as clear and definitive as it argues.

Furthermore, Hewitt does not clearly establish how merits
discovery would aid its future motion for summary judgment or it
cannot bear the burden of class discovery at this stage.  Nothing
prevents Hewitt from moving for early summary judgment, even if
discovery is not bifurcated.  If Hewitt finds discovery
objectionable or burdensome, Hewitt is at its liberty to object,
but it is not exempt from broad discovery rules.  The Magistrate
Judge holds that without addressing the merits of the parties'
substantive claims, she finds Hewitt's hardship associated with
class discovery does not outweigh the inconvenience to the
Plaintiff and the resulting delay of this case.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Mirando denied the motion to
bifurcate discovery.  Because certain deadlines in the amended
Case Management Report had expired, she will adjust the deadlines
and issue a Case Management and Scheduling Order accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 4, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2rbkaL9 from Leagle.com.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com
-- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Jackson Hewitt Inc., a Virginia corporation & Jackson Hewitt
Technology Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr. --
dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De
Simone -- Michael.peter@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas
Justin Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord,
LLP.

Astro Tax Services LLC, a Florida limited liability company &
Naveen Mathur, Defendants, represented by Carl Joseph Coleman --
joe.coleman@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC & Jarred
D. Duke --  jarred.duke@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney,
PC & Fowler White Boggs.


JB HUNT: Wants Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, 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 a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

J.B. Hunt Transport is a defendant in certain class-action
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former
California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.
During the first half of 2014, the District Court in the lead
class-action granted judgment in our favor with regard to all
claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit
issued a Memorandum decision vacating the judgment in the
company's favor and remanding the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit denied the company's Petition for Rehearing En
Banc in November 2017, and the case has been reassigned to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California for further proceedings according to the schedule
entered by the Court. In February 2018, the company filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

The overlapping claims in the other lawsuits remain stayed
pending final resolution of the appellate process or a final
decision in the lead class-action case.

J.B. Hunt Transport said, "We cannot reasonably estimate at this
time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise
from these lawsuits, however, in 2017, we recorded a $10 million
reserve representing an amount we deem acceptable for the
settlement of these claims."

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is one of the largest surface
transportation, delivery, and logistics companies in North
America. The company operates four distinct, but complementary,
businesses segments and provide a wide range of transportation
and delivery services to a diverse group of customers throughout
the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico. The company
service offerings include transportation of full-truckload
containerized freight, which the company directly transport
utilizing its company-controlled revenue equipment and company
drivers or independent contractors. The company is based in
Lowell, Arkansas.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloway Files Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Angel Galloway and Chris Galloway, individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Imerys Talc
America, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 18CV325914, (Cal. Super., April 5, 2018), seeks exemplary and
punitive damages resulting from negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of warranty from manufacturing defect.

Johnson & Johnson sells a broad range of over-the-counter
products including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body
powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. Imerys Talc America
processed the talcum powder used in Johnson & Johnson products.

Angel Galloway allegedly developed ovarian cancer from the use of
Defendants' talcum powder. She used it to dust her perineum for
feminine hygiene purposes. Johnson & Johnson advertised that its
talc-based products is "clinically proven gentle and mild." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Cirsch, Esq.
      Michael Akselrud, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
      21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (310) 277-5100
      Fax: (310) 277-5103
      Email: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
             michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


KAIYI INC: Quan Seeks OT Pay, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quan Luo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kaiyi Inc. (d/b/a Miyako Sushi), Xiang
Zhuang Chen and Hang Ying Li (a/k/a Jenny Li), Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-03101, (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, redress for breach of implied contract,
reimbursement of all costs and expenses of operating their
delivery vehicles on behalf of Defendants, failure to provide a
Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay and payday, wages
statements, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Wage Theft Prevention Act
and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, Miyako Sushi,
located at 642 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025 where Quan
was employed as a deliveryman. He claims to be denied a fixed
meal break, overtime pay and was taken a tip credit towards the
minimum wage. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and designating him as a
delivery worker with side jobs instead of non-tipped employees in
order to avoid the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him
the lower tip credit. Quan's non-tipped work exceeded two hours
or twenty percent of his workday. Quan incurred out-of-pocket and
unreimbursed gasoline and motorcycle expenses as a requirement
for employment, driving his motorcycle an average of fifty to
sixty miles a day to deliver, the complaint relates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com


KASS SHULER: "Keyte" Suit Disputes Erroneous Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Keyte and Anne Keyte, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kass Shuler, P.A., a
Florida Corporation and Jeffrey J. Mouch, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-14115, (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2018),
seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants are Florida-based law firms engaged in the
business of collecting consumer debts. They sought to collect a
consumer debt from Plaintiffs arising from an alleged delinquency
on a credit card. They sent a collection letter that failed to
list the correct amount of the debt, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Sandusky Wellness Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission.

The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of
$0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA,
and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual
claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3,
2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
issued its decision and order reversing the District Court's
denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the
matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District
Court granted the Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

Laboratory Corporation said, "The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit."

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known
as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in "Davis" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that
the appeal made by Patty Davis on the Circuit Court's decision in
granting the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, is
still pending.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits
under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed
the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court
of Appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known
as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California remanded the case entitled, Daniel L. Bloomquist v.
Covance Inc., et al. back to the Superior Court.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing
to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for
all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and
Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance in
California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13,
2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California remanded the case back to the Superior Court.

Laboratory Corporation said, "The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit."

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known
as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Bouffard" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss in Victoria
Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
was granted without prejudice.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-
contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; this motion was granted
in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second
putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. The complaint contains similar allegations and seeks
similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and adds additional
counts regarding state consumer protection laws.

Laboratory Corporation said, "The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuits."

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known
as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LABORATORY CORP: "Gonzalez" Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2018, that the putative class action suit entitled Maria
T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, is still ongoing.

On August 1, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination
Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, filed against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint
alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists as
independent contractors through an arrangement with the
co-Defendant temporary staffing agency.

The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours
worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit
seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

Laboratory Corporation said, "The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit."

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known
as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LABORATORY CORP: "Sealock" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2018, that the parties' motions in the case John Sealock,
et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., are still
pending.

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative
class action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market
Access Services, Inc., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Covance Market Access Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by
failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations. In December 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification of a Collective Action. The parties'
motions remain pending. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories. Before a merger with National
Health Laboratory in 1995, the company operated under the name
Roche BioMedical. LabCorp performs its largest volume of
specialty testing at its Center for Esoteric Testing in
Burlington, North Carolina, where the company is headquartered.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit, Frank
J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and
William P. Weidner, remains pending.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner.

The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13,
2007 through November 11, 2008.

The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner.

The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period
of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended
complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand
their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been
previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16,
2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to
dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on
November 12, 2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore,
the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case
was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S.
District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter
under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December
13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended
Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March
11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary
judgment on April 8, 2016.

Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on
January 4, 2017.

Las Vegas Sands said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in
support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. Defendants filed their
answering briefs in opposition to the appeal on October 13, 2017.

In its recent report, the Company said the Plaintiffs filed their
reply brief in support of their appeal on December 14, 2017. Oral
argument on the appeal was held on April 12, 2018.

Las Vegas Sands said, "The Company intends to defend this matter
vigorously."

Las Vegas Sands Corp., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the United
States. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LG DISPLAY: Canadian Class Suits vs. LCD Makers Already Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. 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 three class action suits in the Canadian
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are all
dismissed.

In 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display
and other TFT-LCD manufacturers in the Canadian provinces of
British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. In November 2016, LG
Display reached settlement with the provinces of British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

In March 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the
settlement and dismissed LG Display from the Ontario class
action.

In April 2017, the Superior Court of Quebec approved the
settlement and dismissed LG Display from the Quebec class action.

In May 2017, the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved the
settlement and dismissed LG Display from the British Columbia
class action.

LG Display Co., Ltd. is an innovator of TFT-LCD, OLED and other
display panel technologies. The company manufactures display
panels in a broad range of sizes and specifications primarily for
use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet
computers and various other applications, including mobile
devices. G Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LG DISPLAY: Consumer Group's Bid over Service of Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. 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 Hatzlacha filed a number of motions to
uphold service in the Central District in Israel.

In December 2013, a class action complaint was filed by
Hatzlacha, a consumer organization, on behalf of Israeli
consumers against LG Display and other defendants in the Central
District in Israel. In July 2017, the Supreme Court of Israel
ruled in favor of the defendants to affirm the District Court's
decision to revoke the leave to serve the class action on the
defendants outside the jurisdiction of Israel.

In August 2017, Hatzlacha filed a number of motions to uphold
service in the Central District in Israel under different legal
grounds, which are currently being contested by the defendants.

LG Display Co., Ltd. is an innovator of TFT-LCD, OLED and other
display panel technologies. The company manufactures display
panels in a broad range of sizes and specifications primarily for
use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet
computers and various other applications, including mobile
devices. G Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in Calif. Granted OK
----------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. 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 court has granted the company's
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

In September 2016, a class action civil lawsuit was filed against
the company, LG Display America, Inc. and others in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
participation in an agreement with other companies not to solicit
one another's employees. In January 2017, LG Display filed a
motion to dismiss. In April 2017, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.

LG Display Co., Ltd. is an innovator of TFT-LCD, OLED and other
display panel technologies. The company manufactures display
panels in a broad range of sizes and specifications primarily for
use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet
computers and various other applications, including mobile
devices. G Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LIFE STORAGE: Awaits Final Approval of $8 Million Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Life Storage Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are awaiting the court's final approval of
an $8 million settlement.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of various
statutory laws. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County
to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's
motion was granted in part and denied in part. On October 20,
2016, the complaint was amended to add additional claims.

Life Storage said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties have entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle all claims for an
aggregate amount of $8.0 million and have jointly moved for
preliminary judicial approval of the settlement in November 2017.
The aggregate settlement amount of $8.0 million ($5.0 million
after considering income tax impact) has been recorded as a
liability of the Company. A portion of the settlement expense
relates to self-storage facilities that are managed by the
Company through its taxable REIT subsidiary. There is an income
tax impact to the Company on that portion of the settlement
expense as a result. The settlement is subject to approval by the
court, a decision on which was expected later in 2017.

In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that the motion
for the preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement was granted in February 2018.  The Company also said
the settlement is subject to final approval by the court, a
decision which is expected in 2018.

Life Storage, Inc. is a self-administered and self-managed equity
REIT that is in the business of acquiring and managing self-
storage facilities. Located in Buffalo, New York, the Company
operates more than 700 storage facilities in 28 states. The
Company serves both residential and commercial storage customers
with storage units rented by month.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Howard"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle the case entitled, Howard v.
Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D. C.
2014).

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and r chief
its executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief
accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting our growth initiative, growth potential,
and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially
inflating our stock price, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Dep├Čt et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant. On March 2, 2015, the company moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or
plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016,
the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Only
the claims related to the company's retail division were not
dismissed.

On May 16, 2016, the defendants answered the amended complaint,
denying all allegations of wrong-doing. Plaintiffs' class
certification motion was granted, and defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment was denied, on September 6, 2017. On
April 18, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action, including the dismissal and release of all
claims against all defendants, in exchange for the payment by the
company's insurance carriers of $17 million to plaintiffs and the
class.

The agreement is subject to the negotiating of a definitive
settlement agreement, preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement by the District Court, final approval of such
settlement by the District Court after notice to the class, and
other customary conditions.

Liquidity Services said, "There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be finalized and approved and, even if approved,
whether the conditions to effectiveness will be satisfied."

Liquidity Services Inc. operates an online auction marketplace
for wholesale, surplus, and salvage assets primarily in the U.S.
and Europe. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland.


LOMA NEGRA: Petition in Error in Argentinian Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima 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's petition in error because of denial of appeal in the
class action suit by Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil is
pending.

In February 27, 2007, Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil
filed a class action as representative of the holders of the
notes issued by Inversora Electrica de Buenos Aires S.A., or
IEBA, in an aggregate principal amount of Ps.200,000,000, in
1997, or the IEBA Notes, against several defendants (including
us, as a former minority shareholder of IEBA). Plaintiff seeks to
extend liability to the defendants for the lack of payment of the
IEBA Notes alleging, among other things, under-capitalization of
IEBA, as issuer.

The company said, "We filed several defenses, including, without
limitation, lack of standing to sue, statute of limitations, that
we were no longer shareholders of IEBA at the time of the
issuance of the IEBA Notes and that the IEBA Notes have been
successfully restructured through a reorganization plan duly
endorsed by the competent court with effect against all holders
of the IEBA Notes and declared fulfilled by resolution of the
same court dated April 18, 2008."

On August 28, 2017, the court admitted the class action and as of
September 5, 2017 the Company appealed the court's decision. The
Court rejected such appeal, thus on September 28, 2017 the
company filed a petition in error because of denial of appeal.

Finally, the petition in error was admitted and, as of the date
of this report, the Court is analyzing the basis of the appeal.
Based on the foregoing and on our Argentine litigation counsel's
opinion, we believe that the chances of success of the claim
against us are remote.

Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima,
together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement
and its by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates
through Cement, Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad;
Aggregates; and Others segments.


LONGFIN CORP: Miller Files Suit of Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Longfin Corp., Venkat S.
Meenavalli and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
02973, (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Longfin operates as a finance and technology company and recently
acquired Ziddu.com to enable global trade through the use of
blockchain technology.

Defendants failed to disclose that it had material weaknesses in
its operations and internal controls making their financial
statements and business, operations and prospects questionable.
On March 2, 2018, the Company disclosed that the SEC was
investigating the company, and had requested certain documents
relating to the Longfin's IPO and the acquisition of Ziddu.com.
On this news, its shares fell $4.42 per share, or over 30%, to
close at $9.89 per share on April 3, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
             davew@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029
      Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


LONGFIN CORP: "Loong" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
LOONG CHEE MIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Longfin Corp., Venkat S.
Meenavalli and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
02973, (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Longfin operates as a finance and technology company and recently
acquired Ziddu.com to enable global trade through the use of
blockchain technology.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to disclose that it had
material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls
making their financial statements and business, operations and
prospects questionable. On March 2, 2018, the Company disclosed
that the SEC was investigating the company, and had requested
certain documents relating to the Longfin's IPO and the
acquisition of Ziddu.com. On this news, its shares fell $4.42 per
share, or over 30%, to close at $9.89 per share on April 3, 2018.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      230 Park Ave, Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


MANHATTAN LAUNDRY: "Juarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Hernandez Juarez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Laundry Centers Inc.
(d/b/a Manhattan Laundry Center), Here To Clean, Inc. (d/b/a Here
To Clean Inc.), Precious 2 NY, Inc. (d/b/a Precious 2 NY, Inc.),
Eung Ho (a/k/a Choy) Kim, Kris H Yun, John Doe (a/k/a Mr. Jin)
and Ashima (a/k/a Mrs. Kim, Mr. Kim's Wife) Doe, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-02843 (S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a laundromat company, located
at 122 Avenue C, New York, NY 10009 under the name "Manhattan
Laundry Center" where Hernandez was employed as a dry cleaner. He
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime,
says the complaint. [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


MASTEC NETWORK: "Hays" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
James Hays, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mastec Network Solutions, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03676 (E.D. La., April 6, 2018), seeks
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty in a work
week, an amount equal to all of their unpaid wages as liquidated
damages as well as their reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees
and costs of this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

MasTec provides cable repair and installation service for
residential and commercial clients as an authorized contractor
for Cox Communications. Hays was hired to work as a technician,
regularly working more than forty hours per work week without
being paid overtime, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George B. Recile, Esq.
      Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
      Conrad Meyer, Esq.
      Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
      Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
      CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY
      RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
      One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Telephone: (504) 833-5600
      Facsimile: (504) 613-4528


MAVERICK DESIGN: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nelson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Maverick Design, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00861, (N.D. Tex., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, damages and other relief for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maverick Design -- www.maverickdesign.com -- manufactures gypsum
products, fiberglass, cut stone and stone products where
Plaintiff worked. He routinely worked in excess of forty hours in
a workweek without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com


MDL 2672: Volkswagen's Bid to Enforce Settlement Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: Dkt. No. 4048 Napleton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Case No. 16-02086, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
("VWGoA")'s Motion to enforce the Volkswagen Branded Franchise
Dealer Class Action Settlement Agreement with respect to the TDI-
related claim, but denied the Motion with respect to the three
allocation-related claims.

