CAR_Public/180612.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, June 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 117



                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: June 25 Final Approval Hearing on KBC Case Settlement
A1 ADVANCED: Bid to Certify 216(b) Collective Action Granted
ADT INC: Faces Class Action in Florida Over 2018 IPO
ADVANTA SEEDS: Shattercane Class Action Claims $3.7MM Damages
AEROVIAS DE MXICO: Court Enters Show Cause Order re "Kindt" Deal

AGL: Faces Possible Class Action Over Liddell Plant Sale
AKORN INC: Joshi Living Trust Class Action Underway
AKORN INC: $24M Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in Section 14(a) Suits Pending
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Rejection of Rule 68 Offer in "Franco" Vacated

ALPHA AND OMEGA: Holt Seeks to Certify Security Personnel Class
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Ruling in Time Tracking System Lawsuit
AMERICANA TICKETS: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
AMP LTD: Slater & Gordon Says Offers Best Value for Claimants
APPCO GROUP: Charity Muggers' Class Action Can Proceed

APPLE INC: CONADECUS Files Suit in Calif. Over iPhone Slowdown
AR RESOURCES: Kassin Seeks to Certify NJ Consumers Class
BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
BED BATH: Court Tosses Przytula Bid to Certify Collective Action
BEST BUY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California

BIG M: "Pecora" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
BRINKER INT'L: Fails to Secure Data, Green-Cooper et al Say
BP PLC: Wary of Risk of Climate Change-Related Lawsuits
BURROUGHS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kalaveras Claims
C & L TOWING: Seeks to Certify Class of Tow Truck Drivers

CALIFORNIA COLLEGE: $300K "Espinosa" Settlement Has Final OK
CAMP BOW: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
CANADA: Brainwashing Experiment Victims Mull Class Action
CANADA: Group Affected by Brainwashing Experiments Seeks Apology
CANAL RADIOLOGY: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

CB FINANCIAL: Stockholder Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
CDI COLLEGE: Settles Nursing Students' Class Action for $1.9MM
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Norton"
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces "Cesare" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: To Settle Oklahoma Suits for De Minimis Amount

CINCINNATI BELL: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Furth" Suit in E.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Class Certification Sought in "Steffek" Suit
COASTWAY BANCORP: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with HarborOne
COGINT INC: Mohamed Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: $683K Atty's Fees Awarded in "Stathakos"
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Settlement Pending in "Strack" Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Court Awards $134K Attorney's Fees in "Elaine"
CREE INC: Court Narrows Claims in LED Bulbs Suit
CUSTOM DRYWALL: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class

CVS HEALTH: Omnicare Continues to Defend Against Indiana Fund
CVS HEALTH: Appeal in "Corcoran" Suit Underway
CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of "Barchock" Suit Affirmed
CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" and "Prescott" Suits Transferred to N.J.
CVS HEALTH: Defending Against EpiPen ERISA Litigation

CVS HEALTH: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to New Jersey
CVS PHARMACY: 2 Law Firms File Medical Privacy Breach Action
DEOLEO USA: Settles Bertolli Olive Oil Labeling Class Action
DIRECTV LLC: Brown Seeks to Certify Customers Class
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Ruling Impacts Motor Carriers

EIGHT SLEEP: Photoglou Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Application for Rehearing Filed in "Nichols"
EPIC SYSTEMS: Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements, SCOTUS Rules
EPIC SYSTEMS: Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
EQUINOX FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Orgies in Steam Room

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of "Burton"
EZCORP INC: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Faces New Class Action Over Cambridge Analytica
FASTAFF LLC: Court Certifies Class in "Dalchau" FLSA Suit
FIRSTLIGHT HOME: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Securities Class Action
FORD THAILAND: Court OKs Powershift Transmission Class Action
FOSSIL GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Safransky" Suit
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Hubbard Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
GOOGLE INC: Faces $4.29-Bil. iPhone Privacy Case in U.K.

GREEN & COHEN: Tenants' Class Action Confidentially Settled
HADASSAH UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Maternity Ward Segregation
HALYARD HEALTH: Appeals Order in Bahamas Surgery Suit to 9th Cir.
HALYARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Jackson" Class Suit
HARRIS RESEARCH: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Healthy Futures Class Cert. Bid Okayed
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Campbell Seeks Class Certification
HONEY BAKED: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
IMPERVA INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Poinsignon" FCRA Suit
INTERACTIVECORP: Changes Terms of Use to Avert Lawsuits

INTEREXCHANGE INC: Au Pairs Can File Third Amended Complaint
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: $18-Mil. Agreement Reached in NY Suit
J&W GRADING: Seeks to Certify Class of General Laborers
JNV GLASS: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification
JPMORGAN CHASE: Revised Settlement of FX Case Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Mediation Underway in Interchange Fees Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Updates on Benchmark Rate Litigation
KLOECKNER METALS: Settlement Reached in Wage-and-Hour Suit
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Sued over Illegal Conspiracy of Employees' Wage
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon Seeks to Certify Two Classes

KS MAINTENANCE: Peterson Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
LISA PINKNEY: "Holm" Suit Moved to Central District of California
LIVING ASSISTANCE: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
LONG BEACH ASSISTED: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Court Denies Certification of "Shabazz" Class

LOUISIANA HEALTH: Opelousas' Antitrust Suit Remanded
LU SIMON: Australian Law Firm Launches Cladding Class Action
LVNV FUNDING: Summary Judgment in "Dorrian" Vacated
M & T BANK: Flynn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
MACY'S INC: Court Dismisses Benson as Named Plaintiff in "Haley"

MAIN STREET: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Court Dismisses Appeal in Condo Owners' Case
MARIAN WOODS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
MATTERSIGHT CORP: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware
MB FINANCIAL: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Investigated

MDL 2804: Lockhaven May Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
MEDIATION RECOVERY: Faces "Peek" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Court Granted Bid to Stay further Proceedings
MICHIGAN: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Hill"
MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Medicaid Program-Enrolled Persons Class

MIDLAND CREDIT: Parsons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MONSANTO CO: Continues to Defend Roundup Class Action
MONTGOMERY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in "Hill" Suit
NATURAL HEALTH: Court Approves $1.75 Million Settlement in "Ford"
NETGEAR INC: Klebba Sues over Arlo Baby Smart Monitor Defects

NEW BROADVIEW: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
NEW DOMINION: September Trial Scheduled for Earthquake Suit
NEW ENGLAND: DOC Hepatitis C Settlement Awaits Court Approval
NEW YORK: FDNY Sued Over Discriminatory EMS Promotion Method
NHL INTERACTIVE: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Valentine Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
OCLARO INC: Neinast Balks at Merger Deal with Lumentum
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "McWhorter" Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Accord in TCPA Suit Has Preliminary Approval
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Two Opt-Out Securities Suits Filed

ORTHOTOUCH: Withdraws Appeals in HSAG Class Action
OSSIC: Backers of 3D Sound Headphones Threaten Class Action
PACIFIC COAST: Portion of Settlement Funds Not Yet Disbursed
PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Website not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says
PERCEPTA LLC: Layton Seeks Conditional Class Certification

PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Weintraub" Suit in E.D. New York
PERSONAL HEALTH: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
PHARMAVITE: Court Reinstates Vitamin E Labeling Class Action
PHH CORPORATION: Fratis Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen Financial
PHILLIP KNOWLES: Ct. Conditionally Certifies "Morfin-Arias" Class

POLAND SPRING: Judge Dismisses Spring Water Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Geis" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Accounting Investigation
PPG INDUSTRIES: Violates Exchange Act, Mild Says
PPG INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
RICHARD EVANS: "Holm" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
SAMSUNG: Motion to Send Class Action to Arbitration Denied
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Deka" Suit Still Stayed
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Trigo Gonzalez" Underway in Puerto Rico

SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Ponsa-Rabell" Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Suit over Mexican Government Bonds
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Former CFO Dropped as Defendant in "Parmelee"
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington
SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Gonpo" FLSA Suit

SOUTH CAROLINA: Implements Changes After Foster Care Class Action
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Court Dismisses SAC in Fraud Suit
SP PLUS: 7th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Disability Rights Group Files Class Action
SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Alenkin" Suit in E.D. New York

SYNDICATED OFFICE: Court Strikes Offer of Judgment in "McBroom"
TARGET CORPORATION: "Amezquita" Suit Moved to C.D. California
TATA CONSULTANCY: Seeks to Decertify "Buchanan" Termination Class
TATE & KIRLIN: Faces "Corker" Suit in N.D. Georgia
TAX PROS: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA

TD AMERITRADE: Averts Investment Mismanagement Class Action
TEZOS SECURITIES: Class Action Over ICO Delays Mainnet Launch
TWITTER INC: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing on $2.5MM Settlement
UNITED COLLECTION: Court Stays Proceedings in "Beaufrand" Suit
UNITED STATES: Averts Maryland Army Base Pollution Class Action

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Age Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Court Granted Bid to Stay "Fleenor" Proceedings
WELLMARK INC: "Chicoine" Suit Remanded to Iowa State Court
WYCKOFF HEIGHTS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
YUMMYEARTH INC: "Sandoval" CLRA Suit Remanded to State Court

ZODIAC U.S.: $952,000 Accord in "Cuzick" Wins Final Approval
ZWANGER & PESIRI: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

* California's Friendly Statutes Encourage Frivolous Claims






                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: June 25 Final Approval Hearing on KBC Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that final approval
hearing has been scheduled for June 25, 2018, in the case
entitled, KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et
al.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have
been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is
styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
(the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and
omissions and that the former officers are control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on
behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's
common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order"). Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on August 4,
2016, which was denied by Order dated February 24, 2017. On
September 28, 2017, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

On February 14, 2018, following mediation, the parties entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement that provides for, among other
things, payment of $50 million by the Company's insurance
carriers and a mutual exchange of releases. The Stipulation of
Settlement calls for a dismissal of all claims against the
Company and the individual defendants with prejudice following
Court approval, a denial by defendants of any wrongdoing, and no
admission of liability.

On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February
21, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing for Notice.

The final approval hearing has been scheduled for June 25, 2018.
A current liability of $50,000 was recorded for the agreed upon
settlement amount and an offsetting receivable of $50,000 was
recorded for related insurance proceeds.

3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through
subsidiaries in North America and South America (collectively
referred to as "Americas"), Europe and the Middle East
(collectively referred to as "EMEA") and the Asia Pacific region
("APAC"). The company is based in Rock Hill, South Carolina.


A1 ADVANCED: Bid to Certify 216(b) Collective Action Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO TREJOS-TORREZ, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A1 ADVANCED TOW
ING CORP., a Florida profit corporation, A 1 ADVANCED W RECKER
CORP., a Florida profit corporation, A1 ADVAN CED TOW IN G & TRAN
SPORT, INC., a Florida profit corporation, JEANNETTE M ARTIN, an
individual, and FERNANDO M ARTIN, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-23896-JLK (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James
Lawrence King entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to certify 216(b) collective
      action and facilitate notice of potential class members;

   2. denying Plaintiffs Motion to certify Rule 23 Class Action;

   3. directing Defendants to furnish Plaintiff with the names
      and addresses of a11 members of the conditionally certified
      class within 30 days of the date of this Order;

   4. directing parties to confer in good faith and undertake
      efforts to draft a mutually agreeable Notice to Class; and

   5. requiring Opt-in Plaintiffs to file al1 consents in this
      lawsuit within 90 days of the Court's approval of the
      Notice to Class.

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


ADT INC: Faces Class Action in Florida Over 2018 IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against ADT Inc. ("ADT" or the "Company") (NYSE:ADT)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed
under index 18-cv-80668, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ADT common stock
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with ADT's January 2018 initial public offering (the
"Offering" or "IPO").

If you are a shareholder who purchased ADT common stock pursuant
or traceable to ADT's January 2018 IPO, you have until July 20,
2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-
POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

ADT is a home security company taken private by Apollo Global in
May 2016 and taken public again via the January 2018 IPO.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ADT's Registration
Statement made material misrepresentations and omissions by
failing to disclose historical metrics integral to appraising ADT
"key value drivers."; (ii) ADT's discussions of risk factors did
not mention, or adequately describe the risk posed by, the then
already occurring 75% increase in year-over-year losses, nor the
other complete yet undisclosed materially negative 4Q and FY 2017
results and trends, nor ADT's dependence on the Trump tax cut to
meet even the extreme low end of its 2017 estimate ranges, nor
the omission of historically critical metrics, nor the likely and
consequent materially adverse effects on the Company's future
results, share price, and prospects; (iii) Defendants' failure to
disclose the then complete materially negative 4Q and FY 2017
results and trends, and ADT's dependence on the Trump tax cut to
meet even the extreme low end of its 2017 estimate ranges, much
less the likely material effects they would have on ADT's share
price, rendered false and misleading the Registration Statement's
many references to known risks that "if" occurring "might" or
"could" affect the Company; and (iv) as a result, ADT's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 15, 2018, ADT announced its disappointing fourth-quarter
and full-year 2017 earnings and other financial results, stating,
in relevant part: "[T]he Company reported net income of $638
million, up from negative $85 million last year, and diluted
earnings per share of $0.99 versus $(0.13) in the prior year.
Excluding special items, diluted earnings per share were $(0.06)
versus $(0.07) in the same period last year. The net income
results include a $690 million tax benefit due to the 2017 Tax
Reform."

On this news, the price for ADT shares declined nearly 20%, from
a high of $10.72 per share on March 15, 2017, to a low of $8.63
per share on March 16, 2017.  As of the time of the filing of
this action, ADT shares continue to trade below $9 per share, a
decline of over 35% from the $14 per share offering price.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. [GN]


ADVANTA SEEDS: Shattercane Class Action Claims $3.7MM Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Millet, writing for The Northern Daily Leader, reports
that a second lead plaintiff in the shattercane class action has
brought the total loss and damages being claimed to more than
$3.7 million.

The Nitschke Family Trust has joined Mallonland as a lead
plaintiff in the action, which involves about 50 farmers in two
states.

The matter will now proceed to a hearing unless it is resolved
between the parties before then, their lawyer has said.

The plaintiffs claim that Advanta's MR43 Elite sorghum seed, sold
to growers in NSW and Qld between 2010 and 2014, was infested
with shattercane.

The company must provide an amended defence, at which time the
full details of its response to the allegations will be known.

Advanta Seeds spokesman Nick Gardner said the company "remains
committed to vigorously defending [the] allegations".

"Advanta Seeds is proud of its more than 50-year history
supporting Australian farmers and the high quality of its seeds,"
he said.

"Given customer relationships are integral to the company's
reputation, Advanta Seeds is meticulous in protecting those
relationships through the strictest of standards and protocols."

'Better representation'
The plaintiffs' case is that shattercane competes strongly with
planted sorghum, results in a reduced yield, and is difficult and
expensive to eradicate.

Their loss and damage, according to their statement of claim, is
being calculated at $2000 per hectare per annum: $1500 in lost
sorghum production and $500 in shattercane mitigation and
eradication.

Creevey Russell Lawyers' principal Dan Creevey --
dcreevey@crlawyers.com.au -- who is representing the growers,
said Justice Debbie Mullins allowed another lead plaintiff when
the matter came before her in the Supreme Court of Queensland on
April 18.

"The idea is that it gives better representation of the group,"
Mr Creevey said.

"Mr Jenner [Mallonland] was a farmer who has since sold his
property, and the second lead plaintiff has ongoing trade with
the land that's been affected.

"We wanted another person represented, with another type of
damages.

"The property is in the same area as Mallonland: near Dalby."

The case will decide the issue of liability for the sale of the
seed and, if Advanta is liable, the damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and group members.

Mr Gardner said Advanta Seeds maintained confidence in its
"stringent quality controls and the consistent application of
these across the company's seed breeding and supply practices".

"Advanta Seeds cannot speculate on the evidence to be presented
as part of the court action, nor an outcome, but is confident its
stance will be vindicated.

"The allegations put by Creevey Russell remain unproven."

The matter is being fully funded by litigation funder Balance
Legal Capital LLP of London and is being run on a no-win, no-fee
basis for farmers. [GN]


AEROVIAS DE MXICO: Court Enters Show Cause Order re "Kindt" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned MALINA KINDT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. AEROVIAS DE MXICO, S.A. DE C.V., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-04999 NC (N.D. Cal.).

The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice.

In re Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012),
requiring, in a pre-certification class action, that district
courts evaluate the fairness of settlements to ensure that class
representatives and their counsel do not secure a
disproportionate benefit at the expense of the unnamed plaintiffs
who class counsel had a duty to represent.

The Court will give the parties an opportunity to persuade the
Court why it should not apply Lane here, if they desire.

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to (1) produce to the Court
the settlement agreement, or (2) file with the Court a brief, not
to exceed 3 pages, stating why the Court should not apply Lane.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7gf4o2v from Leagle.com.

Malina Kindt & George Pappas, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric A.
Grover -- eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, Rachael
Ga-Yue Jung -- rjung@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP & Scot
Bernstein -- beverlyhillslaw.la@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Scot
D. Bernstein.

AEROVIAS DE MXICO, S.A. DE C.V & GRUPO AEROMXICO S.A.B. DE C.V.,
Defendants, represented by Andrew Kirby Davidson --
adavidson@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP,
Katherine G. Treistman -- ktreistman@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice, Melinda Blake Glastein --
mblake@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP & William
Alan Molinski -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.


AGL: Faces Possible Class Action Over Liddell Plant Sale
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Hasham, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that energy giant AGL would face heavy penalties and a possible
class action under changes proposed by Coalition backbenchers who
want the company punished for refusing to sell the Liddell power
plant.

The push sets up a potential new front in government infighting
over energy policy, as electricity reliability and affordability
loom as big issues at the next federal election.

AGL on May 21 announced it had knocked back a $250 million bid by
Alinta to buy the ageing Hunter Valley plant and would close the
operation in 2022 as planned.  The Turnbull government had
exerted pressure on AGL to sell, saying it would increase
competition, lower prices and shore up east coast energy
supplies.

At a joint party room meeting on May 22, pro-coal Liberal MP
Craig Kelly is believed to have called on the government to amend
competition laws to prevent companies that provide "essential
services" from acting uncompetitively.  It is understood former
prime minister Tony Abbott and former Nationals leader Barnaby
Joyce backed the proposal.

Government figures, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull,
have previously implied that AGL wants to close Liddell to reduce
supply and increase power prices, which would benefit its
neighbouring Bayswater power plant.

Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act already prohibits
corporations with significant market power from substantially
lessening competition.

It is understood Mr Kelly wants this strengthened to specifically
apply to companies that supply essential services, ensuring
beyond doubt that AGL would be captured by the law.

The change would also specify that companies could not withdraw
supply of an essential service when it was economically viable
for that supply to continue -- such as the existence of an offer
to buy the operation.

Fairfax Media understands that if AGL's actions were found to be
uncompetitive under such a law, it may be hit with heavy fines or
face a class action by consumers harmed by electricity shortages.

AGL declined to comment.  The company has announced a $1.4
billion plan to replace lost capacity once Liddell closes, which
includes a gas-fired plant, upgrading Bayswater and renewable
energy generation.

It has so far committed funds only to a fraction of this plan.
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on May 21 said
AGL must financially commit to the entire three-stage plan if it
does not sell the plant.

In response to the backbench suggestion, Mr Frydenberg is
understood to have told the party room that the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission is reviewing electricity
supply and prices, which includes competition issues.  The report
will be delivered in June.

Mr Kelly is part of a group of conservative MPs known as the
Monash Forum that wants the government to build a new coal-fired
power station, arguing that public funds are going into Snowy 2.0
- Mr Turnbull's pet energy project.

Snowy Hydro chief executive Paul Broad on May 22 told Senate
estimates that the expansion project would "outcompete" a new
high-efficiency coal plant on both price and reliability, and
such a coal plant "would not make money".

He said while several new coal plants entering the market might
affect Snowy 2.0's viability, one "wouldn't make any difference
at all" -- and nor would an extension of Liddell's life.

Snowy 2.0 would pump and store water at times of low energy
demand.  This water would be released when electricity was
needed, thereby smoothing out the variable output of renewable
energy such as wind and solar.

However this model relies on a high penetration of renewable in
the energy mix and Mr Broad said the amount of baseload coal that
exited the market would determine the viability of the project.
[GN]


AKORN INC: Joshi Living Trust Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a putative class action entitled, Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn,
Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint names as defendants the Company, Chief Executive
Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and
Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to
disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data
integrity at the Company. The Complaint seeks, among other
things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company disputes these claims and, if and when proper service
is made, intends to vigorously defend these allegations.

Akorn develops, manufactures, and markets specialized generic and
branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products, and
animal health products in the United States and internationally.
The company is based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AKORN INC: $24M Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed
entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in the federal district
court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944.  The
complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters
related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of
its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. and VersaPharm,
Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et
al., No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar
allegations.

On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation.
On July 5, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated
amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company
and an officer and former officer of the Company.

The consolidated amended complaint sought damages on behalf of
the putative class. On August 9, 2016, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the case.

Akorn said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on March 6, 2017, the court denied the
motion to dismiss and the defendants subsequently filed an answer
to the consolidated amended complaint on March 27, 2017. On
October 3, 2017, the parties informed the court that they have
reached a settlement in principle of the litigation.

In its recent SEC report, Akorn disclosed that in December 2017,
following the court's order preliminarily approving the class
plaintiffs' proposed settlement for $24 million, the Company paid
$5.0 million and its insurers paid $19.0 million.

On April 2, 2018, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, and requested further information regarding
plaintiffs' request for reimbursement awards and attorney fees
from the settlement fund.

Akorn develops, manufactures, and markets specialized generic and
branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products, and
animal health products in the United States and internationally.
The company is based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in Section 14(a) Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Theodore H. Frank's motions to intervene in lawsuits against
Akorn, Inc., filed pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act,
remains pending.

On May 2, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, captioned Robert J. Shannon, Jr. v. Fresenius
Kabi AG, et al., Case No. 2017-CH-06322. On May 16, 2017, a
purported shareholder of the Company filed a complaint in a
putative class and derivative action in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, captioned
Daniel Ochoa v. John N. Kapoor, et al., Case No. 2017-CH-06928.
On June 27, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, captioned Glaubach v. Fresenius Kabi AG et
al., Case No. 2017-CH-08916.

The Shannon Action, Ochoa Action and Glaubach Action allege,
among other things, that in pursuing the merger, the directors of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and
its shareholders by, among other things, agreeing to enter into
the merger agreement with Fresenius Kabi AG for an allegedly
unfair price and as the result of an allegedly deficient process.
The Shannon Action, the Ochoa Action and the Glaubach Action also
allege that Fresenius Kabi, Fresenius Parent and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the other defendants' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The Shannon Action, the Ochoa Action and
Glaubach Action seek, among other things, to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement or, in the
alternative, to recover monetary damages.

On July 25, 2017, the parties in the Glaubach Action agreed to
stay the proceedings until the plaintiff files an amended
complaint. On July 28, 2017, the plaintiff in the Ochoa Action
filed a motion for dismissal without prejudice. On August 9,
2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division granted the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Ochoa Action pursuant to the plaintiff's
motion for dismissal. On October 25, 2017, the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division
granted the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Glaubach
Action pursuant to the plaintiff's motion for dismissal.

On September 29, 2017, Akorn accepted service in the Shannon
Action, with the understanding that the parties will stay the
proceedings until the plaintiff files an amended complaint. On
November 15, 2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
County Department, Chancery Division held a status conference in
the Shannon Action and ordered that plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint after the proposed merger closes by a date to
be set by the court, and the Akorn defendants need not answer or
otherwise respond to plaintiff's current complaint and any
deadline for response to the current complaint is stricken. The
Company believes that the Shannon Action is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend it.

On June 2, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned
Robert Berg v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00350. On
June 7, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned
Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00359. The
Berg Action and the Alcarez Action alleged that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on May 22, 2017,
omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering
it false and misleading and thus that the Company, the directors
of the Company and the CEO of the Company violated Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act as well as SEC Rule 14a-9. The Berg Action
further alleged that Fresenius Kabi, the directors of the Company
and the CEO of the Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Similarly, the Alcarez Action also alleged that the
directors of the Company and the CEO of the Company violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Berg Action and Alcarez
Action sought, among other things, an order requiring the
dissemination of a proxy statement that does not contain
allegedly untrue statements of material fact and that states all
material facts allegedly required or necessary to make the proxy
statement not misleading; an order enjoining the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement; an award of rescissory
damages should the merger be consummated; and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 12, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned
Shaun A. House v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00367. On
June 13, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned
Robert Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04455. On
June 14, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned
Sean Harris v. Akorn, Inc. et at., Case No. 3:17-cv-00373.

On June 20, 2017, plaintiff Robert Carlyle filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal in Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-
04455, and the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc., et al.,
No. 17-cv-04455, pursuant to that notice. Also on June 20, 2017,
plaintiff Robert Carlyle filed a complaint in a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, captioned Robert Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00389.

On June 22, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned
Demetrios Pullos v. Akorn, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00395.
The House Action, the Carlyle Action, the Harris Action and the
Pullos Action alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the SEC on May 22, 2017, omits material
information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and
misleading and thus that the Company and the directors of the
Company violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as SEC
Rule 14a-9. The House Action, the Carlyle Action, the Harris
Action and the Pullos Action further alleged that the directors
of the Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
House Action, the Harris Action and the Pullos Action sought,
among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by
the merger agreement unless the Company discloses the allegedly
material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy
statement, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Carlyle Action sought, among other things, to
enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement
unless the Company adopts and implements a procedure or process
to obtain certain unspecified terms for shareholders and
discloses the allegedly material information that was allegedly
omitted from the proxy statement, rescission, to the extent
already implemented, of the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement or of the terms thereof, an award of damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 5, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana ordered that the Berg Action, Alcarez
Action, House Action, Carlyle Action, Harris Action and Pullos
Action be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On July 14, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Berg Action, Alcarez
Action, House Action, Harris Action, Carlyle Action and Pullos
Action (collectively, "the Section 14(a) Actions") filed
stipulations of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in their
respective actions, in each case acknowledging that disclosures
by the Company supplementing the disclosures previously made in
the proxy statement rendered moot the claims asserted in their
respective actions. On July 17, 2017, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the Alcarez
Action, the Harris Action and the Pullos Action without prejudice
pursuant to the parties' respective stipulations of voluntary
dismissal. Also on July 17, 2017, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the voluntary
dismissal of the Carlyle Action without prejudice pursuant to the
parties' stipulation of voluntary dismissal. On July 19, 2017,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the
Berg Action pursuant to the parties' stipulation of voluntary
dismissal. On July 25, 2017, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the House Action
without prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation of
voluntary dismissal.