After learning that Volkswagen had installed a defeat device in
its TDI "clean diesel" vehicles to cheat on emissions tests, a
group of Volkswagen-branded franchise dealers filed a class
action against VWGoA in the Court.  The franchise dealers and
VWGoA subsequently agreed to the terms a settlement, which the
Court approved.

In the settlement agreement, the class members and other
"Releasing Parties" agreed to a broad release of claims against
VWGoA.  The release covers not only all claims related in any way
to the TDI matter, but also all claims for monetary damages
arising before the Effective Date of the Franchise Dealer Class
Agreement that relate in any way to allocation complaints or
irregularities.

In the pending Motion, VWGoA asks the Court to enforce the
settlement agreement.  VWGoA seeks an order that (1) dismisses
with prejudice, and enjoins AAG and the Intervenor Plaintiffs
from asserting, the three vehicle inventory claims in the New
Jersey action; and (2) dismisses with prejudice, and enjoins the
Intervenor Plaintiffs from asserting, the emissions fraud claim
in the New Jersey action.  VWGoA contends that these four claims
are Released Claims and that AAG and the Intervenor Plaintiffs
are also Releasing Parties as defined in the settlement
agreement.  Each of these claims has been filed in New Jersey
state court by either a class member or certain parties related
to that class member.

Judge Breyer finds that the vehicle inventory claims at issue are
based on allegations that are far afield from the subject matter
of the franchise dealers' class action.  They have nothing to do
with Volkswagen's emissions fraud, and they do not resemble the
vehicle allocation claims in the franchise dealers' class action,
which centered on VWGoA's alleged manipulation of the size of
PAIs, which enabled certain dealers with smaller PAIs to get
preferential allocations and more desirable vehicle inventory.
For these reasons, the vehicle inventory claims at issue are not
based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the
claims in the settled class action.  The franchise dealers'
settlement agreement therefore cannot preclude AAG and the
Intervenor Plaintiffs from pursuing these claims in New Jersey
state court.

The Judge next finds that unlike the vehicle inventory claims,
the Intervenor Plaintiffs' emissions fraud claim is clearly based
on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims
in the franchise dealers' class action.  The emissions fraud
claim is based on allegations that the Intervenor Plaintiffs
invested in the Union Dealership in reliance upon false
representations by VWGoA that its "clean diesel" vehicles were
environmentally friendly.  Similar representations by VWGoA were
the primary focus in the franchise dealers' class action.

Notwithstanding, the Intervenor Plaintiffs argue that the Court
should not enjoin their TDI claim for two reasons.  First, they
argue that they are not Releasing Parties as defined in the
settlement agreement.  Second, they contend that an injunction is
not permissible under the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Judge holds that given the relationship between the
Intervenor Plaintiffs and AAG, it is reasonable to view the
Intervenor Plaintiffs' claims as claims that are "by, through, or
under AAG," even though the Intervenor Plaintiffs are not
asserting claims on behalf of AAG in the same manner that a
trustee or successor would.  A contrary interpretation of the
release would allow claims that are essentially identical to
those that were released by franchise dealers to proceed simply
because the claims are asserted indirectly by the owners of
franchise dealers.  Such an interpretation of the release would
frustrate a goal of the settlement, which was to resolve all
claims between VWGoA and the franchise dealers related to
Volkswagen's emissions fraud.  Because the Intervenor Plaintiffs
each assert claims "by, through, or under AAG," they are
Releasing Parties under the settlement agreement.

Lastly, the Judge holds that because the res judicata
requirements of the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction
Act are satisfied as to the Intervenor Plaintiffs' TDI claim, the
Court has the authority to enjoin that claim.  The Court
exercises that authority.  He says the franchise dealers' class
action sought to resolve all litigation between VWGoA, VW-branded
franchise dealers, and affiliates of the franchise dealers
related to the "clean diesel" emissions fraud.  By seeking to
litigate in state court a claim based on the emission fraud, the
Intervenor Plaintiffs threaten the final resolution of the
franchise dealers' class action and the res judicata effect of
this Court's prior judgment.  The Judge therefore enjoins the
Intervenor Plaintiffs from asserting their TDI claim in the New
Jersey action.

Judge Breyer granted in part VWGoA's Motion.  He granted it as it
relates to the Intervenor Plaintiffs' TDI claim, which is Count
Six in the Intervenor Plaintiffs' complaint in the New Jersey
state court action.  The Intervenor Plaintiffs are enjoined from
pursuing this claim.  The Judge denied the Motion as to AAG's and
the Intervenor Plaintiffs' vehicle inventory based claims, which
are Counts Six and Seven in AAG's amended complaint and Count
Five in the Intervenor Plaintiffs' complaint in the New Jersey
state court action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/FzCNMu from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of
Peter Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tana Lin --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Todd A. Walburg,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Dean Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
-- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan,
War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The
Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller, McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J.
Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey, Johns &
Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC,
Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and
Rice LLC, John L. Hone, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis, Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Larry Martin Roth, Rumberger,
Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk &
Caldwell, PA, Michael R. McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie
Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald,
Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot Ffanklin & White LLC,
Seth Abram Schaeffer, McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons
PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Adam K.
Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Allison Rachel McLaughlin,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak &
Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Anne Katherine Guillory, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L.
Watson, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Benjamin K. Reitz, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, Blake Adam Gansborg, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP, Brett R. Leland, Verrill Dana LLP, Brian C.
Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Carine M. Williams,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley, BAKER
AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr., McGuireWoods
LLP, Charles Pendleton Mitchell, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell,
Christine Kingston, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP,
Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R.
Larsen, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell L. Barger, Hartline Dacus
Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Ayers, Watkins and Eager PLLC, David
A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N.
May,Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, David M.J. Rein,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
Edward W. Hearn, JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elena Lalli Coronado,
Sullivan and Cromwell, Elizabeth Righton Johnson, Balch & Bingham
LLP, Emily Anne Ellis, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Eric R.
Burris, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Erin Patricia Mead,
Thorn, Gershon, Tymann & Bonanni, LLP, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber
Law Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, Harlan
I. Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt,
McNatt, Greene & Peterson, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E.
Peifer, Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David
Ayers, WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and
Gray LLP, John Alan Knox, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John Garrett
McCarthy, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John Thomas
Prisbe, Venable LLP, Jonathan M. Hoffman, MB Law Group, LLP, Joy
Goldberg Braun, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Mark A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary
E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Matthew A. Schwartz,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Fletcher
Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J.
McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee,
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney
LLP-HTFD, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice,
Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Donnell,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W.
Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith
Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu, Herzfeld & Rubin PC,
Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul T. Collins, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Paul E.D. Darsow, Hanson Bolkcom
Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT,
Richard White Crews, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ryan A.
Morrison, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, S. Keith Hutto, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, PLLC, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon
L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P.
George, George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods
LLP, Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steve S. Tervooren,
Hughes Gorski Seedorf Odsen & Tervooren LLC, Stuart A. Drake,
Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sverker K. Hogberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Thomas R. Ferguson, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, PLLC, Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP, William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & William Henry
Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew
Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin --
levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m -- Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com -- Verrill Dana
LLP, David Maxwell James Rein --  reind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr. -- gswebb@Venable.com --
Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson
& Bell LTD, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. --
gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, John
Thomas Prisbe -- jtprisbe@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon L. Nelles --
nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L.
Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell --
bell.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stuart A. Drake --
stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William
B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush,
Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Michael R. Williams, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Ritchie E. Berger, Esq., Dinse, Knapp &
McAndrew, P.C., Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro
hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC,
Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth &
Paige, PLLC, Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice,
John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Michael R. Williams,
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Parsons, King & Spalding LLP, Adam G. Sowatzka, King & Spalding
LLP, Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M. Fine, King, Spaulding Law Firm, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha,
Nixon Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, James K.
Vines, King & Spalding, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph
Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth Yeatts Turnbull, King &
Spalding LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper
LLP, Sheldon T. Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING, Sonya R. Braunschweig,
DLA Piper LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac
vice & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.

David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Moen,
Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King &
Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA
Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong,
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr.,
DLA Piper LLP.

Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D.
Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice
& David Lloyd Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP.

Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, represented by Natalie
Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

Audi USA, Defendant, represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP.


MOTIVATIONAL COACHES: Coaches Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruno Nze, Giovanna Suarez and Colleen Gigante, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Motivational Coaches of America, Inc., Julio Avael, Paul
Rendulic, Elisa de Lima, Claudel Trajan, Manny Riera, Josil Cerda
and Jorge Cubero, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00835 (M.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a school-based program for children struggling
with anger management, substance abuse, self-esteem and
behavioral challenges, partnering with school districts providing
a motivational coach on the school campus. Plaintiffs worked as
coaches assigned to different school campuses. They claim to have
worked between 50-60 hours per week without the appropriate
overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
      Scott. L Terry, Esq.
      FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS LLC
      16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
      Lutz, FL 33558
      Tel: (727) 254-5255
      Fax: (727) 483-7942
      Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
             daniela@fgbolaw.com


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is
preparing its motion to dismiss and will vehemently defend itself
against a putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

Nabors Industries said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that Nabors and Nabors Maple
Acquisition Ltd. were sued, along with Tesco Corporation and its
Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed
on September 29, 2017, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiff
alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy Statement
filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission omitted material information with respect to the
proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on August
14, 2017.  The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the
Proxy Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and alleges liability by Nabors as a control person of Tesco.
Defendants are moving to consolidate this case, captioned The
Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust et al. v. Tesco Corporation et al.,
No. 4:17-cv-02918 (S.D. Tex.) (Miller, J.) with another matter
recently filed against Tesco making the same or similar legal
claims against Tesco, captioned Panella v. Tesco Corporation et
al., No. 4:17-cv-02904 (S.D. Tex.) (Bennett, J.).

In its recent report, the Company disclosed that the court
consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order. Plaintiff recently filed their amended
complaint, adding Nabors Industries, Ltd. as a party. Nabors is
preparing its motion to dismiss and will vehemently defend itself
against the allegations.

Nabors Industries Ltd. owns and operates one of the world's
largest land-based drilling rig fleets and are a provider of
offshore rigs in the United States and numerous international
markets.


NESTLE USA: Littlejohn Sues Over Product Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Littlejohn, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00658, (S.D.
Cal., April 2, 2018), seeks disgorgement of any benefits received
from unjust enrichment realized as a result of improper and
misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing; restitution and
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorney fees
and costs; and such other and further relief resulting from
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied and express
warranty and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint says the Defendant manufactures, distributes, and
sells a variety of sweet and tart flavored candies under the
brand name, "SweeTARTS." They all contain artificial flavors but
did not disclose this and labeled and advertised them as
naturally-flavored. Their labels claim that it contains no
artificial flavors but they all contain a synthetic flavoring
chemical identified in the ingredient list as "malic acid" that
confers a fruit-like flavor and simulates the flavor of actual
fruit, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             mike@consumersadvocates.com


NEW A&A PIZZA: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. New A&A Pizza & Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a A&J Pizza),
A&J Pizza & Bakery Corp. (d/b/a A&J Pizza), Gen Shen Tang and
John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01968 (E.D. N.Y., April
2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and unpaid "spread of hours" premium pursuant to New York
Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants own and operate a pizzeria "A&J Pizza" where Plaintiff
worked as a nonexempt pizza maker, cashier and occasional waiter.
Guzman did not receive written wage notices identifying his
regular hourly rate of pay and corresponding overtime rate of
pay. He claims to have worked over forty hours per week without a
designated break and was not paid proper overtime compensation.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


NEW DAWN: "Moya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Alexander Narvaez Moya, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Dawn Restaurant Inc.
(d/b/a New Dawn Restaurant), John Doe Corp. (d/b/a New Dawn
Restaurant) and Camerino Torres, Defendants, Case No. 18-02023
(E.D. N.Y., April 4, 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 restaurant located at 40-21
22nd street, Long Island City, NY 11101 under the name "New Dawn
Restaurant" where Moya was employed as a delivery worker and a
dishwasher. He 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 Moya the required "spread of hours" pay
for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
Defendants disguised Moya's actual duties in payroll records by
designating them as a delivery worker and a dishwasher instead of
non-tipped employees in order to avoid the minimum wage rate and
enabled them to pay him the lower tip credit rate, says the
complaint. [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


NRG ENERGY: $7 Million Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the $7 million class
action settlement in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Purported Class Actions.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by
the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the
defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing
unsolicited calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List."

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per
plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief. On June 22, 2017,
plaintiffs in the California case filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint to substitute new plaintiffs.
Defendants filed an opposition to this motion on June 26, 2017.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion to substitute new plaintiffs
and on August 1, 2017, defendants filed an answer to the second
amended complaint. On August 31, 2017, the court in the
California case agreed that the litigation should be stayed
pending final court approval of the New Jersey settlement.

On July 12, 2017, the parties in the New Jersey action reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the class allegations which was
confirmed by a term sheet signed by the parties on July 28, 2017.
On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the New Jersey case filed
their motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement
which was approved by the court on November 17, 2017.

On May 1, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the class action settlement.

The case is, Dobkin v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC, Case
No. 15-cv-05089 (D.N.J.).  Additional information on the case is
available at:

          http://nrgresidentialsolartcpasettlement.com/

KCC Class Action Services LLC serves as settlement administrator.