On September 15, 2017, the parties in the Berg Action filed a
stipulation reflecting an agreement upon the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel to resolve
any and all fee claims related to the Section 14(a) Actions. On
September 18, 2017, Objector Theodore H. Frank filed motions to
intervene in the Section 14(a) Actions, seeking to enjoin
plaintiffs and their counsel in these actions from receiving
payment under the stipulation filed in the Berg Action on
September 15, 2017. The motions to intervene do not seek any
relief from the Company or its directors. On September 26, 2017,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied the motion to intervene without prejudice in the
Alcarez Action. On September 27, 2017, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck the motion to
intervene in the Harris Action and terminated the motion to
intervene in the Pullos Action. On October 4, 2017, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered and continued Objector Frank's motions to consolidate and
intervene in the Berg Action. Following additional briefing, on
November 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois denied Objector Frank's motions to
intervene and consolidate without prejudice and granted Objector
Frank leave to refile his motions to intervene and consolidate.
On December 8, 2017, Objector Frank filed his renewed motion to
intervene and the parties completed briefing on January 8, 2018,
Akorn said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the court granted final approval of the
settlement in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Akorn said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that on April 22, 2018, Fresenius Kabi AG
delivered to Akorn a letter purporting to terminate the Merger
Agreement.  On April 23, 2018, Akorn filed a verified complaint
entitled Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition,
Inc. and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware for breach of contract and declaratory
judgment.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
the defendants anticipatorily breached their obligations under
the Merger Agreement by repudiating their obligation to close the
Merger, (ii) the defendants knowingly and intentionally breached
their obligations under the Merger Agreement by working to slow
the antitrust approval process and by engaging in a series of
actions designed to hamper and ultimately block the Merger and
(iii) Akorn has performed its obligations under the Merger
Agreement, and is ready, willing and able to close the Merger.
The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that
Fresenius Kabi AG's termination is invalid, an order enjoining
the defendants from terminating the Merger Agreement, and an
order compelling the defendants to specifically perform their
obligations under the Merger Agreement to use reasonable best
efforts to consummate and make effective the Merger.

No updates were provided on Frank's renewed motion to intervene
in the Company's latest 10-Q report.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Rejection of Rule 68 Offer in "Franco" Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the
judgment of the District Court rejecting Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 Offer in the case captioned GILBERTO FRANCO, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, FKA ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 15-4003, 17-1134 (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Gilberto Franco appeals from the judgment of
the District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Forrest, J.), following a rejected Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 offer on his individual claim in his putative class
action suit regarding Defendant-Appellee Allied Interstate's debt
collection practices.

During the pendency of this appeal, multiple decisions have
issued, which control the outcome of this case. Consistent with
the Second Circuit's own precedent, the Supreme Court has now
ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment will not moot
a claim. As the Supreme Court explained, "When a plaintiff
rejects such an offer, however good the terms, her interest in
the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the
court's ability to grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement
offer, like any unaccepted contract offer, is a legal nullity,
with no operative effect."

The district court's initial 2014 decision found that Franco's
individual claim was mooted by the Rule 68 offer, and denied
class certification in the absence of a named plaintiff. The
district court clearly explained that the denial of class
certification was a mere byproduct of the mootness of the
individual claim, writing, in the absence of a claim against
defendant, plaintiff cannot adequately represent the purported
class.  In Franco I, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded,
finding that the individual claim was not moot. Thus the sole
ground for the denial of class certification was vacated by the
circuit court's decision. As the district court recognized in the
decision underlying the instant appeal, the effect of Franco I
was to revive the class certification motion on remand.

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated
and remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9a5lp7m from Leagle.com.

Adina Hyman Rosenbaum, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Andrew T.
Thomasson, Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP, (on the brief),
Appearing for Appellant.

Casey Devin Laffey -- claffey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
Nana Japaridze -- nboyer@reedsmith.com -- on the brief) New York,
N.Y., Appearing for Appellee.


ALPHA AND OMEGA: Holt Seeks to Certify Security Personnel Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TAMBRA HOLT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ALPHA AND OMEGA
SERVICES, INC., and FRANK KELLER, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-
cv-00034 (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. authorizing this case to proceed as an opt-in collective
      action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act of 1938:

      "all mounted safety/security personnel who worked for
      Defendants, and who, during the last three years, were
      denied proper overtime compensation";

   2. directing Defendant(s) to immediately provide a list of
      names, last known addresses, last known telephone numbers,
      and e-mail addresses for all mounted safety/security
      personnel of Defendants, like Plaintiff, who during the
      previous three years were denied proper overtime
      compensation;

   3. directing notice be mailed to employees, e-mailed to
      employees, and enclosed with putative class members' next
      regularly scheduled paychecks, so they can assert their
      claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation;

   4. granting statute of limitations for the putative class be
      tolled as of the date this Motion; and

   5. deeming as filed opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms on the
      date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y5lkRONk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

          A. Ryan Simmons, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
          525 4th Ave. South
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Telephone: (615) 850 0632


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Ruling in Time Tracking System Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Feintzeig, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that punching in and out of shifts is an omnipresent part of work
life for many hourly workers at hospitals, factories and stores.

Now some of them say companies are using time-tracking systems to
chip away at their pay.

In federal and state lawsuits against American Airlines Inc.,
Kroger Co. and luxury chain Montage Hotels & Resorts LLC, among
others, employees have alleged that the companies they work for
are unfairly subtracting fractions of their hourly wages using
time-tracking technology.

Breaks that workers never actually get to take and rounding
policies that work in employers' favor, multiplied across years
of employment, can result in thousands of dollars missing from
paychecks, employees' attorneys say.

In some suits against hospitals, nurses have said they spend meal
breaks tending to patients but automatically receive a 30-minute
deduction from every shift. Call-center workers complain that
when they are stuck on the phone at the end of a shift, the extra
time is rounded away.

"These people are doing really important jobs, and we're not
paying them for the time they're actually working," said
Elizabeth Tippett, a professor at the University of Oregon School
of Law and author of a new paper on time-tracking software that
was published in the American Business Law Journal.

The systems are capable of calculating employees' pay to the
second. But employers are attracted to features like rounding and
automatic time deductions because they help keep labor costs
predictable and free managers and employees from having to record
every break, said Chris Pace -- chris.pace@ogletree.com -- a
corporate-side attorney at Ogletree Deakins.

Mr. Pace said a manager puts rounding mechanisms into place, or
programs systems to pay only for the hours of a scheduled shift,
not to avoid paying for time worked, but "to conform the system
to his view of reality." For instance, employees might clock in
but spend the first part of their days catching up with
colleagues or surfing the internet.

In a lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court, nine American
Airlines employees -- including aircraft-maintenance technicians
and fleet service clerks who load bags onto planes -- alleged the
airline's rounding policy "consistently and artificially reduced
the total time employees are credited with working," according to
court papers.

That adds up, said Edwin Gonzalez, a plaintiff who has been
working as an American fleet service clerk at Newark Liberty
International Airport in New Jersey since 2015.  "Every 15
minutes or 30 minutes means a lot to me," Mr. Gonzalez said.
"That's like stealing from me and my family."

In March, Judge Jose L. Linares, of the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey, certified the complaint, originally filed in 2016, as
a class action.  Brett Gallaway, Mr. Gonzalez's lawyer, said
there are nearly 400 current and former employees in the class.
American is appealing.

"American pays its team members for all the work they perform,"
said Matt Miller, an American Airlines spokesman.  "That's the
case in New Jersey and throughout our system."

Kroger and Montage declined to comment on the suits they are
facing.

Time-tracking software is usually part of a broader workforce
management system that records absences and schedules workers.
These suites of software have come under fire from attorneys
general in New York and other states for enabling employers to
switch around shift assignments at the last minute, creating
unpredictable schedules for workers.  Now thousands of workers
allege companies are abusing the time-tracking function too.

Time-tracking systems have evolved from the days of the old punch
card.  Employees often log in with a mobile phone, a fingerprint
or an iris scan; cash registers come with digital log-ins. The
market for human-capital management technology, including time-
tracking systems, has boomed to become a $12 billion business,
according to Gartner, a research and advisory firm.

Leading providers of time-tracking software include Kronos Inc.,
Automatic Data Processing Inc. and Ceridian.  All three declined
to comment for this article.

Employees, especially those in high-stress fields like health
care, say heavy workloads, short staffing and emergencies can
make for long, busy days.  Mary Jo Zacher, a respiratory
therapist at the University of Missouri Health Care from 1981
until she retired in December 2014, often found she had no time
for a cafeteria run.

"If you have a premature baby being delivered, you have to be
there for every breath.  You can't say, 'Oh I'll get back to
you,'" she said.

Yet the University of Missouri's time-tracking system
automatically deducted 30 minutes from each of Ms. Zacher's
shifts, whether she was able to take an uninterrupted break, or
not.

Jennifer Coffman, a University of Missouri Health Care
spokeswoman, said the organization stopped automatically
deducting meal breaks for hourly workers in 2016.

Ms. Zacher joined the settlement of a class-action suit against
the health system, and in December 2017, the parties agreed to
settle for $3.6 million.  That resulted in a payout of about
$1,250 per affected employee, said attorney Brendan Donelon, who
represented the plaintiffs.

Such figures, though, are small change for many employers who
saved money in labor costs over years of automatic deductions and
rounding, Ms. Tippett said.

In examining a case involving casino workers in Nevada, Ms.
Tippett estimated the gaming company saved $12.6 million by
implementing its rounding policies; it settled a worker lawsuit
over the issue for $450,000. After attorneys' fees and litigation
costs were covered, $207,500 was distributed to employees.

"It is hard to imagine that wage savings of that magnitude would
prompt an employer to change its practices," Ms. Tippett wrote in
the study. [GN]


AMERICANA TICKETS: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americana Tickets
NY, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Americana Tickets
NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05008 (S.D. N.Y., June 5,
2018).

Americana Tickets NY, LLC is a Ticket Broker in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMP LTD: Slater & Gordon Says Offers Best Value for Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Wootton, writing for Money Management, reports that in an
attempt to differentiate itself among the five class actions
against AMP on behalf of shareholders announced to date, Slater
and Gordon has announced that it offers the best value to
claimants.

The claimant firm said it would undertake the work on any action
on a no-win no-fee bass, meaning that litigation funder Therium
could cut its funding commission to just 10 per cent.

It also said that unlike other funders, Therium calculated its
commission on net settlement after legal costs rather than on
gross settlement amount.

"The choice is clear-cut.  Slater and Gordon's size and scale
means we can offer group members the best package of funding
terms and credentials in this important class action," Slater and
Gordon head of class actions, Ben Hardwick --
ben.hardwick@slatergordon.com.au -- said.

"This move will radically reduce the costs Therium will need to
fund during the litigation, limiting its outlay on out-of-pocket
disbursements like barrister fees and experts, allowing the
funder to offer the extremely low commission rates for this
action.

Mr. Hardwick also pushed the firm's expertise in the area.

"Given the magnitude of these losses, shareholders will want to
ensure they will be well positioned to recover as much as
possible from any resulting action.

"Slater and Gordon's knowledge of this area of law and how these
proceedings are best run along with market leading funding terms
mean that this offer will be hard to beat."

Slater and Gordon was coming off the back of some tough years
that saw its own shareholders launch a class action against it.
[GN]


APPCO GROUP: Charity Muggers' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Knowles, writing for ABC Investigations, reports that a
class action against leading fundraising company Appco Group
Australia, over the alleged exploitation of so-called "charity
muggers", will proceed, a court has ruled.

The company is accused of "sham contracting" -- hiring workers as
independent contractors rather than employees to avoid paying
them the minimum wage and other entitlements.

Appco hires young sales reps as independent contractors via
marketing companies.  The workers, also known as "chuggers",
raise money for some of Australia's biggest charities, as well as
big-name companies and utilities.

More than 1,400 claimants around the country allege they were
paid as little as $5 per hour for up to 80 hours per week.

Lead claimant Jacob Bywater alleges Appco breached the Fair Work
Act 2009 by failing to pay him and other group members ordinary
rates of pay and overtime, termination payments, superannuation,
allowances and expenses.

Many also alleged they were subjected to bizarre and humiliating
workplace rituals.

As the ABC's 7.30 report revealed exclusively in February last
year workers were forced to participate in these rituals, which
included simulating sexual acts on colleagues who failed to meet
their sales targets.

Another video shows young sales workers being forced to perform a
"slug race", where workers lay face down on a meeting room floor
and writhe on the ground with their arms behind their backs.

The action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia in late
2016.  Appco applied for a declaration that the claim was not
properly commenced as a class action and that each claim should
be heard in separate trials.

On May 18, Federal Court Justice Wigney dismissed that
application.

Justice Wigney ruled Appco had also failed to demonstrate it was
in the interests of justice for the class action not to proceed
because it would not be an "efficient and effective means of
dealing with the claims".