Counsel to the Class:

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     E-mail: RBalabanian@edelson.com
             ERapp@edelson.com

          - and -

     Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN L. COLEMAN
     1072 Madison Ave., Suite 1
     Lakewood, NJ 08701
     Tel: 877-333-9427
     E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

Counsel to NRG:

     Andrew C. Glass, Esq.
     Gregory N. Blase, Esq.
     K&L GATES LLP
     State Street Financial Center
     One Lincoln Street
     Boston, MA 02111

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a customer-driven
integrated power company built on a portfolio of leading retail
electricity brands and diverse generation assets. NRG is
continuously focused on serving the energy needs of end-use
residential, commercial and industrial customers in competitive
markets through multiple brands and channels. The company is
based in Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: "Braun" Suit Pending in California
----------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Braun
v. NRG Yield, Inc.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members
of its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
rescission, attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging
jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. The case is currently stayed by
agreement of the parties. On May 2, 2018, the court approved a
joint stipulation which provides: (i) plaintiffs' opposition
brief is due on or before July 30, 2018; (ii) defendants' reply
brief is due on or before October 5, 2018; and (iii) a hearing on
the motions is scheduled on October 30, 2018.

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a customer-driven
integrated power company built on a portfolio of leading retail
electricity brands and diverse generation assets. NRG is
continuously focused on serving the energy needs of end-use
residential, commercial and industrial customers in competitive
markets through multiple brands and channels. The company is
based in Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Heard in "Griffoul" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that oral argument on the
appeal was heard in the case Griffoul v. NRG Residential Solar
Solutions on April 24, 2018.

On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey
residential solar customers, filed a purported class action
lawsuit in New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs allege violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer
Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain
provisions of their residential solar contracts. The plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of
the solar renewable energy credits.

On June 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration or dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 29, 2017. On July 14, 2017, the court denied
NRG's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the case. On July
25, 2017, NRG filed a motion for reconsideration of the appeal,
which was denied. On August 22, 2017, NRG filed a notice of
appeal. After fully briefing the appeal, oral argument was heard
on April 24, 2018.

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a customer-driven
integrated power company built on a portfolio of leading retail
electricity brands and diverse generation assets. NRG is
continuously focused on serving the energy needs of end-use
residential, commercial and industrial customers in competitive
markets through multiple brands and channels. The company is
based in Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: "Rice" Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a purported class action suit entitled, Rice
v. NRG, in Pennsylvania.

On April 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against NRG, First Energy Corporation and Matt
Canastrale Contracting, Inc.  Plaintiffs generally claim personal
injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage related to the
disposal of coal ash from GenOn's Elrama Power Plant and First
Energy's Mitchell and Hatfield Power Plants.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, medical monitoring
and remediation of their property. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on August 14, 2017. On October 20, 2017, NRG filed its
answers and affirmative defenses.

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a customer-driven
integrated power company built on a portfolio of leading retail
electricity brands and diverse generation assets. NRG is
continuously focused on serving the energy needs of end-use
residential, commercial and industrial customers in competitive
markets through multiple brands and channels. The company is
based in Princeton, New Jersey.


OHIO: Court Partly Grants Class Certification in "Ball" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN KASICH, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Thecase was filed by Disability Rights Ohio and the Center for
Public Representation on behalf of Plaintiffs Ball, Antonio
Butler, Caryl Mason, Richard Walters, Ross Hamilton, Nathan
Narowitz, and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the State of Ohio unnecessarily
institutionalizes people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in violation of federal law.

The Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities (1) who currently reside in
Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") with eight or more beds
("Large ICFs") throughout Ohio, but who are willing and able to
live in the community, and those (2) who are in community-based
care, but who are at serious risk of placement in a Large ICF.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Social
Security Act; and are asking for a single injunctive order
requiring the Defendants to remedy systemic deficiencies that
deny class members their rights under federal law.

In particular, the Individual Plaintiffs seek the opportunity to
leave segregated ICFs, or to avoid unnecessary and unwanted
admission to these facilities, through the provision of
integrated residential, employment, and day services.  A single
injunction requiring the Defendants to develop and deliver these
services in a manner sufficient to avoid the class members'
unnecessary institutionalization would resolve the alleged legal
violations and create alternatives that benefit the class as a
whole.

The Plaintiffs name as Defendants in the lawsuit Ohio Gov. John
Kasich, Director of Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
Kevin Miller, Director of the Ohio Department of Medicaid John
McCarthy, and Director of the Ohio Department of Developmental
Disabilities John Martin.  After full briefing by all interested
groups or parties, the Court permitted intervention by the Ohio
Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities ("DD
Boards") and by a group of guardians of individuals with
developmental and intellectual disabilities who currently reside
in Large ICFs in Ohio ("Guardians").

Early in the life of the action, the Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Class Certification, which the Court granted as
unopposed.  The Ohio Defendants moved for expedited
reconsideration of that decision, which the Court granted.  The
parties then engaged in mediation, which was ultimately
unsuccessful in settling the entire case, but focused various
issues.  The parties also engaged in significant discovery.

The Court set a briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification, and Memoranda in Opposition were filed by
the Ohio Defendants, the DD Boards, and the Guardians.  Based on
the mediation, the additional parties added to the case, and the
discovery obtained, the Plaintiffs modified their definition of
the requested class in their Reply in Support of their Motion for
Class Certification.  With the Court's permission, the ARC of the
United States, the ARC of Ohio, and the Judge David L. Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law ("ARC") filed a brief as amicus
curiae in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The Ohio Defendants, the DD Boards, and the Guardians all filed
Supplemental Memoranda in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification to address the modified class definition
proposed in the Plaintiffs' Reply.  With the Court's permission,
the Voice of the Retarded ("VOR") filed a brief as amicus curiae
in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs then filed their Final Reply in Support or Their
Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs move to certify an injunctive and declaratory
relief class defined as all Medicaid-eligible adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state
of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home
and community-based services, but (a) are institutionalized in an
Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds, and, after
receiving options counseling, express that they are interested
in, or may be interested in, integrated community-based services;
or (b) are at serious risk of institutionalization in an
Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds and have, by
placing themselves on a waiting list for community-based
services, expressed an interest in receiving integrated services
while continuing to live in the community.

Judge Sargus granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  He concludes that the proposed
"at risk" class members do not have homogenous interests for the
same reasons the proposed class members did not.  That is, the
class members who may want community-based services do not have
homogenous interests with those class members who do want
community-based services.  Likewise, some class members who are
on the wait list want community-based services and some want
services provided in Large ICFs.

In a situation where there is limited funding, the Judge says
this not only reflects lack of homogenous interests, it indicates
competing interests, which could actually harm certain members of
a broad Rule 23(b) class because of the lack of notice and
opportunity for class members to opt out.  Therefore, because the
proposed class does not suffer a uniform harm that can be
remedied with the same relief, certifying a broad class is
inappropriate.

Based on this, the Judge finds that the following revision of the
class definition will ensure that a Rule 23(b)(2) class is
properly constituted: All Medicaid-eligible adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state
of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home
and community-based services, and, after receiving options
counseling, express that they are interested in community-based
services.  This definition includes all individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities who want to utilize
the community-based services, whether they are currently in an
ICF or in the community and wish to move to another setting in
the community.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://goo.gl/nDD5DW from Leagle.com.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Julia M. Graff,
United States Department of Justice.

Phyllis Ball, by her General Guardian, Phyllis Burba, Antonio
Butler, individually, Caryl Mason, by her Next Friend Cathy
Mason-Jordan, Richard Walters, by his Next Friend Linda Walters,
Ross Hamilton, by his Next Friend Sherry Hamilton & The Ability
Center of Greater Toledo, in its organizational and
representative capacity, Plaintiffs, represented by Kerstin
Sjoberg-Witt --
ksjoberg-witt@disabilityrightsohio.org -- Disability Rights Ohio,
Alison A. McKay, Disability Rights Ohio, Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, pro hac vice, Cathy E. Costanzo --
ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public Representation, pro hac
vice, John Gribbin Hutchinson -- JHUTCHINSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Warren Muenz --
JMUENZ@SIDLEY.COM --, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Lesley Rucker -- krucker@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public
Representation, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Truitt, Disability Rights
Ohio, Kristen A. Knapp -- KKNAPP@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP,
pro hac vice, Neil R. Ellis -- NELLIS@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel R. Bagenstos, pro hac vice & Thomas
Kayes -- Neil R. Ellis , Sidley -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice.

Governor John Kasich, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Zachery Paul Keller, Ohio Attorney General, Sarah
Elaine Pierce, Ohio Attorney General's Office & Tiffany L.
Carwile, Ohio Attorney General Constitutional Offices Section.

Director John Martin, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Larry Holliday James -- ljames@cbjlawyers.com --
Crabbe Brown & James, Frank David Tice, V --
ftice@cbjlawyers.com -- Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Robert
Charles Buchbinder -- rbuchbinder@cbjlawyers.com -- Crabbe Brown
& James & Vincent James Lodico -- vlodico@cbjlawyers.com --
Crabbe Brown & James.

Director Kevin Miller, in his official capacity & Barbara Sears,
Ohio Department of Medicaid, in her official capacity,
Defendants, represented by Julie E. Brigner, Ohio Attorney
General's Office Health & Human Services Section & Larry Holliday
James, Crabbe Brown & James.

Norman S. Ray, Defendant, represented by Larry Holliday James,
Crabbe Brown & James.

Ohio Provider Resource Association, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Peter A. Lusenhop -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Kara Marie Mundy -- kmmundy@vorys.com --
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP & Suzanne Jo Scrutton --
sjscrutton@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

VOR, Inc., Amicus, represented by Diane Devitt Reynolds, Law
Department.

The Arc of Ohio, The Arc of the United States & The Judge David
L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Amicuss, represented by
Stephen M. Dane -- sdane@relmanlaw.com -- Relman, Dane & Colfax
PLLC.

Ohio Association of County Boards Serving People with
Developmental Disabilities, Movant, represented by Franklin J.
Hickman -- FHickman@Hickman-Lowder.com -- Hickman & Lowder Co.,
L.P.A. & John Richard Harrison -- JHarrison@Hickman-Lowder.com --
Hickman & Lowder.


OVERSTOCK.COM: "Mahabadi" Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Shaham Mahabadi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Overstock.Com, Inc., Patrick Byrne and
Jonathan E. Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 18-00290 (D. Utah,
April 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Overstock is an online retailer that offers discounted brand-name
merchandise for sale over the internet. In late 2014, the Company
formed a wholly-owned subsidiary, Medici Ventures to develop and
advance blockchain technology. Medici oversees a portfolio of
blockchain technology and fintech businesses, which includes
tZERO. In December 2016, the Company issued publicly traded
blockchain preferred shares of Overstock.com, Inc.

Defendants failed to disclose that Overstock's coin offering was
highly problematic and potentially illegal and that its Medici
business was hemorrhaging money. On this news, Overstock's share
price fell $6.68, or 14.97%, to close at $37.92 on March 27,
2018.

Mahabadi acquired Overstock securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost upon the revelation of the alleged corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Scofield, Esq.
      PETERS SCOFIELD - A Professional Corporation
      7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
      Sandy, UT 84093-6160
      Telephone: (801) 322-2002
      Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
      Email: dws@psplawyers.com

             - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


PANERA BREAD: Rewards Card Holders Sue Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Alisha Boykin, Kristen Hansen, Tracy Mangano, Amy Dittbenner,
Lara Suleiman and Dusica Perez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Panera Bread Co.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02461 (N.D. Ill, April 5, 2018), seeks
declaratory relief, damages, attorney's fees, injunctive relief
and equitable relief resulting from breach of contract and
violation of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act,
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are persons who purchased food and/or beverages at one
of Panera's approximately 2,000 nationwide restaurants where
their names, credit and/or debit card account numbers, card
expiration dates, card verification codes, emails, telephone
numbers and other demographic information were exposed to hackers
in the MyPanera and Rewards programs. Plaintiffs have utilized
MyPanera accounts to purchase food on-line for pickup at a local
Panera restaurant in their respective states and/or they have
utilized their Panera Rewards accounts to obtain "points" for
purchases, providing Panera with some form of their Personal
Identifying Information in conjunction with their creation and
use of their respective Meet MyPanera or/or Panera Rewards
accounts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
      SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
      2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
      Lombard, IL 60148
      Tel: (630) 581-5456
      Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Ct. OKs "Castillo" Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NELSON CASTILLO, MARTA VALLADARES, ARACELY
VALLADARES, CARLOS REYES, and YOSELY ESPINAL HENRIQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PERFUME WORLDWIDE INC. and PIYUSH GOLIA,
Defendants, Case No. CV 17-2972 (JS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice.

The Plaintiffs filed the collective action and putative class
action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
against the Defendants on May 16, 2017 for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
and Article 19 Sections 650 et seq., and the New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR").  They seek to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and regular wages as well as other relief.

Defendant Perfume Worlwide is an online retailer of fragrances,
hair and skin care products, cosmetics, candles and accessories.
Defendant Golia has been the President of Perfume Worldwide
during the six-year period preceding the commencement of the
action.  The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants
who worked as warehouse workers or in customer service.  They
bring the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated persons who were current and former workers employed by
the Defendant, at any time during the three year period prior to
the filing of the complaint and who elect to opt-in to the
action.  The Complaint also contains class action allegations on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class consisting of all non-exempt
workers who have been employed by the Defendant in the State of
New York at any time during the six-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants implemented a uniform
policy of deducting 20 minutes a day from the Plaintiffs' work
hours for a morning break.  According to the Complaint, as a
result of this policy, the Defendants failed to pay workers for
all compensable working hours.  Based on these allegations, the
Complaint sets forth causes of action for failure to pay overtime
in violation of the FLSA, NYLL and NYCRR, failure to pay straight
wages in violation of NYLL, and failure to compensate spread-of-
hours pay in violation of the NYCRR.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on Aug. 5, 2017.  Two
days later, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Court
seeking the ability to file the motion nunc pro tunc and
requesting that the Court set a briefing schedule for Opposition
and Reply papers.  That same day, the counsel for the Defendants
filed a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification on the grounds that it was filed in violation of
the Court's Individual Practice Rules.

The Court issued an Order addressing both filings on Aug. 8,
2017.  It held that, in its discretion, it would accept the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as filed,
denying the Defendants' application to strike the motion.  It
also set deadlines for the filing of the Defendants' Opposition
and Plaintiffs' Reply.  Judge Seybert subsequently referred the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification to the Court for
a decision.

Magistrate Judge Tomlinson finds that the allegations in the
Complaint and the Plaintiffs' Declarations support an inference
that the Plaintiffs and other potential opt-ins are similarly
situated.  So does the Defendants' representation that they do
not challenge the conditional certification sought by the
Plaintiffs.  She notes that the Defendants will have an
opportunity later in the litigation to move for de-certification
of the collective should they believe that members of the
collective are not actually similarly situated.

As to the proposed opt-ins notice, the Defendants contest the
improper use of trade name, the placement of "Questions? Contact
Nadia Estrada," submission of opt-in forms, opt-in period, the
language of notice and consent to join forms, Spanish
translations, limitations period and eligible employment dates.
The Magistrate Judge, among other things, (i) directs Atty. Moser
to submit a revised proposed notice to the Court reflecting his
firm's name change, as well as other revisions discussed, within
15 days of the entry of theMemorandum and Order; (ii) directs the
Plaintiffs to remove "Questions? Contact Nadia Estrada," as well
as her contact information, from the bottom of each page of the
proposed notice; (iii) further directs the Clerk of the Court to
redact the address and telephone number of each opt-in prior to
filing the forms on ECF; (iv) order that the Notice will provide
that opt-ins have 60 days to return the consent to join form to
the Clerk of the Court; and (v)  finds that no changes are
necessary to the eligible employment dates since the parties do
not dispute that the applicable period is "any time after May 16,
2014" as the start of the period of eligibility.

Based on the Court's earlier ruling, the Magistrate Judge directs
that the Plaintiffs' counsel will substitute "Moser Law Firm,
P.C." for the existing language.  In addition, she asks the
Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer
readable data file containing the collective's names, last known
mailing addresses, telephone numbers, work locations and dates of
employment within 14 days of entry of the Order.  The list is to
be treated by the parties as confidential.  To the extent that
the parties have not previously entered into a Stipulation and
Order of Confidentiality, they are ordered to do so forthwith for
this purpose.

She will grant the Plaintiffs' request to post notice and consent
forms immediately adjacent to each punch clock/biometric time
clock used by Covered Employees who are presently employed for
the entire duration of the opt-in period.  Posting of Notice in
locations of the Defendants' facilities that are primarily
frequented by customers is not permitted.  She is further
directing the Defendants to file an affidavit of compliance with
the posting requirement within 14 days of the close of the opt-in
period.

Finally, given the length of time that has passed since the
instant motion was filed, and the diligence of the Plaintiffs'
counsel in pursuing certification, the Magistrate Judge is
granting equitable tolling from the date the motion was filed.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Tomlinson granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification as an FLSA collective action pursuant to Section
216(b).  She directed the counsel to revise the Plaintiffs'
proposed notice to comply with the directives set forth.  She
further ordered that within 14 days of entry of the Order, the
Defendants are to produce a computer-readable list of the names,
last known addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment
for current and former hourly employees of Perfume Worldwide who
have been employed at any time after May 16, 2014.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://goo.gl/jPmfYV from Leagle.com.

The Scher Law Firm, LLP & Barbara Barbash Kalish, Movants,
represented by Austin R. Graff, The Scher Law Firm, LLP.

Nelson Castillo, Marta Valladares, Aracely Valladares, Carlos
Reyes & Yosely Espinal Henriquez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven
John Moser, Steven J. Moser.

Perfume Worldwide Inc. & Piyush Golia, Defendants, represented by
Jacques Catafago, Catafago Law Firm, P.C..


PG&E CORP: Calif. Suits over Transmission Lines Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to face multiple suits related to its transmission lines in
California.

As of May 1, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of
more than 150 lawsuits representing approximately 2,500
plaintiffs, 6 of which seek to be certified as class actions,
that have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in
the Sonoma, Napa and San Francisco Counties Superior Courts.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, negligence, inverse
condemnation, trespass, and private nuisance. They principally
assert that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure
to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines
and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such
lines were the causes of the fires. The plaintiffs seek damages
that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage,
evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, and other damages.

In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their
insureds for property damage arising out of the fires have filed
8 subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior
Court. These complaints allege, among other things, negligence,
inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are
similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs. Various
government entities, including Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma
Counties, have also asserted claims against PG&E Corporation and
the Utility in the San Francisco County Superior Court based on
the damages that these public entities allegedly suffered as a
result of the fires. Such alleged damages include, among other
things, loss of natural resources, loss of public parks, property
damages and fire suppression costs. The causes of action and
allegations are similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs
and the insurance carriers.

On April 16, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted
notices of claims against, among other government entities,
Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma Counties, reserving their rights to
pursue claims against these entities for contribution and
equitable indemnity stemming from these entities' actions and
inactions before and during the Northern California wildfires.

PG&E Corporation is a holding company whose primary operating
subsidiary is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a public utility
serving northern and central California. The Utility generates
revenues mainly through the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to customers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: "Hester" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Hester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Phillips 66 Company,
Plaintiffs, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01078, (S.D. Tex., April
5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, prejudgment interest and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Phillips 66 is a global energy company where Carl Hester worked
as a Construction Field Representative. Hester worked for
Phillips 66 in their Texas and New Jersey locations. He claims to
have been improperly classified as an independent contractor,
receiving a flat amount for each day worked with no overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jennifer M. Solak, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             jsolak@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PLAINS ALL: 3rd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Lead Case No. H:15-02404 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H.
Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The Judge addresses the Defendants' second motion to dismiss the
securities-fraud amended complaint.  The complaint arises from a
highly publicized oil spill in an environmentally sensitive area
on the California coast.  TheDdefendants responded, according to
the Plaintiffs, with a series of misrepresentations about the
extent of the spill and the financial impact on Plains, the oil
and gas pipeline owner and operator.  The Plaintiffs contend that
Plains falsely claimed to have a comprehensive, effective
environmental and regulatory compliance program to prevent oil
spills and, if they occurred, to quickly remediate the effects.
When the facts emerged, the stock price dropped.  A putative
class of stockholders sued the company, its officers and
directors, and the banks that underwrote some of its securities
offerings, seeking compensation for their stock-price losses.

On March 29, 2017, the Court issued a lengthy Memorandum and
Opinion addressing the Defendants' first motions to dismiss.  It
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, without prejudice and with
leave to amend.  The specific rulings were as follows:

     a. The Exchange Act claims were dismissed, without prejudice
and with leave to amend, because: (1) the majority of the
statements, as pleaded, were not actionably misleading; and (2)
the Plaintiffs did not allege facts that gave rise to a strong
inference of scienter for any defendant for any statement.

     b. Some of the Exchange Act claims were found potentially
actionable, but not as pleaded, including two legal-compliance
statements in Plains' agreements with the Underwriter Defendants:
(i) none of the Issuers, the GP Entities or the Material
Subsidiaries is in violation of any law, statute, ordinance,
administrative or governmental rule or regulation applicable to
it or of any decree of any court or governmental agency or body
having jurisdiction over it; and (ii) except as described in the
Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, none of the Plains
Entities, directly or indirectly, has violated any environmental
laws, or lacks any permits, licenses or other approvals required
of them under applicable Environmental Laws to own, lease or
operate their properties and conduct their business as described
in the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus or is
violating any terms and conditions of any such permit, license or
approval, which in each case would reasonably be expected to have
a Material Adverse Effect.

     c. A statement about corrosion control on the Plains website
and three post-spill statements by Plains's safety and security
director, Patrick Hodgins, were actionably misleading, as
pleaded, including: (i) a statement on Plains's website that it
performs scheduled maintenance on all of the pipeline systems and
makes repairs and replacements when necessary or appropriate;
(ii) Hodgins' statement that the first time he heard anything
about the corrosion is what he reads in the newspapers, they had
no indication at all to assume there was an issue; (iii) Hodgins'
statement, when asked whether the 2007 or 2012 in-line inspection
runs had uncovered any sections of line 901 with metal loss
greater than 50, that Plains had not had any indication at that
time; and (iv) Hodgins' failure to correct a spill-estimate
figure, when asked about a 105,000 gallon spill volume, despite
Plains' alleged knowledge that the spill volume could be much
larger.

     d. The four statements that were actionably misleading as
pleaded -- Hodgins' three statements and the statement about
corrosion control on Plains' website -- were not set out with an
alleged basis for a strong inference of scienter.

     e. The plaintiffs' "general" allegations of scienter as to
the statements held to be false or misleading were insufficient.

     f. The Defendants' loss-causation arguments were not a
sufficient basis to dismiss the case.

     g. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' "class standing"
argument; held that the Plaintiffs who did not purchase notes in
or traceable to the August 2013, September 2014, or the two
December 2014 notes offerings did not have standing; and
dismissed their claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act for those offerings, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act and Securities
Act claims, without prejudice and with leave to amend.  The
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The
Plains Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants have moved to
dismiss this amended pleading.  The Plaintiffs responded, and
both groups of Defendants separately replied.  The Court held a
hearing at which it heard arguments on the motions.

The primary new factual allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint are: (i) some of Plains' statements apply "specifically
- and exclusively" to its pipelines in high-consequence areas;
(ii) Plains had notice of regulatory violations because of
warning letters from the PHMSA from 2009 and 2013 about Lines 901
and 903; (iii) Plains was indicted in Santa Barbara Superior
Court in May 2016 on felony charges for its conduct related to
the spill; (iv) the conclusions in the PHMSA's May 19, 2016
Failure Investigation Report were derived from Plains' own data;
(v) Plains had received several other warning letters and notices
of violations from the PHMSA in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2016,
about regulatory violations on its pipelines in other parts of
the country; (vi) conclusions from the May 19, 2016 Failure
Investigation Report detailing regulatory violations on Line 901;
(vii) Plains did not perform adequate inspections or maintenance
on its pipelines, had ineffective corrosion protection, did not
have adequate leak-detection systems or monitoring, and did not
adequately respond to the Line 901 spill, in violation of federal
regulations; (viii) Plains' legal and regulatory compliance
failures and pipeline-integrity deficiencies were allegedly
reported to the individual defendants because of representations
in Plains' Form 8-K underwriting agreements and Forms 10-K and
10-Q that Plains maintained disclosure controls and procedures
designed to provide reasonable assurance that material
information was "recorded, processed, summarized, and
communicated" to Plains' officers; (ix) by virtue of Plains'
audit committee's charter, the committee received notice of all
potential or actual regulatory non-compliance that could "result
in material non-compliance"; the committee in turn reported to
the Board; (x) two of the named defendants signed Sarbanes-Oxley
Act certifications in Plains' Forms 10-K and 10-Q that material
information was made known to them; (xi) reports required by the
Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Safety ("PIPES") Act could
not be compiled or verified without the underlying data Plains
obtained through its ILIs and excavations of Lines 901 and 903
throughout the class period; and (xii) statements in Plains' Code
of Business Conduct emphasized a commitment to compliance with
applicable laws and a requirement that material deviations from
pipeline-safety and environmental-protection measures must be
approved by two of four senior executive officers.

Judge Rosenthal holds that although the Second Amended Complaint
alleges more specific facts about Plains' pre-spill regulatory
violations, it still does not allege a strong inference of
scienter.  The new scienter allegations are, again, based on the
Defendants' positions within the company and certifications they
signed affirming that senior executives had reviewed reports
containing material information.  He says these allegations are
not enough to establish a cogent and compelling inference of
scienter.  Although the Plaintiffs' arguments are well-presented,
the Second Amended Complaint does not meet the rigorous pleading
requirements of the PSLRA.

For these reasons, the Judge granted the motions to dismiss.
Because the Plaintiffs have amended twice already, the third
effort to replead does not cure the deficiencies, and further
amendment would be futile, he dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
are dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and
Opinion is available at https://goo.gl/Cfov1H from Leagle.com.

City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Farrell Claxton --
roger@claxtonlaw.com -- at Law Firm of Roger F. Claxton Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake
Nachmani -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson --
jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP;
Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd
LLP

IAM National Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP; Angel P. Lau -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Luke O.
Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Price --
aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com --
Darryl J. Alvarado -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP

Ming Liu and City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System,
Plaintiffs, represented by Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP

U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., USCA Securities LLC, Stifel
Nicolaus & Company Inc, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Simmons & Company
International, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Stephens
Inc., SG Americas Securities LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.,
Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Regions Securities LLC, Raymond James
& Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., PNC Capital Markets LLC, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Mizuho Securities USA Inc., BB&T Securities,
LLC, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co. Inc., ING Financial Markets LLC, Fifth Third Securities,
Inc., DNB Markets, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., CIBC
World Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., BMO Capital
Markets Corp., and BBVA Securities Inc., Defendant, represented
by Tracy N. LeRoy -- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin --
rwechkin@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Gregory L. Armstrong, Al
Swanson, and Chris Herbold, Defendants, represented by Craig Eric
Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston --
jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com --
at Vinson Elkins LLP

John T. Raymond, Bobby S. Shackouls, Robert V. Sinnott, Vicky
Sutil, Taft Symonds, Christopher M. Temple, Victor Burk, Everardo
Goyanes, Gary L. Petersen, Harry N. Pefanis, and Plains GP
Holdings L.P., Consol Defendants, represented by Craig Eric
Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston --
jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com --
at Vinson Elkins LLP.

UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and
Barclays Capital Inc., Consol Defendants, represented by Tracy N.
LeRoy -- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin --
rwechkin@sidley.com -- Mark K. Glasser -- Matthew J. Dolan --
mdolan@sidley.com -- Norman J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com -- at
Sidley Austin LLP Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., Movant,
represented by William B. Federman -- wbf@fedemanlaw.com -- at
Federman Sherwood.

The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Carl E. Singley -- csingley@tlgattorneys.com --
Joe H. Tucker -- jtucker@tlgattorneys.com -- at Tucker Law Group;
Christine Donato Saler -- CDS@chimicles.com -- Kimberly M.
Donaldson Smith -- KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- Nicholas E.
Chimicles -- Nick@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP;
Roger B. Greenberg -- roger@smglawgroup.com -- Thane Tyler
Sponsel, III -- sponsel@smglawgroup.com -- at Sponsel Miller
Greenberg PLLC

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Movant, represented
by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP; Jeffrey Haber --
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. -- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D.
Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake Nachmani --
jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson --
jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP;
Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd
LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, and Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East
Baton Rouge, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP.

Alfred H. Davis, Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The
Bilek Law Firm LLP.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bruner Sues Over Engine Fire Hazzard
--------------------------------------------------------
James Bruner, Michael Zeeck and Ed Beattie, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Polaris
Industries, Inc. and Polaris Sales Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-00939 (D. Minn., April 5, 2018), seeks actual, statutory and
punitive damages and restitution, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded, attorneys' fees and costs of
suit and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraudulent omission, breach of express and implied
warranty of merchantability and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Alabama's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Polaris Industries Inc., incorporated on September 23, 1994,
designs, engineers and manufactures powersports vehicles, which
include Off-Road Vehicles.

According to the complaint, in Polaris' off-road vehicles with
the Ranger and RZR lines, the engines' exhaust gas piping lack
proper ventilation and heat shielding and is positioned within
inches of combustible plastic body panels, thus, posing a fire
hazard. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
       Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
       LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
       100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200
       MPLS, MN 55401-2179
       Tel: (612) 339-6900
       Fax: (612) 339-0981
       Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com

              - and -

       Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
       John E. Tangren, Esq.
       Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
       DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
       Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
       Chicago, IL 60602
       Telephone: (312) 214-7900
       Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
              jtangren@dlcfirm.com
              dferri@dlcfirm.com

              - and -

       Courtney L. Davenport, Esq.
       THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC
       18805 Porterfield Way
       Germantown, MD 20874
       Telephone: (703) 901-1660
       Email: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com


PREMIER CC INC: "Elkish" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
Abdudaziz Elkish, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, V. Premier CC, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01055 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Elkish worked as a cable installation worker for PremierCC, Inc.
in Harris County, Houston, TX, installing, maintaining, and
repairing residential cable television and Internet services.
Defendants did not pay Elkish overtime pay at the mandated
overtime rate, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Defreitas, Esq.
      Williams Tower
      2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (832) 794-6792
      Fax: (281) 784-3777
      Email: a.defreitas@lawyer.com


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Gifford" Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Gifford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Professional Account Services, Inc., a
Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-14116, (S.D.
Fla., April 3, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
compensatory damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices.