The hearing will proceed on a date to be fixed.

Appco has not filed a defence but said that it would vigorously
defend the sham contracting allegations.

"Appco Australia is disappointed that the case is continuing as a
class action," said Appco Australia chief executive Perveen
Virdee.

The company also said that in the past, some of the marketing
businesses that sub-contracted its services to Appco may have
conducted "motivational games" which, while well-intentioned,
crossed the line into improper behaviour.

"Any such activities were conducted without the knowledge,
permission or encouragement of Appco Australia," the company
statement said.

"These activities have now been banned and represent a breach of
contract with Appco." [GN]


APPLE INC: CONADECUS Files Suit in Calif. Over iPhone Slowdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chile's leading consumer protection organization, the Corporacion
Nacional de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile, known as
"CONADECUS" sued Apple, Inc. in U.S. federal court. Case
information is as follows: Corporacion Nacional de Consumidores Y
Usuarios de Chile v. Apple Inc., No. 18-2527 (N.D.Cal. filed Apr.
27, 2018).

CONADECUS is Chile's oldest and largest consumer rights
organization, empowered by law to protect Chilean consumers
though representative litigation.  The organization selected the
commercial litigation team at Johnston Pratt PLLC to prosecute
Chilean iPhone claims, based on the firm's history of handling
complex, cross-border litigation.

"Our team of litigators has extensive experience representing
clients' best interests and handling complex litigation on their
behalf," stated Robert Gifford -- rgifford@johnstonpratt.com --
Partner at Johnston Pratt.

In the lawsuit, CONADECUS alleges Apple intentionally and
secretly slowed the performance of iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models.
According to CONADECUS's court filings, Apple's actions amount to
electronic trespass and fraud under California law.  As a
California-based company, California law governs consumer claims
against Apple.  The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction that
prevents Apple from "releasing software updates that
electronically trespass on users' devices" or "using adhesion
contracts to gain permissions to electronically trespass on
users' devices." The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages on
behalf of Chileans who bought affected iPhones.

                          About CONADECUS

CONADECUS (pronounced "con a DAY koos") --
http://www.conadecus.cl/-- is a non-governmental organization
founded in 1996 and headquartered in Santiago, Chile.  Chilean
law authorizes CONADECUS to protect the rights of Chilean
consumers through bring legal actions.  Its mission is the
"promotion and protection of the rights of consumers and users in
Chile, through training, information and legal defense actions,
in partnership with other social organizations and public and
private entities, at the national and international level."

                   About Johnston Pratt PLLC

Johnston Pratt PLLC -- http://www.johnstonpratt.com-- is a law
firm based in Dallas, Texas.  From complex commercial litigation
and class-action claims, multidistrict litigation, "bet-the-
company" lawsuits, regulatory enforcement actions, and critical
licensing and administrative hearings, Johnston Pratt's
litigators have forged solutions at every stage in the process.


AR RESOURCES: Kassin Seeks to Certify NJ Consumers Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AR RESOURCES, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04171-FLW-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on June 18, 2018, for
an order certifying a class of:

   "all New Jersey consumers (1) who received an initial
   collection letter from the Defendant (2) on an obligation owed
   or allegedly owed to Select Medical - Kessler, (3) which
   stated "If you carry any insurance that may cover this
   obligation, please contact our office at the number above" (4)
   during the time period of July 15, 2015 to July 15, 2016."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK
DELAWARE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00808-NJ (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=REYYwf28

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


BED BATH: Court Tosses Przytula Bid to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Mary Przytula, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05124
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang entered an order
terminating a motion to conditionally certify collective action
without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 29, 2018,
the parties' joint motion to stay the case pending mediation is
granted, although the parties shall file status reports to ensure
that the process moves along expeditiously, and the stay will
come to an eventual end if progress stalls. First, by June 18,
2018, the parties shall file a status report stating the
agreed-on date of the mediation. The status hearing of June 14,
2018, is reset to July 17, 2018 at 9:15 a.m., with another status
report due by July 11, 2018. The motion to conditionally certify
the collective action is terminated without prejudice, and may be
renewed if the mediation is unsuccessful.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iX0y2ZR1


BEST BUY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Alt, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a lawsuit filed May 10 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleges that Best Buy and Delta
Airlines failed to secure sensitive customer information when
customers used the companies online support and sales systems.

Michael Ford and Rudolph Dubrovszky filed the class action
against 24/7 Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc. and Delta Airlines Inc. for
failing to protect and timely notify customers of a data breach
that occurred when customers used the companies' online support
that is provided by 24/7 Inc.

The firm is a software and services company that provides
services to both Delta and Best Buy, including "sales and
service-oriented software, as well as voice and chat agent
services."  The complaint states that Delta and Best Buy informed
customers in early April that those who used the companies' chat
services during September and October were subject to a data
breach that included customer payment and identification
information.

The complaint states that the defendants should and could have
prevented the data breach by implementing newer and safer
technology, but did not.  The plaintiffs claim the companies did
not alert customers until six months after the alleged breach,
allowing more problems to arise.

According to court documents, customers have suffered identity
theft, stolen personal and financial information, costs from
unauthorized use on their credit cards and costs to monitor and
fix the problem, "damages arising from the inability to use their
debit or credit card accounts because their accounts were
suspended or otherwise rendered unusable as a result of
fraudulent charges," and "finding fraudulent charges, cancelling
and reissuing cards, purchasing credit monitoring and identity
theft protection services, imposition of withdrawal and purchase
limits on compromised accounts, and the stress, nuisance and
annoyance of dealing with all issues resulting from the Data
Breach."

The plaintiffs claim they would not have continued to patronize
Best Buy and Delta had they known about the data breach and will
continue to suffer harm from having their information stolen or
potentially stolen.

The plaintiffs are requesting to certify their lawsuit as a class
action seek a trial by jury.  The plaintiffs seek statutory,
compensatory, consequential, and/or nominal damages, penalties,
court costs, and an order for the defendants to implement
stronger cyber security and to provide the plaintiffs with credit
monitoring services.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case
number 5:18-cv-02770-NC [GN]


BIG M: "Pecora" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PECORA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE BIG M CASINO, INC. and JOHN DOE
1-10, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01424-RBH
(D.S.C., May 24, 2018), alleges that Plaintiffs routinely worked
more than 40 hours per week.  Without the benefit of the Tip
Credit provision, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated employees the proper amount for all
hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or overtime hours
worked. The Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, the lawsuit
claims.

Big M offers day and evening casino boat cruises.[BN]

Attorney For Michael Pecora, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated:

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 579 7373
          Facsimile: (843) 614 6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
                  bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com


BRINKER INT'L: Fails to Secure Data, Green-Cooper et al Say
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Green-Cooper, Shenika Thomas, and Fred Sanders,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Brinker International, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2018), alleges that
Brinker fails to secure and safeguard customers' credit and debit
card numbers and other payment card data and other personally
identifiable information which Brinker collected at the time
Plaintiffs made purchases at Chili's restaurant owned and
operated by Brinker.  Brinker also fails to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class
members that their Payment Card Data and Personal Identifiable
Information had been stolen and precisely what types of
information were stolen.

Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant chains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@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
          E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

BP PLC: Wary of Risk of Climate Change-Related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that after
paying more than $65 billion in legal costs for the Deepwater
Horizon catastrophe, BP Plc is wary of the risk of lawsuits
related to climate change.

Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley raised the topic of class-
action lawsuits twice during the company's annual general meeting
in Manchester, England on May 21, saying he wouldn't disclose
certain climate targets, or even answer some questions from
activist investors, because the risk of legal action in the U.S.
was too high.

"You want to get us to make statements here in front of you that
you can document that will lead to a class action," Mr. Dudley
said in response to one question from the Union of Concerned
Scientists about pending U.S. litigation against energy
companies.  Such legal actions are "a business model in the
United States," he said.

The sharp exchange between BP and two advocacy groups -- Amnesty
International and the Union for Concerned Scientists -- shows the
growing pressure on major oil companies to acknowledge their
responsibility for emissions of greenhouse gases.  It also
reflects the burgeoning efforts to hold them legally responsible
for the potentially disastrous consequences of rising global
temperatures.

Lawsuit Fodder

"BP could be on the hook for millions, if not billions of
dollars," Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director at the
Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.  "Why
wouldn't shareholders want to know about the risk of legal
liability, a risk that's growing rapidly as climate costs
multiply."

In response to another questioner who suggested that selling oil
and gas should be considered a violation of human rights, Dudley
warned shareholders this could be another attempt to mire BP in a
class-action suit.  An open letter from shareholders including
Aviva Plc urging more transparency could also end up providing
lawsuit fodder, he said.

"BP absolutely believes in being transparent.  Transparency is
beneficial to all," Mr. Dudley said.  "But we don't want climate
disclosures to be a tool for class-action lawyers."

BP is still working through some of the 390,000 legal claims that
resulted from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, which
killed 11 people and spilled millions of gallons of crude into
the Gulf of Mexico. The company had to sell off about a third of
its assets to pay the various legal costs associated with the
disaster.

Global Issue
In part, the payments were so steep because of a class-action
suit, which offered a broad definition of which members of the
Gulf Coast community were entitled to payments.  BP will spend
about $1 billion a year on civil settlements related to the spill
until 2033.

Cities and states in the U.S. are also seeking payouts from oil
companies for the consequences of climate change, possibly using
the funds to build seawalls or other infrastructure, said BP
Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

In litigation, all public statements are heavily scrutinized.
Exxon Mobil Corp. is facing a multi-state fraud investigation
into the company's public comments about climate change after
facing accusations it misled shareholders into thinking global
warming was not a major risk.  Exxon has called the probe a
political vendetta.

Messrs. Svanberg and Dudley both argued that, unlike the
Deepwater Horizon incident, BP wouldn't accept sole
responsibility, legal or otherwise, for climate change.  They
said the company has always been forthcoming that greenhouse
gases are a risk to humanity, and the energy it provides is an
important part of the world economy.

"Climate change is a global issue," said Mr. Dudley.  "It is not
the oil companies', and gas companies' and coal companies' human
rights issue." [GN]


BURROUGHS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kalaveras Claims
------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO KALAVERAS, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. BURROUGHS,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-
cv-03110-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), alleges that Mr.
Kalaveras was an hourly, non-exempt employee. As such, he
eligible for and at times worked overtime Mr. Kalaveras and
Burroughs, Inc.'s other hourly, non-exempt employees were also
eligible for and at times received non-discretionary bonuses,
commissions, and other items of compensation (such as shift
differentials).  Throughout his employment, however, Burroughs,
Inc. failed to properly calculate and pay the overtime wages owed
to Mr. Kalaveras and its other hourly, non-exempt employees.
Specifically, Burroughs, Inc. failed to include commissions, non-
discretionary bonuses and other items of compensation when
determining Mr. Kalaveras' and its other hourly, non-exempt
employees' "regular rate of pay" for purposes of overtime.[BN]

Burroughs, Inc. provides payment products and services. The
Company offers check and document scanners, cash automation
services such as dual delivery.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Angelo Kalaveras and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com


C & L TOWING: Seeks to Certify Class of Tow Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEITH E. TAYLOR and TERRENCE MCGLOTHLIN,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. C & L TOWING AND TRANSPORT, L.L.C. and CARL CHASE,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01929-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "Defendants' current and former tow truck drivers who worked
   one or more weeks during the 3 years from the filing of the
   Complaint to the present and who are similarly situated of
   their "opt-in" rights."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to approve notice to employees
of their opt-in rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ynCn998T

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          200 Central Avenue no. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  Sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


CALIFORNIA COLLEGE: $300K "Espinosa" Settlement Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned CHARISH ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF
SAN DIEGO, INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17cv744-MMA
(BLM)(S.D. Calif.).

The Defendant, a private college founded in 1997, operates
schools of business, healthcare technology, and graphic arts,
which collectively offer associate, bachelors, and masters
degrees.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's supervisors
and managers were or should have been aware that the Plaintiff's
duties resulted in her being denied all statutorily required rest
and meal periods and required her to perform work duties while
off-the-clock. Despite being denied all statutorily required rest
and meal periods and requiring her to perform work duties while
off-the-clock, the Plaintiff was never paid one additional hour
of pay at her regular hourly rate for any missed or late meal or
rest period and was never paid any wages for the time she spent
working while off-the-clock.

The Settlement Agreement proposes a class comprised of all
persons who, from February 21, 2013, up to and including the date
that the Court grants preliminary approval of this Settlement,
worked for Defendants in the state of California as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.

The Net Settlement Amount means the Gross Settlement Amount
($300,000.00) payable by Defendant pursuant to the Settlement,
less the Class Representative payment ($2,500), the Plaintiff's
Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs ($90,000.00 in attorneys'
fees and $6,464.564 in costs), and administration costs
($7,783.00), which totals $193,252.44.

Strength of the Case, and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and
Likely Duration of Further Litigation

The Plaintiff explains that the prospect of certifying a wage and
hour action is always uncertain, and the risk of being denied
certification effectively forecloses continued litigation, as
neither the individual nor his or her attorney will have any
incentive to proceed with an individual case when such small
claims are at stake. Specifically, the Plaintiff states that if
the putative class is not certified, the value of Plaintiff's
case would have been reduced to a fraction of the value of this
Settlement; indeed, Defendant would have likely offered no money
to settle the class-wide claims if certification had been denied.
Based on this, this factor weighs in favor of approving the
settlement.

The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial

The Plaintiff indicated that if the Court does not finally
approve the settlement, she would need to move for class
certification, which the Defendant would vigorously oppose as it
disputes the appropriateness of class certification for purposes
other than settlement.  Moreover, the Plaintiff cited to several
courts that have certified similar wage and hour actions and
several other courts that have found wage and hour actions
inappropriate for class adjudication. Accordingly, there is some
risk that the Class would either not be certified or that
something may arise before trial that would require the Court to
decertify a class. As such, this factor favors approval of the
settlement.

The Stage of the Proceedings

A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-
length negotiation is presumed fair. In the context of class
action settlements, as long as the parties have sufficient
information to make an informed decision about settlement, formal
discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table.
Even further, the Settlement was achieved only after attending a
full-day mediation with Steven Pearl, who specializes in
mediating employment disputes, including wage and hour class
actions. As a result of the full-day mediation, the parties were
able to reach an agreement on the principal terms and spent the
next several weeks finalizing the agreement. Accordingly, this
factor favors approval.

The Settlement Amount

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant must pay a
cash settlement of $135,678.67 to 219 members of the Settlement
Class Members.  All in all, this means that the average recovery
under the settlement is approximately $619.54 and the highest
recovery is approximately $1,246.62.

The Plaintiff indicates that the settlement amount is fair and
equitable because without class settlement, individual damages
are relatively small and there would be little or no recovery for
employees. Further, the Plaintiff asserts that the average
recovery of $619.54 compares favorably to other wage and hour
class action settlements for similar claims on behalf of non-
exempt employees. Thus, this factor favors approval.

Fair and Adequate Representation During Settlement Negotiations

The Plaintiff's Counsel asserts that it is seasoned in class
action litigation and regularly litigates wage and hour claims
through certification on the merits, and has considerable
experience settling wage and hour class actions. Additionally,
the Defendant is represented by Duane Morris, LLP, which is a
nationally respected defense firm. Moreover, the Plaintiff's
Counsel believes the terms of the settlement are fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Class Members.
Accordingly, this factor favors approval.

Class Reaction to the Proposed Settlement

The Ninth Circuit has held that the number of class members who
object to a proposed settlement is a factor to be considered. The
absence of a large number of objectors supports the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  After receiving
notice of the proposed settlement, not a single Class Member
requested exclusion, objected to the Settlement, or disputed
their work weeks. As a result, this factor favors settlement.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and finds that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8snru4 from Leagle.com.

Charish Espinosa, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew R. Bainer --
mbainer@bainerelawfirm.com -- The Bainer Law Firm.

California College of San Diego Inc., a Utah Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Aaron T. Winn -- atwinn@duanemorris.com
-- Duane Morris & Nicholas Jordan Ferraro --
njferraro@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris, LLP.


CAMP BOW: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camp Bow Wow
Franchising, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Camp
Bow Wow Franchising, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05017
(S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Camp Bow Wow is a dog daycare and boarding franchise
headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The company was founded in
2000 by Heidi Ganahl and it operates over 125 locations in the
United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Brainwashing Experiment Victims Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Richardson, writing for CTV Montreal, reports that
victims of brainwashing experiments at the Allan Memorial
Institute in the 50's and 60's are planning a class-action
lawsuit against provincial and federal governments, and McGill.
By the time Phyllis Goldberg died in 2011, she'd spent the last
20 years of her life institutionalized -- a "complete vegetable,"
her niece recounts -- an "infant."

In the cracked sepia photograph Marlene Levenson holds, her aunt
is a young, optimistic woman -- only 19 years old, pursuing a
career as a nurse.

But after an admission to the Allan Memorial Institute in 1945 to
treat a bout of mild depression, Ms. Levenson says that something
in her aunt snapped.

"When she would be with us, on weekends and so on, she didn't
communicate.  She laughed for no reason.  Her gait was very
different," Ms. Levenson explained.  "She couldn't dress herself
-- she couldn't do anything for herself."

Small moments of affection -- a pat on the head between aunt and
niece, for example -- elicited painful reactions from
Ms.  Goldberg.

"When you went to pat her, just as a gesture, she would cringe,"
Ms. Levenson said.  "That bewildered me -- not realizing, or
understanding, she had electric shock equipment put on her head
so many times that it [remained] in her subconscious."

The extent of Ms. Goldberg's treatment -- or mistreatment --
while in the care of Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron at the Allan
Memorial Institute, would remain an encumbering family secret for
years.

"There was a question mark all these years, but my parents didn't
want to talk about it," Ms. Levenson said.  "Quite frankly, I
don't think they knew the extent of what was done to her."

Dr. Cameron -- the first chairman of the World Psychiatric
Association, and president of both American and Canadian
psychiatric associations -- was recruited by the CIA in the
1940's after they caught wind of his "psychic driving" concept.

He had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by "erasing" existing
memories and reprogramming the psyche.  The CIA, however,
sanctioned Dr. Cameron's research in hopes it would one day be
used to "crack" spies.

He was reportedly paid $69,000 between 1957 and 1964 to conduct
experiments for MK Ultra -- a mostly illegal venture that
combined the use of paralytic drugs, shock therapy, LSD,
medically-induced comas, and alleged sexual abuse.  Some patients
were exposed to repetitive messages for days.

As a result, Dr. Cameron's "subjects" -- Ms. Levenson's aunt
included -- would suffer extreme personality changes,
incontinence, amnesia, and in many cases, revert them to a state
of child-like dependency.

On May 20 in Montreal, families of these survivors gathered to
share their recollections and traumatic history through medical
records, as they plan to file a class-action lawsuit against the
provincial and federal governments, and possibly McGill
University.

Though the statute of limitations has elapsed in many of the MK
Ultra cases, families are seeking compensation and a public
apology.

"I could not believe this was allowed," Ms. Levenson said.
"These were innocent people who went in for mild depression --
even if it was severe depression, post-partum, neurological
things that happened -- they came out completely ravaged, and
their life was ruined."

Nancy Layton was also a teen when she was hospitalized at the
Allan for mild depression.  Her daughter, Angela Bardosh, said
the treatment there ruined her mother's life.

"It's horrific to go back -- for me, it took years to go back and
read my mom's medical records," Ms.  Bardosh explained.

"Within six months with the treatments that Dr. Cameron did, it
turned her into an acute schizophrenic," Ms. Bardosh added.  "She
suffered greatly through the mental health system."

And Ms. Bardosh, in turn, suffered the side effects of growing up
without a mother.

In 1992, then-justice minister Kim Campbell decided to compensate
77 former MK Ultra patients and offer a de-patterning program to
assist with daily functioning.

However, many were denied financial compensation because they
couldn't prove the psychological damage was directly linked to
Dr. Cameron's experiments.

In some cases, the inpatient therapy took place outside the
government's window of consideration.

For example, two of Ms.  Levenson's surviving aunts applied for
compensation during 1990's, but because Ms. Goldberg was treated
in 1948 -- two years before the period of eligibility, according
to Federal officials -- the family could not proceed with their
claim.

Even veteran lawyer Alan Stein, who demanded a judicial review
and took several cases to the Federal court in the 1990's, wasn't
aware that Dr. Cameron was conducting experiments as early as the
1940's.

Unlike prior "ex-gratia" restitution payments, or payments made
of moral, rather than legal, obligation -- a class-action suit
requires extensive testimony and proof of damages.

"Certainly I believe we can claim moral damages and damages
resulting from the detrimental effect that the treatments had on
their behavior," Mr. Stein said.

Mr. Stein will be overseeing the legal process as it moves
forward, representing the families.

A class-action suit, Ms. Levenson said on May 20, would also be a
direct acknowledgement of this dark period in Canadian history.

Just above the old photo of 19-year-old Phyllis Goldberg,
Ms.  Levenson typed an inscription summarizing her personal
mission moving forward: "Like our loved ones making history for
the wrong reasons, we are making history for the right reasons,"
it reads.  "We are their voices now." [GN]


CANADA: Group Affected by Brainwashing Experiments Seeks Apology
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ellenwood, writing for CBC News, reports that a group of
Canadians affected by CIA brainwashing experiments conducted at
McGill University's Allan Memorial Institute met for the first
time on May 20 to start organizing for a public apology and
compensation from the federal government through a possible
class-action.

Around 40 people gathered at a Montreal condo to share their
stories, cry and support each other.  The pain, many said, was
palpable in the room.

"The government should offer an apology and there should be
recognition of the injustice that was done," says Gina Blasbalg,
who became a patient at the Allan in her teens in 1959, and drove
with her husband from Richmond, B.C., to attend the weekend
meeting.

Survivors Allied Against Government Abuse (SAAGA), as the group
calls itself, includes both victims and family members of people
who were unwitting participants in brainwashing experiments
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ewen Cameron, director of
the psychiatric hospital between 1943 and 1964.

Cameron, co-founder of the World Psychiatric Association and
president of various other psychiatric associations over his
career, ran "depatterning" and "psychic driving" experiments that
attempted to erase a patient's memories and reprogram them with
new thoughts.

He tested experimental drugs like LSD and PCP, medically induced
sleep for extended periods, and oversaw extreme forms of
electroshock therapy and sensory deprivation. Many of his
patient's brains were then left damaged.

The federal government provided Dr. Cameron with more than
$500,000 between 1950 and 1965 -- $4 million in today's dollars -
- along with a smaller amount of funding from the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency, using a front organization called the
Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology.

Today, many people argue that Dr. Cameron's experiments are part
of the foundation for contemporary psychological torture
techniques.

Four daughters of victim Violet Winnifred Malboeuf came from
various towns in Quebec and Ontario to attend the May 20 meeting.

Janice Shaw explained that she and her siblings all had extremely
difficult childhoods without their mother, but now they are
relieved to know that there are other people to talk to who went
through similar experiences.

The sisters and their two brothers were placed in foster care
because their mother was incapable of raising them after her stay
at the Allan Memorial Institute.  A few days ago, they received
some of their mother's medical records from the Department of
Justice. One of the documents was a handwritten letter by their
mother outlining her experience at the Allan.

Intrigued by case of compensation
The May 20 gathering would not have happened without CBC News
investigative journalist Elizabeth Thompson.  She regularly
checks the government public account records for story ideas, and
noticed a line about compensation for someone who had been
depatterned at the Allan Memorial Institute.

Ms. Thompson, who grew up in Montreal and worked for local
newspapers, knew the history of the Allan Memorial Institute and
was intrigued.

She called Montreal lawyer Alan Stein, who has represented
numerous survivors of the Allan, and he confirmed that one of his
clients, Alison Steel, was the person who received the
compensation last year -- long after her father first attempted
to get compensation in the 1990s.

They had reached an out-of-court settlement with the Canadian
justice department in exchange for dropping the lawsuit, and
Steel had to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

The recent CBC News articles and The Fifth Estate documentary
Brainwashed led to a flood of emails from victims and their
families.  People wanted to know how to access medical records
and compensation, and more than anything they wanted to connect
with each other.  Steel agreed to talk with them so The Fifth
Estate sent along their emails.

"For awhile there I was receiving two or three calls per day,"
Ms. Steel says.  "People didn't want to talk about it, but now
they are realizing that so many others are in the same boat."

At the meeting, Ms. Steel was overwhelmed that everyone had
finally come together.

Last February, they organized a private Facebook group and came
up with a name.  They created SAAGA, with the goal of seeking
justice, a public apology and compensation.

Help in launching class-action suit
SAAGA announced at the May 20 meeting that Mr. Stein has agreed
to assist the group in launching a class-action lawsuit to sue
the Canadian government, maybe also the Quebec government and the
Allan Memorial Institute.  It would first have to be approved by
the Quebec Superior Court, which could take four to six months,
Mr. Stein said.

In an email, the Justice Department told CBC News that a 1986
inquiry by George Cooper into Cameron's depatterning work
"concluded that Canada did not hold any legal liability or moral
responsibility in respect of these treatments."

"As this matter may be before the courts it would be
inappropriate to comment further."

The Fifth Estate began exposing wrongdoing at the Allan Memorial
Institute in 1980 and continues to follow this story.  We are in
the process of building a website where we will gather together
the stories of patients who underwent the brainwashing
experiments, and their families. [GN]


CANAL RADIOLOGY: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canal Radiology
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Canal
Radiology Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04982
(S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Canal Radiology Associates, P.C. is a Medical Group - Health Care
Provider in New York New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CB FINANCIAL: Stockholder Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Under cover of a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by CB Financial
Services, Inc. ("CB") on March 26, 2018, Paul Parshall, a
purported stockholder of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.
("FWVB"), filed on March 22, 2018, on behalf of himself and all
other FWVB public stockholders, a putative class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia (the "Circuit
Court"), captioned Parshall v. First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.
et. al. (Civil Action No. 18-C-68), against FWVB, each FWVB
director and CB with respect to the then pending merger between
CB and FWVB.  Under cover of a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
by CB on May 2, 2018, the merger was completed effective April
30, 2018.