Professional Account Services, Inc. is a Tennessee Corporation
and is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. It
sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt using a
collection letter that did not inform her of what she needs to
dispute the debt or any portion thereof. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com


QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN LAZAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM CORPORATION,
FUAD AHMAD, JON W. GACEK, and ADALIO T. SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00923-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richaed Seeborg of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
granted the parties' stipulated order extending the time to
respond to the complaint and postponing case management
conference and related deadlines.

On Feb. 13, 2018, Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations
of the Federal Securities Laws  against Quantum and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, Gacek, Ahmad, and
Sanchez.  The Defendants waived service of the Complaint, and
their responses to the Complaint are currently due June 11, 2018.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Court entered an Order Setting Initial Case
Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, which, among other
things, set an Initial Case Management Conference for May 17,
2018.  The CMC Order further set May 10, 2018 as the last day for
the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial
disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and file a
Case Management Statement per Standing Order re Contents of Joint
Case Management Statement, and set April 26, 2018 as the last day
for the parties to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures,
early settlement, Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process
selection, and a discovery plan, and file an ADR Certification
with either a Stipulation to ADR Process or a Notice of Need for
ADR Phone Conference.

The action is governed by the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and the
parties anticipate that the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff
and that the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a
consolidated complaint superseding previously filed complaints,
including the Complaint.

The parties agree that efficiency for the Court and the parties
in proceeding under the PSLRA dictates that responding to the
current Complaint should be deferred.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Seeborg
granted, that after the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), the lead plaintiff and the
Defendants will promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for
the filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an
operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for the Defendants'
anticipated motion(s) to dismiss.  The parties will submit a
joint stipulation with a proposed schedule no later than 10
business days following the appointment of the lead plaintiff.

The Defendants will not be required to move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to, the Complaint in the action, and will not
be deemed to have waived any rights, arguments, or defenses by
waiting to respond, until such time as the Defendants are
required to respond pursuant to the Court-approved schedule.

The Initial CMC currently set in the matter for May 17, 2018 is
vacated and will be rescheduled at a later date consistent with
the foregoing stipulation.  All related deadlines set forth in
the Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and
ADR Deadlines will be continued accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/s63vm1 from Leagle.com.

Steven Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
Jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Joel Anderson Fleming -
- Joel@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Whitney E. Street --
whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Quantum Corporation, Fuad Ahmad & Adalio T. Sanchez, Defendants,
represented by Boris Feldman -- Boris.Feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Caz Hashemi
-- chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Normane Gillmann, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Globis Capital Advisors L.L.C., Movant, represented by Robert
Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

David Andrews, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.


RAYMOND JAMES: Kampert Files Suit Over FCRA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Dustin Kampert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00796, (M.D. Fla.,
April 3, 2018), seeks statutory and punitive damages, equitable
and/or injunctive relief, attorney's fees, expenses, costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Raymond James Financial operates a national financial services
business aimed at consumers in the United States. In 2015,
Kampert applied for a license to sell financial services using a
stockbroker's license sponsored by Raymond. It was eventually
denied after securing a record indicating that Kampert had a
criminal record back in 2008.  Mr. Kamper says he was not
provided with a copy of the report in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: swenzel@wfclaw.com
             lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com

             - and -

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
      Craig Marchiando, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             Elizabeth@clalegal.com
             craig@clalegal.com

             - and -

      Scott A. Surovell, Esq.
      SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC
      4010 University Drive, Suite 200
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Phone: (703) 251-5400
      Fax: (703) 591-9285
      Email: ssurovell@siplfirrn.com

             - and -

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Phone: (703) 424-7572
      Fax: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandalLoom


RH INC: Court Issues Case Management Schedule in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has entered a
case management order in the case, IN RE RH, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:17-cv-00554-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

On April 23, 2018, the parties a
ppeared before the Court for a Case Management Conference.
Having considered their Joint Case Management Conference
Statement and statements of the counsel at the Case Management
Conference, Judge Rogers ordered that the following schedule
applies to the action:

     a. Class certification motion due: June 22, 2018

     b. Class certification opposition due: Aug. 3, 2018

     c. Class certification reply due: Aug. 31, 2018

     d. Class certification hearing: Sept. 25, 2018 at 2 p.m.

     e. Fact discovery deadline: Jan. 31, 2019

     f. Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures and reports: March 1,
2019

     g. Rule 26(a)(2) rebuttal expert disclosures and reports:
April 1, 2019

     h. Expert discovery deadline: April 22, 2019

     i. Dispositive motions and Daubert motions due: May 14, 2019

     j. Oppositions to dispositive and Daubert motions due: June
11, 2019

     k. Replies ISO dispositive and Daubert motions due: June 25,
2019

     l. Hearing on dispositive and Daubert motions July: 16, 2019
at 2 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fmiq2I from Leagle.com.

City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David Ronald Stickney
-- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann.

Public School Teachers Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, Lead
Plaintiff & Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon Marsh --
brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, David Ronald Stickney, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, Jenny E. Barbosa -- jenny.barbosa@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann & Jonathan Daniel Uslaner
-- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et al.

Peter J. Errichiello, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J.
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac
vice & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice.

RH, Inc., Gary Friedman & Karen Boone, Defendants, represented by
Erik J. Olson--  Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven -- atreleaven@mofo.com
-- Morrison Foerster LLP, Jordan Eth -- JEth@mofo.com -- Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison
& Foerster LLP & Su-Han Wang -- SWang@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP.

Kalpesh Patel, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.

Steven Hulaj, Henrietta Hulaj, Blair Hulaj & Kristen Hulaj,
Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust,
Movant, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Associated Deal Deadlines in "Singh" Moved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JABIR SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER
INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC., Defendants. NICHOLAS E. RICH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC;
CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. LATRINA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,
v. ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; and MORGAN SOUTHERN,
INC., Defendants, Lead Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM, Case No.
1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM., 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Barbara S. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California ordered that (i) the Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 13, 2018;
(ii) the Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 20, 2018;
and (iii) the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Hearing will be held on May 1, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.in
Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

On March 1, 2018, the Parties attended a Case Management
Conference during which the Court set a scheduling order setting
a deadline to file the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and associated dates.  The
Parties continue to meet and confer over the final terms of the
formal settlement agreement.

The formal settlement agreement contemplated by the Parties is
not finalized.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not in a position
to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement by the current March 30, 2018 filing deadline, as the
Parties are still exchanging drafts of the Settlement Agreement.

The Parties jointly request to move the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and associated deadline two
weeks. They jointly stipulated to ask the Court to modify the
dates set forth in Dkt. No. 108 as follows:
(i) the Motion for Preliminary Approval will be filed on or
before April 13, 2018; (ii) the Opposition or Statement of Non-
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Approval will be filed on or
before April 20, 2018; and (iii) the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement Hearing will be held on May
1, 2018 at 9:30 .a.m. in Court room 5 (DAD before District Judge
Dale A. Drozd.

Judge McAuliffe approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/kre9qL from Leagle.com.

Jabir Singh, Bany Lopez, Julio Vidrio, James Sliger, Derrick
Lewis, Jerry Leininger, Kristopher Spring & Jerry Wood,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner,
Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian S. Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Cheryl Ann
Kenner , Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman,
Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Shant Arthur Karnikian --
sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Angela Elizabeth
Martinez, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Lawrence Mark
Artenian, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP & Nicholas John
Paul Wagner, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.

Nicholas E Rich, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian
S. Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman,
Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Joshua H. Haffner,
Haffner Law, PC, Kevin Shawn Conlogue, Law Offices of Kevin S.
Conlogue, Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP,
Cheryl Ann Kenner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Nicholas John
Paul Wagner, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, Central Cal Transportation,
LLC & Morgan Southern, Inc., Defendants, represented by A. Jack
Finklea -- JFINKLEA@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Adam C. Smedstad --
asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- CMCNATT@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, James H. Hanson --
JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary,
P.C., pro hac vice, Megan E. Ross, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson
& Feary & Alaina Cathrine Hawley -- AHAWLEY@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C.

Latrina Phillips, Defendant, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian S. Kabateck,
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Wagner, Jones,
Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Joshua H. Haffner, Haffner Law, PC,
Kevin Shawn Conlogue, Law Offices of Kevin S. Conlogue, Shant
Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Cheryl Ann Kenner,
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Wagner,
Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.


S GROVER CPA: "Garcia" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. S. Grover, CPA, PLLC (d/b/a S. Grover,
CPA, PLLC), Devonshire Realty (USA), Inc. (d/b/a Devonshire
Realty USA), Inc.), Devonshire Realty NJ LLC (d/b/a Devonshire
Realty NJ LLC) and Sanjay Grover, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
03000 (E.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Sanjay Grover owns, operates, or controls an accounting firm,
located at 146 West 29th Street, Suite 11E, New York, NY 10001
under the name "S. Grover, CPA, PLLC," at 146 West 29th Street,
Suite 11E, New York, NY 10001 under the name "Devonshire Realty
(USA), Inc.," and at 1628 Oak Tree Road, Suite 7, Edison, NJ
08820 under the name "Devonshire Realty NJ LLC." Garcia was
employed as a personal chauffeur by Grover. [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


SAKS FIFTH AVE: Mekerdijian Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Antranik Mekerdijian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company, Lord & Taylor LLC, Hudson's Bay
Company, a foreign corporation, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02649 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2018),
seeks equitable relief, actual and compensatory damages, costs of
suit and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of implied contract, negligence, breach of
covenant of duty of good faith and fair dealing, constitutional
invasion of privacy and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, and various state data breach acts.

Saks Fifth Avenue LLC and Lord and Taylor LLC are operated by
retail business group Hudson's Bay Company with its headquarters
located in Toronto, Canada.

Plaintiff and Class Members shopped at several of Defendants'
stores, and had their information compromised when using their
credit card when Defendants' system was hacked, relates the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SHIPLEY ENERGY: Lowry Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Lowry, an Ohio resident, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Shipley Energy Company and Shipley Choice, LLC,
Shipley Energy and Shipley Fuels Marketing, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00770, (M.D. Pa., April 9, 2018), seeks an injunction
requiring Shipley Energy to cease all unsolicited calling
activities and an award of statutory damages for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Shipley Energy is a group of affiliated companies headquartered
in York, Pennsylvania that provides energy to residential and
commercial customers in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United
States in the form of heating oil, propane and natural gas.

In the effort to market its products and services, Shipley Energy
engaged in telemarketing, however, without prior express written
consent of the receivers. On June 29, 2016, Lowry received an
autodialed call delivering a prerecorded advertisement to his
wireless telephone from Shipley Energy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ann M. Caldwell, Esq.
      CALDWELL LAW OFFICE LLC
      108 W. Willow Grove Avenue, Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19118
      Telephone: (215) 248-2030
      Fax: (215) 248-2031
      Email: acaldwell@classactlaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 241-4722
      Fax: (513) 241-8775

             - and -

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501


SIG SAUER: Hartley Files Suit Over Pistols' Safety Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
David Hartley and Timothy Delisle, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SIG Sauer, Inc. and
SIG Sauer GmbH, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00267, (W.D. Mo.,
April 6, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, additional state consumer protection statutes and
under common law.

Plaintiffs purchased Sig Sauer model P320 pistols. Said pistols
do not have a disconnector safety making the pistols fire out-of-
battery thus creating a dangerous and potentially lethal safety
issue, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
      DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 876-2600
      Fax: (816) 221-8763
      Email: timd@dollar-law.com

             - and -

      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      SAUDER SCHELKOPF
      555 Lancaster Ave.
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 200-0581
      Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com

             - and -

      Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
      WALSH PLLC
      PO Box 7
      Bly, OR 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
      Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


SIMPLY RIGHT: "Perales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Perales, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Simply Right, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00814 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Simply Right is a cleaning company based in Tampa, Florida, where
Perales was employed to perform janitorial services. She claims
to be denied paid time and one-half her regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of forty within a work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com

SIRIUS XM: May 29 Due to File "Buchanan" Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BUCHANAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-0728-D (N.D. Tex.), Judge
Sidney A. Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted Buchanan motion for a
60-day extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification, which expired on March 27, 2018; and denied as
moot Sirius XM's motion to order Buchanan to serve it with his
class certification motion.

Buchanan sues Sirius XM, alleging that it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing telemarketing calls
to individuals who had registered either with the National Do Not
Call Registry or Sirius XM's internal do-not-call list.  The
court entered a scheduling order that set Oct. 16, 2017 as the
deadline for filing a motion for class certification.  This
deadline has been extended four times.

First, the Court granted the parties' agreed motion to extend the
class certification motion deadline to Oct. 23, 2017 based on
Sirius XM's need for an additional week to respond to discovery
requests.  Second, it granted the parties' Oct. 20, 2017 agreed
motion to extend the deadline to Jan. 12, 2018 to give them
additional time for discovery.  The parties filed a third agreed
motion for an extension of the deadline until Jan. 26, 2018,
which the Court granted on Jan. 9, 2018.

Due to Sirius XM's intention to soon produce additional relevant
documents, Buchanan filed a fourth request for an extension of
the deadline.  In response, although Sirius XM contested the
factual basis for Buchanan's motion, it stated that it did not
oppose an extension.  The Court treated the motion as unopposed,
granted the request, and extended the deadline to March 27, 2018.

On March 7, 2018 Buchanan filed a motion to compel and a motion
for protective order.  He asked the Court to compel Sirius XM to
produce its internal do-not-call list and its call log, including
call recipients' telephone numbers, names, and addresses.  The
magistrate judge ordered the parties to meet and confer about
each disputed item. After the parties met, they submitted their
memorialized agreements to the court on March 28, 2018.  They
agreed, inter alia, that Sirius XM would produce its call log,
without names and addresses of the call recipients, as well as
additional documents, including vendor agreements that Sirius XM
had withheld pending entry of a protective order.

On March 24, 2018 Buchanan filed the instant motion for a 60-day
extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification, in which it asks the Court to extend the deadline
to May 29, 2018.  Sirius XM opposes the motion.  Because
Buchanan's motion was still pending on March 27, 2018 -- the
current deadline for filing the class certification motion --
Buchanan submitted a paper copy of the motion for class
certification to the Court's chambers.  Sirius XM then moved the
court to order Buchanan to serve the class certification motion
on Sirius XM.