On May 4, 2018, Mr. Parshall filed in the Circuit Court a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal, voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit
without prejudice. [GN]


CDI COLLEGE: Settles Nursing Students' Class Action for $1.9MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Fournier, writing for CBC News, reports that CDI College
has paid a group of former nursing students almost $1.9 million
in settlement of a class action lawsuit launched in 2013 against
the private career college.

According to a settlement agreement dated Sept. 15, 2017, $1.88
million would be paid to the 163 former students in the college's
Licensed Practical Nursing program at the South Edmonton Campus.

The payments, on behalf of the defendants CDI and Bow Valley
College, which together ran the LPN program, had all been mailed
out as of mid-April, according to the CDI Class Action website.

In the original claim statement, students said the program
"failed to deliver the educational services it agreed to supply
to members of the class."

Staff at CDI gave students colouring books instead of textbooks,
showed them movies on Netflix, and led activities including
T-shirt painting and wheelchair races, according to the
statement.

Ennet Sekeramayi was one of two plaintiffs in the case. In a
letter she sent to the Ministry of Advanced Education and others,
she wrote about some of her concerns about the program.

"Instead of using class time for instruction time, it has been
used for reading our textbooks and games such as 'Would You
Rather?'"

She also wrote that the instructor of her psychology class left
two weeks before finals, leaving students to struggle alone.

None of the claims were ruled on in court, and the settlement
does not hold CDI liable.

CDI points to problems with student performance
In an affidavit responding to the statement of claim,
Victor Tesan, the interim president and the then-COO of the
company that operates CDI, said that in the LPN program course
description, each student was asked to confirm their
understanding that the college may update or modify courses to
facilitate ongoing developments in programs.

The affidavit also disparaged students about their academic
performance.

It refers to a group of students dubbed "The April Group," who
walked out of a class in April 2013 and asked to withdraw from
the program.  Some of those students, it said, "already exhibited
behaviour and characteristics that tend to stand in the way of
academic success."

It includes statements from instructors that some of those
students were either frequently late, disruptive in class or
refused to pay attention and put their phone away. In one case,
it said, a student showed naked pictures to the instructor.

These claims were also not proven in court.

CDI suspends LPN program
The class action lawsuit included students who dropped out of the
program as well as some who had graduated.

After problems with the program were reported to the College of
Licensed Practical Nurses, some students who were working as LPNs
had their permits temporarily suspended.

The LPN program at CDI was suspended in 2013.

The two plaintiffs said they each paid $30,000 in tuition for the
program.  Both received more than $20,000 in the settlement.

As well, the settlement agreement release claimants from
liability to CDI for unpaid tuition, associated interest,
penalties and other costs.  While many former students do not
still owe anything to the institution, others in the list owe
amounts ranging from $296 to more than $20,000.

The settlement agreement was approved in November 2017 and
included a clause that both parties would not contact media about
the case.

In response to a CBC request for comment, CDI sent the statement:
"CDI College has been operating for over 40 years and we are
committed to continuing to provide quality education and career
training to our students." [GN]


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Norton"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TROY NORTON, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-
787 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an
order on May 29 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F3Z89XZZ


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces "Cesare" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Champion Petfoods
USA Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Cesare, Elizabeth
Donatucci and Taylor Kennedy, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00744-CB (W.D. Penn., June 5, 2018).

Champion Petfoods LP produces and markets pet food products for
dogs and cats. The company offers meat ingredients, fruits and
vegetables, and meat concentrated and protein based products. Its
products are sold through pet specialty shops and retailers in
the United States and Canada; veterinary clinics in Canada; and
distributors in the United States and internationally. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Edmonton, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
   Levin Sedran & Berman
   510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
   Tel: (215) 592-1500
   Fax: (215) 592-4663
   Email: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: To Settle Oklahoma Suits for De Minimis Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company has
reached a tentative settlement to resolve substantially all
Oklahoma civil class action antitrust cases for an immaterial
amount.

Chesapeake Energy previously disclosed defending lawsuits
alleging various violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court of Kansas, in each case
against the company and other defendants.

The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing
through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and
depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas
leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin
containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The lawsuits seek
damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as
enjoinment from adopting practices or plans that would restrain
competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits.

Chesapeake Energy said, "On April 12, 2018, we reached a
tentative settlement to resolve substantially all Oklahoma civil
class action antitrust cases for an immaterial amount."

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is an independent exploration and
production company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and
development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas
and NGL from underground reservoirs. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CINCINNATI BELL: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL JOHNSON, On behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CINCINNATI
BELL, INC. and CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00138-SJD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class
      and implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice
      of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-
      mail) to:

      "all individuals employed by Defendants as Outbound Sales
      Representatives or other similar job positions1 who worked
      at least 40 hours per week during any time within the past
      three years"; and

   2. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in Ohio at any
      time within the past three years.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N1AGB7Ln

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Molly K. Tefend, Esq.
          ARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744 2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Ryan K. Hymore, Esq.
          MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A.
          3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 255 5888
          Facsimile: (216) 397 5845
          E-mail: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Furth" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Brucha Furth, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03300 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 5, 2018).

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CLIENT SERVICES: Class Certification Sought in "Steffek" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SARAH M. STEFFEK, and JILL VANDENWYNGAARD,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., a Missouri Corporation;
and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00160-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
   Client Services, Inc. mailed an initial written communication,
   between January 30, 2017 and February 20, 2018, which was not
   returned as undeliverable, and which lists "RE: CHASE BANK
   USA, N.A." and states "The above account has been placed with
   our organization for collections."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that their attorneys, Stern
Thomasson LLP, be appointed counsel for the class.

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

Attorneys for Sarah M. Steffek and Jill Vandenwyngaard:

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


COASTWAY BANCORP: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with HarborOne
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COASTWAY BANCORP, INC., MARK E.
CREVIER, DEBRA M. PAUL, WILLIAM A. WHITE, DENNIS M. MURPHY, JAMES
P. FIORE, LYNDA DICKINSON, PHILLIP KYDD, DAVID P. DISANTO,
MALCOLM G. CHACE JR., and ANGELO P. LOPRESTI II, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00279 (D.R.I., May 24, 2018), seeks to enjoin
the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction, and in the event Defendants consummate the Proposed
Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

This action stems from the proposed transaction announced on
March 14, 2018, pursuant to which Coastway Bancorp, Inc. will be
acquired by HarborOne Bancorp, Inc. and Parent's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Massachusetts Acquisitions, LLC.

On March 14, 2018, Coastway's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
HarborOne. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the
Proposed Transaction is approved by Coastway's shareholders and
is completed, Coastway's shareholders will receive $28.25 in cash
for each share of Coastway common stock they own.

On April 25, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the Proxy Statement.

Coastway Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Coastway Community Bank that provides various financial services
to individuals and families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith B. Kyle, Esq.
          HOULIHAN, MANAGHAN, MORRISSEY & KYLE, LTD
          195 Broadway, 2nd floor
          Newport, RI 02840
          Telephone: (401) 846 7777
          Facsimile: (401) 848-7141
          E-mail: keith@hmandklaw.com


COGINT INC: Mohamed Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MOHAMED, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COGINT, INC., f/k/a IDI, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, INTERACTIVE DATA, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company, RED VIOLET, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
XYZ ENTITIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80686-DMM
(S.D. Fla., May 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have
knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the other
employees similarly situated to her at time and one-half of their
applicable regular rates of pay for all hours worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 per week between May 2015 and the
present.

The Defendants owned and operated a business at multiple
locations across the United States specializing in selling
business-to-business background data to customers throughout the
country, with corporate offices that have included locations in
New York and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: $683K Atty's Fees Awarded in "Stathakos"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California awards $683,411.79 in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs'
counsel in the case captioned JEANNE STATHAKOS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-04543-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs brought this class action against the Defendants
for alleged use of deceptive and misleading labeling and
marketing of merchandise in its company-owned Columbia outlet
stores. The Plaintiffs brought five causes of action: three under
each prong of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business &
Professions Code (UCL) for (i) unlawful, (ii) unfair, and (iii)
fraudulent business practices; the fourth for violation of the
False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code
(FAL); and the fifth for violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code (CLRA).

According to the plaintiffs, the Class Counsel collectively
worked 3,155.56 hours on this case for a total lodestar, at
current billing rates, of $1,860,789.66.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
does not seek their full lodestar and proposes to exclude time
entries related to monetary relief, travel time, as well as time
spent by lawyers at hearings, depositions and mediations where
other lawyers took the lead.  The Plaintiffs' proposed deductions
reduce the lodestar by $599,161.81, or from $1,860,789.66 to
$1,261,627.85.

The Defendants oppose the plaintiffs' proposal as insufficient
and counter that "plaintiffs should be awarded fees and costs in
an amount not to exceed $250,000 on four grounds, namely that
plaintiffs' counsel (i) obtained only minimal relief; (ii) spent
substantial time pursuing an unsuccessful damages class after
refusing to settlement on an injunction only basis in January
2017; and seeks (iii) fees which are unreasonable or non-
compensable" as well as (iv) an unreasonable hourly rate."

The Defendants argue that the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees should
be reduced due to the plaintiffs' lack of success on their motion
to certify a damages class.

The Plaintiffs argue against further reductions based on the
novelty of the questions involved in the litigation, the
contingency risks counsel accepted in representing the
plaintiffs, and, perhaps most importantly, the injunctive relief
which plaintiffs obtained in this case.

The Court finds that the plaintiffs' counsel obtained meaningful
relief for the class.  Specifically, the Settlement Agreement
requires Columbia to change is labeling and marketing practices
across outlet stores in California to clarify to consumers that
the reference price on Outlet item tags may not refer to the same
product offered by Columbia in its own stores, its own online
properties, or at third party retailers.  However, the
plaintiffs' success was limited in that the plaintiffs did not
(i) persuade this Court to certify a damages class or (ii) obtain
monetary relief for the class.

Further, the factors the plaintiffs claim warrant an upward
adjustment are either subsumed in the lodestar calculation
already, or are lacking in evidentiary support. Nevertheless, the
defendants concede that the plaintiffs' lawsuit resulted in a
change to Columbia's labeling and marketing practices across
outlet stores in California and hundreds of items. Taking this
into account, the Court finds that a 35% reduction in the
lodestar is appropriate. Hence, a 35 percent reduction is
significant while still recognizing that plaintiffs prevailed, in
part seems to the Court to be the fairest way of addressing the
scope of relief obtained by plaintiffs' counsel.

This brings the award to $820,058.10.

Next, the defendants assert that the lodestar should be reduced
because the plaintiffs could have settled on an injunction only
basis in January 2017, but chose to withdraw from settlement
talks so that they could continue to pursue a damages class.

Here, the record does not support a finding that the plaintiffs
withdrew from settlement discussions solely to pursue a damages
class. Rather, the record reflects a lack of agreement between
the parties on material settlement terms such as the (i) duration
of the injunction, (ii) restrictions on Columbia's use of the
term "Compare At," and (iii) requirement that Colombia include a
legible sign under the plexiglass in its California outlet
stores. These terms, which defense counsel characterized during
negotiations as unacceptable to Columbia, were ultimately
included in the Settlement Agreement and provided a material
benefit to the class.

The Defendants also argue that the lodestar should be reduced
because the number of hours requested is unreasonable. The
Defendants rely primarily on the defense counsel's assertion that
the plaintiffs request is "2.25 times" the number of hours which
the defense counsel spent on this case.

Here, the plaintiffs' counsel was responsible for investigating
and substantiating the plaintiffs' factual allegations and bore
the burden of establishing the existence of a class. Accordingly,
the defendants' argument that the lodestar is unreasonable
because the plaintiffs request 2.25 times the number of hours
which defense counsel spent on this case does not persuade for
this additional reason.

The Defendants' expert, namely Andre Jardini, claims to have
conducted a line-by-line review of plaintiffs' lodestar and avers
that the hours contained therein are unreasonable.

First, according to Mr. Jardini, the plaintiffs' lodestar
reflects that the plaintiffs spent 180 hours on their motion for
class certification, 356 hours preparing their omnibus reply in
support of class certification and opposition to Columbia's
motion for summary judgment, and 120 hours preparing for the
hearing and oral argument on the same.

Second, Mr. Jardini challenges the plaintiffs' 352 hours spent on
conferencing. The Plaintiffs counter that there is nothing
inherently wrong with conferencing with co-counsel in a case; in
fact, conferences between attorneys to discuss strategy and
prepare for oral argument are an essential part of effective
litigation.  Here, the defendants similarly fail to offer any
argument or legal authority as to why 352 hours of conferencing
constitutes an unreasonable figure.

Third, the defendants assert that the Court should exclude hours
billed for out-of-state attorneys not barred in California or
admitted to practice pro hac vice.  Here, the plaintiffs proffer
sufficient evidence including certifications of good standing to
show that the out-of-state attorneys were either admitted pro hac
vice or would have been permitted to appear pro hac vice had they
applied.

Finally, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' blended hourly
rate of $584.30 is unreasonable based on the U.S. Attorneys'
Offices' Fees Matrix. The Defendants not persuade for two
reasons. First, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices' Fees Matrix fails to
control for locality and thus likely understates the prevailing
hourly rate in this district. Second, several courts in this
district have approved hourly rates equal to or greater than the
rates at issue here in similar cases.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y968nkmb from Leagle.com.