Judge Fitzwater concludes that Buchanan has satisfied the
requirements under Rule 16(b)(4) for modifying the amended
scheduling order.  Accordingly, she granted Buchanan's motion for
a 60-day extension of the deadline to file a motion for class
certification and extends the deadline until May 29, 2018.

Because she is granting Buchanan's motion, she denies as moot
Sirius XM's motion to order Buchanan to serve Sirius XM with the
class certification motion that Buchanan delivered to the Court's
chambers.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/zblixF from Leagle.com.

Thomas Buchanan, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett L. Ellzey, Jr.
-- jarrett@hughesellzey.com -- Hughes Ellzey LLP, Aaron Siri --
aaron@sirillp.com -- Siri & Glimstad LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice,
Deola T. Ali, Hughes Ellzey LLP, Douglas M. Werman --
dwerman@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas PC, pro hac vice, Henry Abel
Turner -- hturner@tloffices.com -- Turner Law Offices LLC, pro
hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, pro hac vice & William Craft Hughes --
craft@hughesellzey.com -- Hughes Ellzey LLP.

Sirius XM Radio Inc, Defendant, represented by Albert J. Rota --
ajrota@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Allison Waks --
awaks@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Lee Armstrong --
laarmstrong@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Natalia
Oehninger Delaune -- ndelaune@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Sidney
Smith McClung -- smcclung@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Thomas
Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice.


SKY SOLAR: Plaintiffs Balk at Bid to Drop "Barilli" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. 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 seeking to dismiss
the second amended complaint in a putative securities class
action captioned Barilli et al. v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., et
al.

On June 1, 2018, Plaintiffs Andrew Barilli and Ronald Pena filed
their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Dismiss.

On July 16, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned
Barilli et al. v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company's prospectus filed in the
initial public offering ("IPO") in 2014 on the Nasdaq Stock
Market misrepresented a number of subjects, including (i) the
background of its former chief executive officer, Mr. Su; (ii)
Sky Solar's internal controls regarding related party
transactions; (iii) a fraud committed against a Spanish
subsidiary of a predecessor company in 2010; (iv) the state of
the Chilean and Japanese solar markets; (v) Sky Solar's access to
financing; and (vi) Sky Solar's business history, geographic
reach, and prospects for future growth.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that since the IPO, the company
had made misrepresentations concerning Mr. Su's credentials and
the company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of investors who claim to have suffered losses as a result
of their trading of the Company's ADSs acquired from November 13,
2014 to June 12, 2017.

Plaintiffs assert federal securities law claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seek unspecified money damages. On February 16, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on April
20, 2018.

Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., an independent power producer,
develops, owns, and operates solar parks worldwide. It develops
projects; and generates and sells electricity in the downstream
solar market. The company also sells solar energy systems,
including pipeline and related engineering, construction, and
procurement services, as well as is involved in building and
transferring solar parks.


SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ana L. Fernandez and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s), v. South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. Gonzalo
Ochoa and Celenia Maldonado, individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv -21219 (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2018), seeks to recover minimum
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

South Florida Courier provides courier and pick-up and delivery
services in the areas of Miami-Dade County, Broward and Palm
Beach County. Fernandez worked as a courier driver from February
02, 2012 through June 17, 2017. She claims that she was wrongly
classified as an independent vendor/contractor, who worked in
excess of forty hours during one or more weeks on or after April
2015 without being compensated minimum and overtime wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs'
appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary
AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
"AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for
the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage
fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended
Complaint sought injunctive relief against a broad range of
alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.
On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired
to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved
for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On
July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta
from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which
AirTran stopped charging first bag fees).

Defendants have appealed that decision. On March 29, 2017, the
Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all claims against AirTran. On April 13, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the district court's
judgment, and on April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a conditional
notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a
class.

The appeals of the class certification and summary judgment
orders have been consolidated. On March 9, 2018, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary
judgment to AirTran and Delta.

On April 13, 2018, plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for
rehearing and rehearing en banc, and that petition is pending.
AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major U.S. airline headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, and North America's largest low-cost carrier. The
airline was established in 1967 by Herb Kelleher as Air Southwest
and then adopted its current name, Southwest Airlines, in 1971
when it began operating as an intrastate airline wholly within
the state of Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for Approval of Notice Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs' motion
for approval of notice program and to set a schedule for
objections, opt-outs, and the final fairness hearing, remains
pending.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the
Court denied this motion.

On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to
the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million
and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set
forth in the settlement agreement. The Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on January 3, 2018, and on March 23,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to approve a
proposed notice program and to set a schedule for objections,
opt-outs, and the final fairness hearing. The Court has not yet
ruled on that motion. The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major U.S. airline headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, and North America's largest low-cost carrier. The
airline was established in 1967 by Herb Kelleher as Air Southwest
and then adopted its current name, Southwest Airlines, in 1971
when it began operating as an intrastate airline wholly within
the state of Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the claim in the
lawsuit in Saskatchewan has not been served on the Company, and
the time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet
begun to run.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and
Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of
Quebec on September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the
Quebec proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement
with the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court,
British Columbia, and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in
Ontario.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia. On February 14, 2017, the Quebec
Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue the Quebec
proceeding against the Company and to stay that proceeding
against the other defendants.

On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company. On
September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that
may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and
indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation.

The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and
the time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet
begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants
as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not
currently serve Canada.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major U.S. airline headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, and North America's largest low-cost carrier. The
airline was established in 1967 by Herb Kelleher as Air Southwest
and then adopted its current name, Southwest Airlines, in 1971
when it began operating as an intrastate airline wholly within
the state of Texas.


SPRINGBOARD MEDIA: "Dessaigne" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Dessaigne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Springboard Media, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01433, (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully
withheld wages, statutory penalties and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Springboard Media
who were/are employed in the positions of Professional Services
Engineer and/or System Administrator. During the course of their
employment, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than forty hours per
work week without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      Benjamin Salvina, Esq.
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: 267-273-1054
      Fax::215-525-021
      murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


SUNNY DELIGHT: Hunt Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Hunt and Malika Jones, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co., a Florida Corporation, Grenadier
LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv- 00557 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2018), seeks an order
compelling Defendants to cease packaging, distributing,
advertising and selling their products in violation of U.S. FDA
regulations and state consumer protection laws; re-label or
recall all existing deceptively packaged products; inform
consumers regarding their products' misbranding; restitution,
actual and punitive damages and all costs of suit; expenses and
reasonable attorney fees resulting from consumer fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties for
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's
Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

Sunny Delight manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and
sells a variety of fruit-flavored beverage products with various
natural fruit names and images. However, Plaintiffs claims that
all are flavored with artificial flavors to counterfeit the
flavors of fruits named and advertised on the labels. Their
labels also fail to disclose on the front label, as required by
law, that they are artificially-flavored, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Fax: (619) 564-6665
      Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             mike@consumersadvocates.com


SUNRISE FAMILY: Cordero Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Cordero, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TGIS Pharmacy, Inc. (d/b/a Sunrise Family
Pharmacy), Premed Pharmacy Inc. (d/b/a Sunrise Family Pharmacy),
Sajid Javed and Muhammad Jamil, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01937
(E.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 owned, operated, or controlled a pharmacy, located at
6324 4th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11220 under the name "Sunrise Family
Pharmacy." Cordero is a former employee of Defendants who was
employed as a cashier and a pharmacy tech. Plaintiff claims to
have 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 Cordero 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


SYNACOR INC: "Lefkowitz" Suit Hits Share Drop from Bad Forecast
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott D. Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synacor, Inc., Himesh Bhise and
William J. Stuart, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02979, (S.D. N.Y.,
April 4, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Synacor operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, revenue partner for video, Internet, and communications
providers, as well as device manufacturers, governments, and
enterprises. It secured a three-year contract to host web and
mobile services for AT&T Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose
that Synacor was unlikely to receive significant revenues from
the AT&T Contract until 2018 thus rendering their revenue
forecasts erroneous. Lefkowitz alleges that Synacor shares traded
at artificially inflated prices and its share price fell $0.30 or
14.63%, to close at $1.75 on March 16, 2018 upon corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


TARGET CORP: "Greenberg" Filing, Class Cert. Schedule Moved
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD GREENBERG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01862-LB-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation
Regarding Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Extending Class
Certification Schedule.

The Judge accepted as filed the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint in the form attached to the Parties' Joint Stipulation
as Exhibit B.  He extended the class certification schedule set
forth in the Court's Nov. 27, 2017 Order at Section 4 by
approximately 12 weeks, such that (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification will be filed on or before July 12, 2018;
(ii) the Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification will be
filed on or before Sept. 20, 2018; (iii) the Plaintiff's Reply in
support of Class Certification will be filed on or before Nov.
15, 2018; and (iv) the Plaintiff's Motion will be heard on Nov.
29, 2018.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cGBBY9 from Leagle.com.

Todd Greenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie Ann Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman Balint, pro hac
vice, Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@mcguirewoods.com -- Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew
Chang -- mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Stewart M.
Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice &
Patricia Nicole Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett
Fairbourn et al.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol Renee Brophy
-- carol.brophy@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, Katharine Essick
-- kessick@pillsburycoleman.com -- Sedgwick LLP, Anthony John
Anscombe -- aanscombe@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP,
Jennifer O'Sullivan -- jill@jillosullivanlaw.com  -- Sedgwick
LLP & sWeissenberger Emily -- emily.weissenberger@sedgwicklaw.com
-- Sedgwick LLP.

Natrol, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Kahn Abrahm Scolnick -
- kscolnick@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.


TD BANK NA: Melackrinos Files Suit Over Illegal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
John Melackrinos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-03055, (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks compensatory
damages, statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of
New York General Business Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that TD Bank charges a $1 monthly fee in
order for its customers to receive a paper billing statement as
prohibited by New York General Business Law.

TD Bank is a consumer banking corporation headquartered at 1701
Route 70 East, Suite 200, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              pfraietta@bursor.com
              fklorczyk@bursor.com


TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Bristol County Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson, Hans Vestberg, Jan Frykhammar, Borje E. Ekholm, Carl
Mellander and Magnus Mandersson, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03021
(S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2018), seeks damages and interest,
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Exchange Act.

Ericsson provides computer networking hardware, software, and
related services to telecommunications companies around the
world. Ericsson was allegedly overstating service revenues and
improperly delaying the recognition of at least $1 billion in
expenses on its long-term service projects. On July 18, 2017,
Ericsson reported disappointing results for the second quarter
ended June 30, 2017 and revealed that it had identified 42 long-
term service contracts to date with total annual sales of almost
$1 billion that Ericsson would exit, renegotiate, or transform.
On this news, Ericsson ADS price fell $1.21 per share, or 16.62
percent, to close at $6.07 per share on July 18, 2017.

Bristol County Retirement System purchased Ericsson American
depository shares and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      Email: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com


THAT'S IT: Medina Files Suit Over Deceptive Products Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Medina individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. That's It Nutrition, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-02022, (E.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief, monetary, treble and punitive
damages with interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable
fees for plaintiff's attorneys and experts, and such other and
further relief for violation of New York General Business Law and
for breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability.

That's It Nutrition, LLC manufactures and sells snack food
products under the brand "That's it" consisting of fruit bars,
fruit bars with added spicy ingredients, chocolate-covered fruit
pieces and vegetable bars. Medina disputes the "All Natural," "No
Preservatives" and "Raw" labels on their products with actual
pictures of fruits that they allegedly contain. He claims that
they're mostly fruit preserves with other added ingredients and
have undergone additional processes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
      LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 792-0046

             - and -

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seek Compensation for Travel Time
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Escalante, Carlos Escalante and Ignacio Maldonado, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Tobar
Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00980, (D. Md.,
April 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages
under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collections Law.

Tobar was a subcontractor on the MGM National Harbor project
where Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers. They
claim to have spent approximately an hour and a half to two hours
per shift waiting in line to ride to the MGM site, going through
security at the end of their shift, waiting in line for a bus to
depart the MGM site. They claim that were not compensated for
this compulsory travel time. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
      Levi S. Zaslow, Esq.
      6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
      Greenbelt, MD 20770
      Tel: (301) 220-2200
      Email: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com


TOPMARK FUNDING: Northrup Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Northrup, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Topmark Funding, LLC, and Rapid
Investments, LLC, Case No. 18-at-00503 (E.D. Cal., April 9,
2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from illegal telemarketing
calls using an automatic telephone-dialing system without prior
express consent of the Plaintiff, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Rapid funded and controls TopMark, Go Capital, or Go Capital USA.
They provide financing for truck owners. On or about March 21,
2018, Plaintiff received an unsolicited, auto-dialed call to his
wireless phone from TopMark Funding in an effort to promote the
sale of its truck financing services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Court Narrows Claims in "Alston" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF BROOKLINE,
MASSACHUSETTS, BROOKLINE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, BETSY DEWITT,
KENNETH GOLDSTEIN, NANCY DALY, JESSE MERMELL, NEIL WISHINSKY,
BERNARD GREENE, BEN FRANCO, NANCY HELLER, SANDRA DEBOW, JOSLIN
MURPHY, each of them in his or her individual and official
capacity, and LOCAL 950, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13987-GAO (D.
Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts adopted the two reports and
recommendations (R&R) of Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley
addressing the motions to dismiss filed by the Town of Brookline
Defendants and the individual Defendants, respectively, insofar
as portions of the third amended complaint are stricken, but
sustained the Defendants' objection with respect to claim
preclusion.

On Dec. 1, 2015, Alston filed a 55-page complaint in which he was
the sole Plaintiff.  Alston alleged that the Town Defendants,
Individual defendants, and the firefighters' union to which
Alston had belonged had violated his rights in much the same way
he alleges in the present complaint.  On Jan. 12, 2016, the Town
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim on essentially the same grounds as they do in the present
motion.

Before the Court acted on the motion to dismiss, Alston filed a
first amended complaint on Jan. 26, 2016, which was styled as a
class action.  The amended complaint added seven new Plaintiffs
who claimed that they, too, had been racially discriminated
against by the Town.  Two of the Plaintiffs withdrew from the
complaint two weeks later.  The Town again moved to dismiss the
case on the same grounds as in the original motion but added
arguments concerning why the new Plaintiffs were not properly
joined in Alston's case.

On Sept. 2, 2016, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation to
the District Court, Judge O'Toole, recommending that the first
amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
conform to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure3 8 and 20, and that
all plaintiffs other than Alston be required to file new,
separate lawsuits.  The Court did not address the substance of
the Town defendants' pending motion to dismiss because the court
ordered Alston to file a new complaint.  Judge O'Toole adopted
the Report and Recommendation in part.

On Oct. 21, 2016, Alston filed a second amended complaint.  The
Town Defendants and individual defendants jointly moved to strike
portions of it under Rule 12(f)and moved alternatively for a more
definite statement under Rule (12)(e).  Alston then filed the
now-operative third amended complaint.  The Town Defendants have
once again moved to dismiss; Alston responded in opposition; and
the Town Defendants replied.  An oral argument on this motion was
held on Jan. 5, 2018.

The Town Defendants' motion to dismiss is limited to (1) portions
of the third amended complaint relating to policy choices by the
Town regarding the powers and jurisdiction that various Town
committees should have; and (2) portions of the complaint
relating to alleged discrimination against third parties by
unrelated actors spanning decades.  They do not seek dismissal of
Alston's claims against them arising from an alleged hostile work
environment and Alston's ultimate termination.

The third amended complaint alleges that the Town's policy,
practice, and custom of protecting and encouraging acts of racial
discrimination and disparate treatment (the custom) was the
driving force behind the racially-motivated wrongs inflicted on
Alston.

The R&Rs recommend that paragraphs of the third amended complaint
be stricken as surplusage.  They also recommend rejecting the
Defendants' arguments that certain claims apparently pled by the
Plaintiff are barred either by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or by
principles of claim preclusion to the extent that they allege
facts that pre-date the termination of the Plaintiff's prior
Norfolk County action.  The Defendants filed timely objections to
the latter of these recommendations.

Judge O'Toole finds that the third amended complaint's reference
to a 2013 study that found that racial discrimination was
occurring in the Town's housing and rental markets, and the
findings of a 1969 committee that reached a similar conclusion,
do not have a sufficient connection to Alston's claims to
establish any municipal custom.  These allegations should be
stricken.

The Judge next finds that Alston' assertion that the custom is
the reason for the racially disparate makeup of the municipal
workforce, his allegations with respect to white, multi-
generational kinship networks, and his assertion that the Board
reserves the Town department head positions for white people, are
not sufficiently linked to the harm Alston suffered.  The Court
orders from the 1970s regarding the employment of Black
firefighters and police officers, are too remote in time to be
relevant.  However, claims concerning Black firefighters' and
police officers' not being promoted,and Black firefighters' and
police officers' opinions about how their work is viewed, should
not be stricken, as allegations pertaining to racial
discrimination in the fire and police departments, and the
Board's response to those issues, are relevant to Alton's claims.

Next, he finds that Alston's contention that the Town protected a
white firefighter who was arrested for driving 114 mph while
under the influence of alcohol and had been previously arrested
in 2009 and 2012, should remain in the case and not be dismissed
as it is sufficiently similar to his claims.  Also, the
allegations pertaining to a white DPW employee's threatening
comments and the Town's reaction, and Alston's contention that
the employee was not subjected to the same procedures as Mr.
Alston, are relevant to Alston's claims and should not be
dismissed.

He also finds that the portion of the third amended complaint
relating to the Dec. 7, 2015 incident where Sgt. Robert Lawlor
told an individual to do "n***** jumping jacks" and the Town's
efforts to protect Sergeant Lawlor from any substantial
disciplinary action, is sufficiently similar to the harm
allegedly inflicted on Alston and resulting Town response to
support Alston's claims and should not be stricken.

As to Town Commissions, Judge O'Toole finds that many of Alston's
allegations concerning the Human Rights and DICR Commissions are
insufficiently connected to the harm allegedly suffered by Alston
to support his claims.

Lastly, as to the Constitutionality of Article 3.14., the Judge
says Alston is correct that a discriminatory intent or purpose by
the Board in enacting the bylaw would render it unconstitutional.
Alston has no standing to pursue this claim, however.  Section D
of the relief requested, that the Court finds bylaw 3.14
unconstitutional, should be stricken, and the claim should be
dismissed.

After reviewing the parties' submissions concerning the
objections, Judge O'Toole agrees that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
does not bar the present case, but he concludes that the doctrine
of claim preclusion does apply, because the claims at issue could
have or should have been brought in the prior action.  The
Plaintiff may only assert claims that post-date the final
judgment of the Norfolk Superior Court case.

In sum, Judge O'Toole finds that certain allegations in Alston's
third amended complaint are irrelevant to his claims and
recommends that they be stricken.  Other allegations about which
the Defendants complain are sufficiently related to Alston's
claims that they should not be stricken at this juncture.  He
finds, further, that the Brookline bylaw complained of is not
unconstitutional, and recommends that the corresponding claim be
dismissed.

The Judge recommended Town's Partial Motion to Dismiss be allowed
in part and denied in part.  Specifically, he recommended that
the allegations in paragraphs 67-71, 75-95, 99-114, 119-126, 131-
134, 141, 150 be stricken, and section D of relief requested
(asking that Article 3.14 of the Town's bylaws be stricken as
unconstitutional) be dismissed from the third amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://goo.gl/321fv5 from Leagle.com.

Gerald Alston, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Prentice Pilot, Estifanos Zerai-Misgun, Juana Baez,
Rogelio Rodas, Cruz Sanabria, Demetrius Oviedo & Deon Fincher,
Plaintiffs, represented by Brooks A. Ames --
brooks@brooklinejustice.org -- Brookline Justice League, Inc.

Town of Brookline, Board of Selectmen of the Town of Brookline,
Betsy DeWitt, In her Individual and Official Capacities, Ken
Goldstein, In her Individual and Official Capacities, Nancy Daly,
In her Individual and Official Capacities, Jesse Mermell, In her
Individual and Official Capacities, Sandra DeBow, In her
Individual and Official Capacities, Joslin Murphy, In her
Individual and Official Capacities & Neil Wishinsky, In his
Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by
Douglas I. Louison, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP,
Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP &
Patricia Correa, Office of Town Counsel.

Stanley Spiegel, Defendant, represented by Martin R. Rosenthal ,
David Duncan , Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein & Naomi R. Shatz --
nshatz@zalkindlaw.com -- Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein.

Local 950, International Association of Firefighters, Defendant,
represented by John M. Becker -- jbecker@sandulligrace.com --
Sandulli Grace, P.C.

Bernard Greene, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Ben
Franco, In his Individual and Official Capacities & Nancy Heller,
In her Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants,
represented by Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison, Costello, Condon &
Pfaff, LLP & Patricia Correa, Office of Town Counsel.

Mariela Ames, Movant, represented by John McK Pavlos, Pavlos &
Vitali Law Offices.


UNITED PARCEL: "Morgate" Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal by
plaintiff in the case, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al.,
remains pending.

UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc. are defendants in
Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los
Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of
all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc.
franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003.

Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented
and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were
conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to
rebrand to The UPS Store. Defendants' motion to decertify the
class was granted in August 2017. The plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal, and further proceedings in the trial court are
stayed pending resolution by the California Court of Appeal.

United Parcel Service said, "There are multiple factors that
prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if
any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case,
including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe
we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) it remains
uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be
able to present; and (3) plaintiff's notice of appeal is pending.
Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity."

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 4th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Order
--------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court's
decision granting UTCFS' summary judgment motion and dismissing
the claims against UTCFS.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named
as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed
on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third-
party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers
listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in
contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief and monetary damages. Each violation under the TCPA
provides for $500 in statutory damages or up to $1,500 for any
willful violation. In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary
judgment in the Northern District of West Virginia, the court in
which all of the pending TCPA cases has been consolidated,
arguing that the third parties who placed the calls in alleged
violation of the TCPA were not acting as UTCFS' agents and,
therefore, UTCFS could not be vicariously liable for those calls
under the TCPA.

On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary
judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS. The
plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017. On March
14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.

United Technologies said, "We believe that this matter is now
concluded."

United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and
services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.
Its Otis segment designs, manufactures, sells, and installs
passenger and freight elevators, escalators, and moving walkways;
and offers modernization products to upgrade elevators and
escalators, as well as maintenance and repair services. The
company's UTC Climate, Controls & Security segment provides
heating, ventilating, air conditioning, refrigeration, fire,
security, and building automation products, solutions, and
services for residential, commercial, industrial, and
transportation applications. The company is based in Farmington,
Connecticut.


UPSIDE SERVICES: Jairam Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Jairam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Upside Services, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-
60739, (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to
halt Defendant's illegal telemarketing efforts, and statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a mobile application company that developed and
operates the mobile application "Upside," which connects
individuals with local businesses offering discounts and
promotions. It engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed
towards prospective customers, including Jairam with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights and failed to provide clear and
conspicuous disclosure as a result of responding to their
promotions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
      IJH Law
      14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
      Miami, FL 33132
      Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
      Tel: (786) 351-8709


US STEEL: Continues to Defends Shareholder Suit in W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel 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 itself in a shareholder class action suit in
Pennsylvania.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of
Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, four related shareholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U.
S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level
manager of the Company and the financial Underwriters who
participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering
violated federal securities laws in making false statements
and/or failing to discover and disclose material information
regarding the financial condition of the Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class
of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January
27, 2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations
against the same officers and also allege that certain current
and former members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise
appropriate control and oversight over the Company and were
unjustly compensated. They seek to recover losses that were
allegedly sustained.

US Steel said, "The Company is vigorously defending these
matters."

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled
and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe.
It operates through three segments: Flat-Rolled Products (Flat-
Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). The company is based in n Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


VERA INTERIOR: "Hernandez" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Miguel Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Antonio Vera and Vera Interior
Construction, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00344 (M.D. Tenn., April
6, 2018), seeks back pay, liquidated damages, declaratory
judgment, costs, attorney's fees, and other appropriate legal and
equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Antonio Vera owns and operates Vera Interior Construction, LLC, a
construction contractor who employed Hernandez as a manual
laborer. He claims to have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per week but was never paid an overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy M. Lee, Esq.
      1033 Demonbreun St., Suite 300
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Phone: (615) 988-0090
      Fax: (615) 630-6430
      Email: tim@timleelawfirm.com


WABASH NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Supreme Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Wabash National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme Industries, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed on November 4, 2016,
against the Company's subsidiary, Supreme Industries, Inc., Mark
D. Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew
W. Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making
material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected
backlog.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February
14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the
Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the
plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on
April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative
class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016.

A motion to dismiss certain claims was filed on June 8, 2017 and
is pending before the Court, and the case is stayed pending a
ruling on the motion.

Wabash National said, "Due to the inherent risk of litigation,
the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however,
at this time, management believes that the allegations are
without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. As a
result, management does not believe this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or
results of operations.

Wabash National Corporation manufactures and sells semi-trailers,
truck bodies, specialized commercial vehicles, and liquid
transportation systems. The company is based in Lafayette,
Indiana.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: 9th Circuit Appeal Pending
----------------------------------------------
Williams Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted the
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal a district court
order, and the appeal is now pending.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its
former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and
others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices
and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for
consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues.

The company has agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries
related to this matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting
one of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment
as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended
such ruling to the company, entering final judgment in its favor.

Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court
reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on
April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing
with the appellate court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court
issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition
for permission to appeal the order, and the appeal is now
pending.

Williams Companies said, "Because of the uncertainty around the
remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these
actions and our related indemnification obligation could result
in a potential loss that may be material to our results of
operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an
accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a
result, have exposure to future developments."

Williams Companies Inc. is an energy infrastructure company
focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon
resource plays to growing markets for natural gas and NGLs. The
company's operations are located principally in the United
States. The company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Nothern
District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the
parties' briefing schedule regarding the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment ("MSJ").

On April 10, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment with a hearing date of May 16, 2018.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the
Northern District of California, and the deadlines set forth on
CM-ECF, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' MSJ is due by
April 24, 2018, and the Defendants' Reply is due by May 1, 2018.

The Plaintiff has requested additional time to potentially
conduct discovery and respond to the Defendants' MSJ.  Since that
extension would cause the Reply date to conflict with Memorial
Day, the parties have agreed upon a briefing schedule which
accommodates the Plaintiff's request and the Memorial Day
holiday, subject to the Court's approval.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and Judge Orrick granted that
the briefing schedule on the Defendants' MSJ will be revised as
follows: (i) May 18, 2018 - the Plaintiff's Response to the
Defendants' MSJ; (ii) June 1, 2018 - the Defendants' Reply in
support of their MSJ; and (iii) June 13, 2018 - Hearing on MSJ.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Z7849e from Leagle.com.

William Rushing, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Richard
Baker, Esq. -- richard@bakerlawpc.com -- BAKER LAW PC, Audra
Elizabeth Petrolle, Esq. -- apetrolle@roselawgroup.com -- Kathryn
Honecker, Esq. -- khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Lauren Marie
Nageotte, Esq. -- lnageotte@roselawgroup.com -- ROSE LAW GROUP,
pc, pro hac vice.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Williams-Sonoma
Advertising, Inc., a California corporation & Williams-Sonoma
DTC, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, epresented by
Eric James DiIulio, Esq. -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com --
Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh, Esq. -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -
- Dylan John Price, Esq. -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig
Cardon, Esq. -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN
RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.


WISCONSIN: Court Party Extends "Austin" Litigation Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID D. AUSTIN II, Plaintiff, v. JUDY P. SMITH,
EDWARD WALL, REXFORD SMITH, and JON LITSCHER, Defendants, Case
No. 15-cv-525-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted
the Austin's motion for leave to extend the deadline for mailing
class notices, and granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to
extend the litigation schedule.

Austin, a former prisoner at Oshkosh Correctional Institution
("OCI"), alleges that the plexiglass sheets covering the windows
of the cells in certain blocks of OCI cause the cells to be
extremely hot and potentially unsafe.  He is proceeding against
the Defendants on claims that they are deliberately indifferent
to the unreasonable health and safety risks posed by the
permanently closed windows in the cells in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, that they transferred inmates to units
containing the dangerous cells without due process in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that sealing the windows in
specific units of the prison constitutes arbitrarily unequal
treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On March 9, 2017, Judge Peterson allowed the case to proceed as a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  A
month later, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker set the litigation
schedule for the case, culminating in a July 30 trial.  In
January 2018, Magistrate Judge Crocker extended the dispositive
motion deadline by one month at Austin's request with a warning
that Judge Peterson does not intend to move the July 30, 2018
trial date.

Later that month, Judge Peterson approved Austin's proposed class
notice and directed him to mail it to each class member by Feb.
26, 2018.  On March 2, 2018, the parties filed their summary
judgment motions and defendants moved to decertify the class.
Now, Austin moves to extend the briefing schedule on the summary
judgment and decertification motions, to extend the deadline for
disclosing damages expert reports, and to supplement the list of
class members previously filed with the Court, citing
difficulties in obtaining discovery concerning the class members.

Beginning with the list of class members, Judge Peterson finds
that it appears that the list of potential class members, which
was prepared with the assistance of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections ("DOC"), was incomplete.  The parties have now
updated the records.  Austin asks for permission to supplement
the class list he previously filed with his proposed notice.  The
Judge says that as a procedural matter, Austin does not need to
formally supplement the class list.  The real issue is that
notice was not sent to some class members by the February 26
deadline.  So he will construe Austin's motion as one for leave
to extend the deadline for mailing class notices.  He will grant
the motion and set a new deadline.