Jeanne Stathakos & Nicolas Stathakos, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow,
P.C., Scott Adam Edelsberg -- edelsberg@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz Ostrow, Andrea R. Gold -- agold@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Hassan Ali
Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -, Kaliel PLLC &
Wayne Scott Kreger -- wayne@kregerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Wayne
Kreger.

Columbia Sportswear Company & Columbia Sportswear USA
Corporation, Defendants, represented by P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmuliin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
LLP & Jay Thomas Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Settlement Pending in "Strack" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in
the class action suit by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner
are awaiting court approval of a settlement.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and sought recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney
fees on behalf of the proposed class. The Company denied all
allegations and denied that the case was properly brought as a
class action.

On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class
requested by plaintiffs over the objections of the Company. The
Company appealed the trial court's class certification order. On
February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed
the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case
for further proceedings. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for
Rehearing which was denied by the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals. Plaintiffs then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
on May 23, 2017 to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which was denied
on October 2, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed with the trial court a
"Second Amended and Renewed Motion for Class Action Certification
and Request that the Court to Set a Briefing Schedule Related to
Class Certification." During the litigation the Company was not
able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or
what impact, if any, the ultimate resolution of the action would
have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity
and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter
and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature
of the claims and defenses, the existence and the potential size
of the class, the scope and types of the properties and
agreements involved, the production years involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

The Company further disclosed that it was reasonably possible one
or more events could occur in the near term that could impact the
Company's ability to estimate the potential effect of this matter
if any, on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows. During the litigation the Company also disclosed
plaintiffs alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million as
damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority
of which would be comprised of interest.

After certification of the case as a class action was reversed
the parties continued settlement negotiations. Due to the
uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, on February 16, 2018,
the Company reached a settlement in connection with this matter.

Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make
payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately $59.6 million, which is subject to change pending
final approval of the settlement by the court. The Company
accrued a loss for such amount at December 31, 2017, which was
subsequently increased to $60.6 million at March 31, 2018 to
reflect additional settlement obligations resulting from the
passage of time. Such accrual is included in "Accrued liabilities
and other" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

On April 3, 2018, the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma
preliminarily approved the settlement and set certain dates
applicable to the settlement including the timing and content of
Notice, Opt-out, and Objections to Class Members. The Fairness
Hearing was scheduled for June 1, 2018.

Continental Resources, Inc. is an independent crude oil and
natural gas company engaged in the exploration, development and
production of crude oil and natural gas. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CREDIT CONTROL: Court Awards $134K Attorney's Fees in "Elaine"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania awards $134,572.50 in attorney's fees to plaintiff
in the case captioned DAWN ELAINE, for herself and a class,
Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES LP, and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:15-cv-01271-RAL (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Dawn Elaine for herself and a class, seeks an award of
$151,150.50 in attorney's fees, which represents a decreased
request for fees incurred during the litigation, with an addition
for fees incurred preparing her response to the Defendants'
objections to her original request for fees, pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff requests reimbursement of attorney's fees in the
amended amount of $151,150.50, and costs in the amount of
$6,009.95.

The Defendants made the following general categories of
objections to the Plaintiff's initial request for fees: (1) The
hourly rates charged by all of the attorneys should be reduced;
and (2) The bills included time for clerical work and inter- and
intra-attorney communications, and duplicate entries, which
should be excluded.

Plaintiff seeks fees for her counsel at the following rates:

   Francis Greene -- $500 per hour
   Carlo Sabatini -- $410 per hour
   Thomas Soule -- $395 per hour
   Brett Freeman -- $275 per hour
   Various paralegals -- $125 per hour

In support of these rates, the Plaintiff submitted Declaration of
Francis R. Greene, Esq.; Declaration of Carlo Sabatini, Esq.;
Declaration of David A. Searles, Esq.; and the schedule of ranges
of attorney fees published by Community Legal Services of
Philadelphia, for various years of experience, effective
September 12, 2014.

In response to the Plaintiff's evidence of her attorneys' skill
and experience, the Defendants argue that the hourly rates sought
by counsel for the Plaintiff in this matter are unreasonable,
saying the standard in this District is clear, Courts are to
assess the experience and skill of the prevailing party's
attorneys and compare their rates to the rates prevailing in the
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably
comparable skill, experience, and reputation and the party
seeking fees bears the burden of establishing by way of
satisfactory evidence that the requested hourly rates meet this
standard.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met her burden of
providing satisfactory evidence of the reasonableness of the
requested hourly rates given the skill and experience of each
attorney, the complexity of the litigation, and the prevailing
rates in the relevant community.  The Court will therefore award
fees at the requested rates.  The Court find that each of these
rates are reasonable, given the levels of skill and experience of
each attorney, my review of case law on hourly rates previously
awarded in FDCPA claims of similar complexity in this district,
and my own knowledge of the work actually performed by
Plaintiff's attorneys in the litigation of this class action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9joc6fe from Leagle.com.

DAWN ELAINE, FOR HERSELF AND A CLASS, Plaintiff, represented by
CARLO SABATINI, SABATINI LAW FIRM LLC216 N Blakely St. Dunmore,
PA 18512-1904, DANIEL A. EDELMAN -- Dedelman@edcombs.com --
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC & FRANCIS R. GREENE --
fgreene@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.

CREDIT CONTROL LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES
LP & ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Defendants, represented by ANDREW M.
SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC.


CREE INC: Court Narrows Claims in LED Bulbs Suit
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned JEFF YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CREE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06252-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jeff Young brings this putative class action lawsuit
against defendant Cree, Inc., alleging that the defendant engaged
in an unfair and deceptive practice of promising consumers that
Cree's light-emitting-diode bulbs (LED Bulbs) will last for
particularly long periods of time "up to 35,000 hours" with a
100% Satisfaction Guarantee and yearly energy cost savings
ranging from around $0.60 to $2 per blub per year in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code
Sections 17200, et seq. (Count I); (False Advertising Law (FAL),
Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq. (Count II);
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1750, et seq. (Count III); fraudulent misrepresentation and
concealment (Count V); negligent misrepresentation (Count VI);
unjust enrichment (Count VII); breach of express and implied
warranties (Count VIII); and negligent failure to test (Count
IX).

The Defendant argues that plaintiff's claims fail because the
claims are (i) pre-empted by the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) and, in any event, (ii) not sufficiently pled.  The
Defendant also claims that Young lacks standing to bring claims
for alleged misrepresentations regarding certain types of LED
Bulbs which he did not purchase.

The plaintiff challenges several representations which tout the
performance of Cree's LED Bulbs when compared to competing bulbs,
including representations on Cree's website that its LED Bulbs
will last "up to 3x as long as the cheap LED bulbs" and on the
packaging which indicates that customers will save $95-177 by
using a Cree LED Bulb.  These statements go beyond merely
reporting the "EPA-estimated" bulb lifespan and convey an
allegedly false impression about the superior longevity and cost
savings of Cree's LED Bulbs. These representations give rise to a
plausible inference that reasonable consumers would believe the
Cree's LED Bulbs are able to achieve real-world lifespan and cost
savings.  Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is
denied to the extent that these claims challenge the second
category of alleged misrepresentations, namely those that purport
to compare the longevity, energy consumption, and cost savings of
defendant's LED Bulbs to competitors' LED and incandescent bulbs.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant knowingly made false
representations and concealed material facts regarding the
quality, durability, longevity and benefits of Cree's LED
Lightbulbs. The Plaintiff identifies the specific advertisements
and marketing materials which he claims are false and misleading.
Next, the plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to the false
representations when he purchased the LED Bulbs from Walmart in
April of 2015. The Plaintiff alleges that these representations
are false and misleading because the LED Bulbs do not last nearly
as long as advertised.  However, the plaintiff fails to plead his
reliance and does not identify the specific representations on
which he relied.  Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted with respect to plaintiff's claims under the UCL (Count
I), FAL (Count II), CLRA (Count III), and for fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment (Count V) with leave to amend
to plead plaintiff's reliance and identify the specific
representations on which he relied.

The Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for negligence, namely
negligent misrepresentation (Count VI) and negligence in design
based on Cree's failure to test its LED Bulbs adequately (Count
IX). The Defendant argues that both negligence claims are barred
by the economic loss rule.  Here, the plaintiff does not allege
that he suffered physical harm or that he was exposed to personal
liability as a result of the defendant's alleged
misrepresentations. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count
VI) and negligent failure to test (Count IX) is granted on the
ground that such claims are barred by the economic loss rule. The
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint which
alleges, if possible, that he was exposed to independent personal
liability.

The Defendant argues that the plaintiff's cause of action for
unjust enrichment (Count VII) should be dismissed because it is
not a cause of action in California. The Defendant's argument
fails as the California Supreme Court has clarified that unjust
enrichment is a valid cause of action in California.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim
for unjust enrichment is denied.

The Defendant argues the plaintiff's warranty claim (Count VIII)
should be dismissed on two grounds. First, the plaintiff fails to
allege that he attempted to enforce the terms of the warranties
at issue. Second, Young lacks contractual privity because he
purchased the LED Bulbs from a non-party, namely Wal-Mart. The
Court addresses each.  With respect to the first argument, Cree
mischaracterizes the plaintiff's warranty claims. He does not
allege that defendant breached the express warranties included on
Cree's product packaging. Rather, he alleges that Cree made
representations concerning product life and energy savings which
themselves give rise to express warranties regarding the same.
Turning to the second argument, under California law, the general
rule is that privity of contract is required in an action for
breach of either express or implied warranty and that there is no
privity between the original seller and a subsequent purchaser
who is in no way a party to the original sale Accordingly,
privity of contract is not required.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's express and implied
warranty claims (Count VIII) is denied.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
defendant's motion to dismiss as follows:

   A. grants the defendant's motion to dismiss as to the first
category of representations, namely those that reiterate
disclosures required to be made on the product's principal
display panel or Lighting Facts label.

   B. denied as to the second category of representations, namely
those that present information regarding comparative energy
consumption, energy cost savings, and lifespan.

   C. denies as to the third category of representations, namely
those that present information regarding comparative energy
consumption, energy cost savings, and lifespan, namely those that
state that Cree's products are 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed.

   D. grants the defendant's motion on the fraud counts, namely
Counts I, II, III and V, with leave to amend to plead reliance
and the specific representations on which plaintiff relied.

   E. grants the defendant's motion on the negligence-based
counts, namely Counts VI and IX, with leave to amend regarding
whether plaintiff was exposed to independent personal liability.

   F. denies the defendant's motion as to Count VII for unjust
enrichment.

   G. denies the defendant's motion as to Count VIII for breach
of express and implied warranties with respect to comparative
product life and energy savings. However, the motion as to a
claim based on 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed is granted with leave
to allege, if possible, defendant's failure to repair, replace or
refund a failed product.

   H. the Defendant's motion based on standing is denied.

   I. the Defendant's motion with respect to punitive damages is
granted with leave to amend now in accordance with this order or
60 days before the close of discovery with leave of the Court
should evidence support the allegation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7jn9je8 from Leagle.com.

Jeff Young, Plaintiff, represented by S. Clinton Woods --
cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP., Adam R. Gonnelli -
- gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- The Sultzer Law Group,
Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran &
Berman, Jason Paul Sultzer -- sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com --
The Sultzer Law Group, Ling Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Melissa S. Weiner -- weiner@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law
&Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP.

Cree, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Allan DeVore --
charles.devore@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
Rebecca K. Lindahl -- Rebecca.lindahl@katten.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP & Stuart Matthew Richter --
stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.


CUSTOM DRYWALL: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names
and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs in the case
captioned JORGE CACERES, v. CUSTOM DRYWALL & PAINTING LLC, ET
AL., Section "J" (1), Civil Action No. 17-6949 (E.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
them and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Consequently, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated employees who worked for
the Defendants during the past three years.

The Plaintiffs seek to maintain their FLSA claim as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and move the Court to
conditionally certify a collective class of the Defendants'
employees limited to the following:

     All individuals who worked or are working performing manual
labor for Custom Drywall & Painting, LLC during the previous
three years who worked in excess of forty hours in any work week
and failed to receive premium pay, at the rate of one-and-a-half
times their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess
of forty in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in their complaint as
well as their attached sworn declarations demonstrate clear
violations of the FLSA that are not personal to the Plaintiffs,
but rather are part of the Defendants' general policy to not pay
their employees overtime. The Plaintiffs argue that this
information establishes that there is likely a group of similarly
situated individuals entitled to receive notice of this lawsuit.

The Defendants oppose conditional certification, arguing that the
Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the existence of a class of
similarly situated individuals. The Defendants first argue that
the parties do not qualify as employers or employees under the
FLSA because the Plaintiffs were merely independent contractors
and were not engaged in interstate commerce.

The Court traditionally follows the two-step analysis under
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp, 122 F.R.D. 463 (D.N.J. 1988) to determine
whether plaintiffs are similarly situated and will do so here.

The Lusardi approach is comprised of two stages. First, during
the notice stage, the Court determines whether to grant
conditional certification and issue notice to potential members
of the putative collective class. In other words, the Court
conducts an initial inquiry into whether the putative class
members' claims are sufficiently similar to merit sending notice
of the action to possible members of the class.  The second stage
of the Lusardi approach is usually triggered by a motion for
decertification filed by the defendant, typically after discovery
is largely complete and more information on the case is
available.  At this stage, the Court applies a three-factor test,
considering (1) the extent to which employment settings are
similar or disparate; (2) the extent to which any of the
employer's defenses are common or individuated; and (3) fairness
and procedural concerns.