Turning now to the deadline extensions Austin seeks, the Judge
finds that the parties -- specifically Austin and the state
Defendants (all the Defendants other than Edward Wall) -- have
had trouble completing discovery of the potential class members'
DOC records, especially their medical records.  He says he won't
address the specifics of those discovery issues because it
appears that counsel are working together to resolve these issues
and neither side has filed a motion to compel or a motion for a
protective order.

But Austin contends that several extensions are necessary because
he has not yet received much of the discovery he has requested.
He wants the deadlines for the parties' summary judgment
responses and damages expert disclosures extended to 60 days from
receipt of sufficient medical, health services, and social
services records and the decertification response deadline
extended until after the court's ruling on summary judgment.  The
State Defendants do not expressly oppose Austin's motion.  Wall
opposes Austin's requests, except as to the damages-expert-
disclosure deadline.

The Judge holds it is clear that the parties require more time to
obtain the voluminous records needed to litigate the class
action.  So despite his earlier intention of not moving the trial
date, he will grant Austin's motion in part and allow him to
review pertinent discovery that he previously requested before
responding to the Defendants' summary judgment and
decertification motions and before disclosing his damages expert
reports.  To keep the litigation as orderly as possible, the
Judge will keep Wall's summary judgment motion on the same
schedule as the other motions.

But, he finds that Austin has not justified the lengthy, open-
ended deadlines he requests -- 60 days is an unreasonable amount
of time to complete opposition briefing after receiving pertinent
discovery, considering that the Court's standard schedule allows
for 21 days, and there is no apparent reason to delay briefing on
the decertification motion even more.  So he will direct the
Clerk of Court to set a scheduling conference before Judge
Crocker to schedule a single deadline for Austin's damages expert
disclosures and all opposition briefs to the pending summary
judgment and decertification motions, to be scheduled
approximately 21 days after the state defendants expect to
complete production of the discovery Austin has already
requested, and to reset the remainder of the trial calendar in
light of these modifications.  The parties should be prepared to
present to Judge Crocker a reasonable estimate of the discovery-
completion date.

For these reasons, Judge Peterson granted Austin's motion for
leave to extend the deadline for mailing class notices.  The
Plaintiff may have until April 17, 2018, to mail notice to each
class member.  He granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to
extend the litigation schedule.  The Clerk of Court is directed
to set a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Crocker.
A copy of the Court's April 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2HSdYCh from Leagle.com.

David D. Austin, II, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Nitschke
-- tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com -- Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.,
Heather Lea Blaise -- hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com -- Blaise &
Nitschke, P.C. & Lana Bajes Nassar, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

Judy P. Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution,
individually and in her official capacity, Rexford Smith, Unit
Manager, R-Unit, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, individually
and in his official capacity & Jon Litscher, Defendants,
represented by Michael David Morris, State of Wisconsin
Department of Justice, Gesina S. Carson, Wisconsin Department of
Justice & Katherine D. Spitz, Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Edward Wall, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendant, represented
by Gesina S. Carson, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Katherine
D. Spitz, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Samuel C. Hall, Jr.,
Crivello Carlson, S.C. & Zachary James Flood --
zflood@crivellocarlson.com -- CRIVELLO CARLSON, S.C.


WOOD GROUP: Bid to Decertify "Fenley" Class of Inspectors Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMMY L. FENLEY, et al., Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP
MUSTANG, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-326 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification; (ii) denied WGM's Motion to
Decertify Conditionally Certified; and (iii) denied WGM's Motion
to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Colleen Vallen.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Jan. 26, 2015.  The case
arises out of WGM's treatment of various Inspectors as exempt
from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised
Code Chapter 4111, et seq. ("OMWA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA"); and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").
Named Plaintiffs Fenley (Ohio), William Peveto (Illinois), and
Brockrobert Tagarook (Pennsylvania) are all current or former
Inspectors at WGM for all or part of the relevant class periods.

The Plaintiffs claim that WGM classified them, and all other
Inspectors employed by WGM around the country during this time
period, as "DAY-Non Exempt Day Rate" employees, but improperly
treated them as exempt, salaried employees under the FLSA and
applicable state wage laws.  They further allege they, and other
Inspectors, often worked more than 40 hours per week and were not
paid overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1).

On July 20, 2105, Fenley moved for conditional certification of a
collective action pursuant to the FLSA's provisions at 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).  On March 17, 2016, the Court conditionally
certified the collective comprising of all current and former
employees of WGM who were classified with the pay code DAY - Non
Exempt Day Rate, and who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services
Inspection Department as an inspector (or an equivalent position)
in the United States in any workweek between three years prior to
the date of the Court's Order and the present.

On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification of the state claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of those Inspectors who had worked
for WGM in Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.  The same day, WGM
filed its Motion to Decertify the FLSA collective action.  While
those motions remained pending, WGM moved to exclude the expert
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, Vallen.

Judge Smith disagrees with WGM's position that Vallen's
conclusions are not relevant to the relevant inquiries, which are
the propriety of continued collective treatment of the action and
an evaluation of WGM's potential liability with respect to the
Plaintiffs -- i.e., whether they were entitled to overtime or
properly treated as exempt employees.  In his view, Vallen's
report is relevant to the central issue in the case, even if they
can ultimately be explained away to the trier of fact through
lawful FLSA salary deductions, or by any other means.  Further,
while it is true that the Court must take on the role as
"gatekeeper" and may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the
issues or misleading the jury, admissibility of expert testimony
is within the district court's discretion.  Here, the Judge finds
the Plaintiffs' expert testimony relevant and unlikely to confuse
or mislead the trier of fact.  As such, WGM's Motion to Exclude
is denied and Vallen's report will be considered by the Court in
determining WGM's Motion to Decertify.

While various Inspectors may not be identically situated on every
project, proceeding collectively promotes judicial economy.  If
this case were not to proceed collectively, there is a very real
possibility of employer retaliation, negative value lawsuits, and
fragmented determinations of the common issues in courts situated
all across the country.  The Judge also doubts that
decertification would best serve WGM, who could be forced to
defend lawsuits containing common issues on a nationwide basis.
Finally, he finds that proceeding collectively is an especially
compelling approach given the fact that many Opt-In Plaintiffs
still employed by WGM are away from their homes for extended
periods of time and/or are working on projects that require their
attendance seven days per week.  Accordingly, the Judge denied
WGM's Motion to Decertify.

Because she finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements, Judge Smith granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Judge further recommended that the parties engage in
mediation to resolve the claims at issue.  If the parties wish to
participate in mediation, they may contact Judge Smith's chambers
at (614) 719-3220 or Judge Jolson's chambers at (614) 719-3470 to
schedule a mediation through the Court.  The Clerk will remove
Documents 108, 110, and 119 from the Court's pending motions
list.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://goo.gl/aYRv27 from Leagle.com.

Tommy L. Fenley, William Peveto, Brockrobert Tagarook & Lewis
Whitmire, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack Landskroner --
jack@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC,
Alexandra Koropey Piazza -- apiazza@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., pro hac vice, Drew T. Legando -- drew@lgmlegal.com --
Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice
& Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, pro
hac vice.

Wood Group Mustang, Inc., Defendant, represented by Franck G.
Wobst -- fwobst@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur, Eric R. Miller -- m@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, A
Professional Law Corporation, pro hac vice, Michael S. Hudson,
The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice, Robert P. Lombardi --
pl@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm A Professional Law
Corporation, pro hac vice & S. Mark Klyza -- @kullmanlaw.com --
The Kullman Firm.


WORLD WRESTLING: Summary Judgment Granted in Singleton/LoGrasso
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the motion
for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit has been granted.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that
the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the
risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status. On March 31, 2015, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's
motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut
on June 25, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was
denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same
allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts
between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on
March 23, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Central District of California,
entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan
Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to
Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to
Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts
between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court
granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint,
and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual,
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief,
including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough
cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a
lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next
of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as
personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.
Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne,
a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These
lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege
that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE,
which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November
23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne,
which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and
December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the Court
granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and Osborne
lawsuits in their entirety. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a
declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal
Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration
against these former performers that their threatened claims
related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort
claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially
lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in
the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was
completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a
memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the
Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and
McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by
omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on
the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a
motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision
not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company
filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court
dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's
motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On
April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack
of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution
of all of the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018.

The Company also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
against the Windham defendants. Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon,
individually and as the trustee of certain trusts.

This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges,
among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among
other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and
various state Worker's Compensation laws.

This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against
Mr. McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this
complaint on October 19, 2016.

On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017,
the Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the
Laurinaitis case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings
pending in the Windham case. The Court reserved judgment on the
pending motions and ordered that within thirty-five (35) days of
the date of the order the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham
defendants file amended pleadings that comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera
review affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury
setting forth facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory
judgment-defendant's personal knowledge that form the factual
basis of their claim or defense. On November 3, 2017, the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint fails to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remains legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed
a second answer. The Company does not know if the Laurinaitis
Plaintiffs and Windham Defendants submitted the affidavits
required under the Court's September 29, 2017 order. On November
17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response that,
among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and
dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and
award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel
because the amended pleadings fail to comply with the Court's
September 29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment
business in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the
Asia Pacific, and Latin America. The company operates through
Network, Television, Home Entertainment, Digital Media, Live
Events, Licensing, Venue Merchandise, WWEShop, and WWE Studios
segments. The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


YAMANA GOLD: Canadian Malartic Mine Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Yamana Gold Inc. said in its F-10/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2018, that the
Canadian Malartic General Partnership , a general partnership
jointly owned by the Company and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (the
"Partnership"), has been served with a class action lawsuit with
respect to allegations involving the Canadian Malartic mine.

On August 2, 2016, Canadian Malartic General Partnership, a
general partnership jointly owned by the Company and Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited (the "Partnership"), was served with a class action
lawsuit with respect to allegations involving the Canadian
Malartic mine. The complaint is in respect of "neighbourhood
annoyances" arising from dust, noise, vibrations and blasts at
the mine. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified
amount as well as punitive damages in the amount of $20 million.
The class action was certified in May 2017.

In November 2017, a declaratory judgment was issued allowing the
Partnership to settle individually with class members for 2017.
The plaintiffs have since announced that they intend to file an
application for leave to appeal this declaratory judgment. On
December 11, 2017, hearings were completed in respect of certain
preliminary matters, including the Partnership's application for
partial dismissal of the class action. The Company and the
Partnership will take all necessary steps to defend themselves
from this lawsuit.

Yamana Gold Inc. is an intermediate gold producer with
production, development stage, and exploration properties
throughout Brazil. The Company also holds gold exploration
properties in Argentina.


ZUFFA LLC: Class Notice Order in "Park" Modified
------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON PARK, JOSHUA RILEY, MICHAEL ADAMI, MEGAN
DUNCAN, BENITO ALICEA, JR., PHILLIP GARCIA, HASAN DAAS, BRAD
GRIER, WESLEY INMAN, MATT LeBOEUF, LLOYD TRUSHEL, MARK WHITE and
DONGSHENG LIU on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZUFFA, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company (d/b/a "Ultimate Fighting Championship" and "UFC" and
NEULION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02282-APG-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the parties'
stipulation modifying the order directing notice to the class.

The matter pertains to a boxing match held on Aug. 26, 2017, with
the Plaintiffs and other Settlement Class Members having paid for
the ability to live-stream the Event.

On Feb. 22, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement agreement and
directing notice to the Settlement Class provided in the
Settlement Agreement.  The Preliminary Approval Order directed
that notice be disseminated on or before April 9, 2018.

The Settlement Agreement provided that the Settlement
Administrator would disseminate notice by, among other things,
sending the Direct Email Notice to the Settlement Class Members.
The Defendants possess email contact information for most the
Settlement Class Members but, in cases where a Settlement Class
Member purchased streaming access to the Event from a partner
(Amazon, Apple or Microsoft), only the partner possesses such
information.

Amazon, upon having received a subpoena from the Defendants for
the relevant contact information, contacted the Defendants'
counsel and expressed a preference to notify its affected
customers itself, rather than having the notice come from the
Settlement Administrator.

In compromise, Amazon has agreed to send the email on or before
April 9, 2018 to the Settlement Class Members who purchased
streaming access to the Event from Amazon, with the subject
heading "Court Ordered Class Action Notice: online stream of the
Floyd Mayweather v. Conor McGregor boxing match," saying that
Amazon is sending the email because their records indicate that
one purchased the online stream of the Aug. 26, 2017 Floyd
Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor boxing match and might be entitled
to payment from a settlement.

Amazon is sending the email on behalf of the Defendants in the
lawsuit, and as required by the court.  Because they're not
involved in the lawsuit, however, Amazon cannot assist them
directly.

The Settlement Administrator has received email contact
information for the Settlement Class Members who purchased access
from the Defendants and Apple, and is prepared to send the Direct
Email Notice to them by April 9, 2018, such that, together with
Amazon sending the Amazon Direct Email Notice by April 9, 2018,
the email notice to the settlement class will be substantially
complete on the date contemplated by the Preliminary Approval
Order.

Microsoft will be providing the Settlement Administrator with the
email contact information of its purchasers on April 4, 2018, and
it is anticipated that the Settlement Administrator will need an
additional two days, until on or before April 11, 2018, to send
the Direct Email Notice to Microsoft purchasers

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants request that the Court modifies
the notice plan based on the above;

The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Gordon approved,
that the Preliminary Approval Order be modified as follows:

     1. The Defendants will be responsible for causing Amazon to
send the Amazon Direct Email Notice to those Settlement Class
Members who purchased streaming access to the Event from Amazon;

     2. The Defendants will be responsible for causing Amazon to
disseminate the Amazon Direct Email Notice on or before April 9,
2018;

     3. The deadline for the Direct Email Notice to be sent to
Microsoft purchasers is extended to on or before April 11, 2018;
and

     4. The Defendants will be responsible for furnishing to the
Court, 14 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, a declaration from
Amazon attesting to the number of notices sent and the date(s) on
which the notices were sent.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 4, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2JEJPnb from Leagle.com.

Cameron Park, Joshua Riley, Michael Adami, Megan Duncan, Benito
Alicea, Jr., Hasan Daas, Brad Grier, Wesley Inman, Matt LeBoeuf,
Lloyd Trushel, Dongsheng Liu & Phillip Garcia, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aaron M. Olsen -- aarono@haelaw.com -- Haeggquist
& Eck, LLP, pro hac vice, Bonner C. Walsh -- bonner@walshpllc.com
-- Walsh PLLC, Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Markman --
dmarkman@lipsonneilson.com -- Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer Garin,
Drew Farrandini, pro hac vice, Eric A. LaGuardia, LaGuardia Law,
pro hac vice, Hart L. Robinovitch --
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice
& Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Zuffa, LLC, doing business as Ultimate Fighting Championship and
UFC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Jacobson --
jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- pro hac vice, J. Colby Williams --
contact@campbellandwilliams.com -- Campbell & Williams & Philip
R. Erwin, Campbell & Williams.

Neulion, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Kahn --
david.kahn@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.



                            *********


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  * * *