Here, the Plaintiffs allege that while working for the
Defendants, they were not paid one-and-a-half times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week, in violation of the FLSA.  In addition, the Plaintiffs have
submitted sworn declarations in support of their allegations.
Both the Plaintiffs declare that they were hired by Custom
Drywall in January and stopped working for them in October 2016;
they worked as painters and performed manual labor related to
painting; they were paid $13.00 per hour no matter how many hours
they worked in a week; they often worked more than forty hours
per week; and on average, they worked between sixty and seventy
hours per week.
The Plaintiffs also declared that at each jobsite, they worked
alongside approximately fifteen other manual laborers. The
Plaintiffs stated that they and these co-workers all performed
the same basic manual labor tasks, worked the same hours, took
the same breaks, were supervised by the same Custom Drywall
employees who kept track of their hours with sign-in sheets, and
were all paid by check. The Plaintiffs further declared that they
and their co-workers worked an average of ten hours per day, at
least six days per week.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs stated that from their personal
observations and conversations with their co-workers, the
Plaintiffs know that the Defendants also paid the co-workers an
hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week.  Anthony Martinez allegedly had the
authority to hire and fire Custom Drywall employees as well as
the authority over the location, duration, and rate-of-pay for
the work.

In sum, the Court finds that the complaint and the Plaintiffs'
sworn declarations set forth substantial allegations that the
putative class members were together victims of a single
decision, policy, or plan. The alleged policy of failing to pay
employees for performing manual labor in an overtime rate for
work performed in excess of forty hours in a week constitutes a
factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and the potential
class members together.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have satisfied their lenient burden
of showing that there is likely a class of similarly situated
employees entitled to receive notice. As discovery proceeds, the
Defendants may move to decertify or modify the conditionally
certified FLSA class as defined if appropriate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycgc4ogf from
Leagle.com.

Jorge Gomez Caceres, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, & Oscar Anino, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Roberto L.
Costales -- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- Costales Law Office,
Emily Westermeier -- emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com --
Costales Law Office & William Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont
Law.

Custom Drywall & Painting LLC & Anthony Martinez, Defendants,
represented by Kenneth L. Tolar -- ktolar@nolaipa.com -- Tolar,
Harrigan & Morris & Jack Edward Morris -- jmorris@nolaipa.com --
Jack E. Morris, Attorney at Law, LLC.


CVS HEALTH: Omnicare Continues to Defend Against Indiana Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that Omnicare continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Indiana State
District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky).

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated. The
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock
from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in
Omnicare's public offering in December 2005.

The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court
remanded the case to the district court. In October 2016,
Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint,
and discovery commenced. In August 2017, the plaintiffs moved for
class certification, which Omnicare has opposed.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Appeal in "Corcoran" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit in the consolidated
case of Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et
al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in
July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in United
States District Court in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a
class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under
the consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain
states.

Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions
on behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20
Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare
Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February
and August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company
overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the
price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program
as the pharmacy's usual and customary price.

In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court granted summary
judgment to CVS on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
certified certain subclasses in September 2017. The plaintiffs
have filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

CVS Health said, "The Company continues to defend these actions."

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of "Barchock" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal in the case captioned as, Barchock et al.
v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island).

In February 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard
Capital Management, Inc., by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and
Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and
participants in the Plan.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Plan by investing too much
of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in short-term money market funds
and cash management accounts.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
amended complaint. In May 2017, plaintiffs appealed that ruling
in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In
March 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" and "Prescott" Suits Transferred to N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Bewley, et al. v.
CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al. (both pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington) have been transferred to the
District of New Jersey on defendants' motions.

These putative class actions were filed in May 2017 against the
Company and other pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers of
glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott). Both
cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the
manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other
PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby
harming certain consumers. The primary claims are made under
federal antitrust laws, RICO, state unfair competition and
consumer protection laws, and ERISA.

These cases have both been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants'
motions. The Company is defending these lawsuits.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Defending Against EpiPen ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Klein, et al. v.
Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota) has been consolidated with similar cases and is now
proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.

In June 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of
ERISA plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen
Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managers are ERISA
fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly
causing higher inflated prices for EpiPen through the process of
negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer, Mylan.

This case was recently consolidated with a similar matter and is
now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.

CVS Health said, "The Company is defending the lawsuit."

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case captioned
as, MSP Recovery Claims Series, LLC, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In September 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Express Scripts, Inc., and the manufacturers
of insulin on behalf of assignees of claims of Medicare Advantage
Organizations. Plaintiffs assert that the PBMs and manufacturers
have engaged in a conspiracy whereby the PBMs sell access to
their formularies by demanding the highest rebates, which in turn
causes increased list prices for insulin.

The plaintiffs initially asserted claims against the Company on
behalf of two putative classes: (1) all Medicare C payors and (2)
all Medicare D payors. The complaint asserts claims under RICO,
and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment.

This case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against only the drug manufacturers, and not against
the PBMs.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to
better health. At the forefront of a changing health care
landscape, the Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and
the expertise needed to drive innovations that will help shape
the future of health care. The company is based in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.


CVS PHARMACY: 2 Law Firms File Medical Privacy Breach Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Meyer Wilson, Lambert Law, and Kaplan Fox on
May 22 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit in
federal court in Columbus regarding CVS' actions that resulted in
revealing the HIV-positive status of approximately 6,000 people
living in Ohio. In the summer of 2017, CVS sent a notice to these
patients that disclosed the recipients' name, along with the
designation "PM 6402 HIV," which clearly disclosed the persons'
HIV-positive status.

Maintaining medical privacy is a vital part of healthcare in the
United States, and CVS's actions compromised the personal
information of an estimated 6,000 people living in Ohio, causing
serious and permanent harm.

Meyer Wilson, Lambert Law, and Kaplan Fox are dedicated to
handling class actions throughout the country, including ones
involving medical privacy.  They are passionate about continuing
to provide the high level of service that has led to their
national recognition.

If you or someone you know is among the Ohio citizens whose HIV-
positive status was revealed via CVS's mailing, please contact
any of the following class action lawyers:

          David P. Meyer
          Matthew R. Wilson
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr.
          Meyer Wilson Co., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          614-224-6000

          Marnie C. Lambert
          Lambert Law Firm, LLC
          4889 Sawmill Road, Suite 125
          Columbus, Ohio 43235
          614-504-8803

          Laurance D. King
          Matthew B. George
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          415-772-4700 [GN]


DEOLEO USA: Settles Bertolli Olive Oil Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Johnson, writing for Clark.com, reports that if you're a
lover of olive oil, you may have put yourself in the slick
position of receiving some money in the near future.  That's
because Deoleo USA, the maker of the uber-popular Bertolli olive
oil brand recently settled a class-action lawsuit.

The company agreed to pay $7 million and change its packaging
after complaints that its "Imported from Italy" labeling was a
misrepresentation because most of the product allegedly came from
other countries.

Bertolli olive oil class-action lawsuit may mean $$ for you
Seven plaintiffs from six states also alleged that the company
mislabeled Bertolli as "extra virgin" when the "best by" date on
the bottle defied that standard.

"Due to this litigation, Deoleo has already removed the phrase
'Imported from Italy' from its products and has agreed to refrain
from using similar phrases, such as 'Made in Italy,' unless the
oil is entirely from olives grown and pressed in Italy,"
according to the settlement.  The company does, however, deny any
wrongdoing.

If you think you may be a member of the class, you may be
wondering how much money you could get.  A website,
OliveOilSettlement.com, has been set up to facilitate that
process.

"Your total recovery will depend on the number of Products you
purchased, and the number of Products purchased by other class
members who submit a claim," the site says.  "You can make a
claim for up to five products purchased by your household, unless
you submit Proof of Purchase, in which case there is no limit."

To see if you qualify as a settlement class member, here's what
you need to do.

Here's how to file a claim in the Bertolli olive oil class-action
lawsuit
The settlement covers the following three kinds of Bertolli olive
oil purchased between these dates:

    * Bertolli Extra Virgin Olive Oil, between May 23, 2010 and
April 16, 2018

    * Bertolli Classico Olive Oil, between May 23, 2010 and
December 30, 2015

    * Bertolli Extra Light Olive Oil, between May 23, 2010 and
December 30, 2015

File a claim: To submit a claim online, fill out the form on this
webpage.  Once you do that, send it to this address:

     Koller v. Deoleo Settlement Claim Administrator
     1801 Market Street, Suite 660
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

Act quickly: All claims must be submitted, postmarked and
received 30 days after final approval.  The final approval date
will be determined by the last hearing, which is set for
August 9, 2018.

How to find out about class-action lawsuit settlements
Class-action settlements present instances where we could be owed
sums of money and not even know about it.  A Team Clark member
got $46 and forgot all about it.

In theory, if you're eligible for a settlement, you should be
contacted about it and given the opportunity to participate or
opt-out.  In the latter case, you would then hire your own lawyer
to bring your own charges against the errant company.

But if you don't get the heads-up about settlements relevant to
you, you can always take it on yourself to keep up on the latest
class-action settlement news at Law360.com.

Other resources to know about include sites like
ClassActionRebates.com and ClassAction.org.  Both do a nice job
of tracking ongoing settlements, explaining what hoops you have
to jump through to file a claim and telling you what the final
dollar amount of the settlement may look like for you.

We should note that these sites mentioned above are all for-
profit operations -- even the "dot org" refers clients out to
certain attorneys they partner with -- so you should go into that
with eyes wide open. [GN]


DIRECTV LLC: Brown Seeks to Certify Customers Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNY BROWN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-01170-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on June 29, 2018, for an order to
certify a class of:

   "all persons residing within the United States who, on or
   after four years prior to the filing of this action, received
   a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV and/or its
   third-party debt collectors regarding a debt allegedly owed to
   DIRECTV, to a cellular telephone through the use of an
   artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide the
   cellular phone number called on any initial application for
   DIRECTV service."

   The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a subclass of such
   persons who are not DIRECTV customers."

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a subclass of such
persons who are not DIRECTV customers.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6N7eDod

Attorneys for Jenny Brown and the Proposed Class:

          Alexander H. Burke. Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729 5289
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355 9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224 6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
          mboyle@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Unit 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990 1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501 7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Robert T. Healey, Esq.
          HEALEY LAW, LLC
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 536 5175
          Facsimile: (636) 590 2882
          E-mail: bob@healeylawllc.com


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Ruling Impacts Motor Carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyndia Zwahlen, writing for Trucks, reports that a California
Supreme Court ruling threatens to upend the use of independent-
contractor drivers by motor carriers in the state, creating
turmoil for the trucking industry.

In Dynamex Operations West Inc. vs. Superior Court, the court
adopted a narrower standard for determining if a worker is an
employee or an independent contractor in California wage-and-hour
disputes.

Most workers should be considered employees based on the intent
of decades of California policy, the court said in the April 30
decision.

"It's too soon to tell, but this could be a huge upheaval," said
Richard Coyle, president of Devine Intermodal, a West Sacramento
freight and logistics company that supplements its fleet of
employee drivers with independent contractors in some of its
business lines.

The ruling was made in the case of delivery drivers contesting
their independent contractor status.  The court specifically
targeted the question of how to define an employee in a class-
action lawsuit filed under California wage-and-hour rules, which
govern overtime pay, meal breaks and other basic employment
rules.

Despite the narrow focus, businesses worry the ruling will spread
to cover any dispute over whether a worker is an employee or
independent contractor, including, for example, workers'
compensation lawsuits.  It also could be found to include any
California business or out-of-state firm that does business in
state and uses independent contractors.

"Whenever the California Supreme Court speaks, especially so
definitively and somewhat clearly, it will be utilized in
different types of industries," said Hillary Arrow Booth, a Los
Angeles transportation lawyer and president of the Transportation
Lawyers Association.

How drivers should be classified has become a contentious issue
in California.

Since 2011, California port truckers have filed 948 claims
alleging that they have been misclassified as independent
contractors.  Drivers have been awarded more than $48 million in
about 450 of those cases, according to the latest data from the
California labor commissioner's office.

Both Los Angeles and Long Beach city officials are looking at
whether they have the legal power to take action against motor
carriers at Southern California's port complex who they believe
are misclassifying drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees.

For now, trucking executives are meeting with their lawyers and
trying to work out the potential impact of the court ruling.

"Some of the truck company operators are just sifting through
this and figuring out what they are going to do," said
Robert Ramorino, president of Roadstar Trucking Inc. and
Peppertree Warehouse & Distribution in Hayward, Calif.

He uses a handful of independent contractor drivers, or
owner/operators as they are known in the industry.

"Obviously an operation that uses a lot of independent
contractors, they've got more risk facing them now," he said.

That risk includes potential worker lawsuits, regulatory actions
over misclassification of workers and potentially higher
operating costs because employees cost a company more than
independent contractors.  They might face a shortage of truck
drivers if owner/operators are unwilling to work as employees.
The ruling also could affect the outcome of current court cases.

At the same time, industry observers say state or federal
legislation could be passed that would carve out exemptions, such
as exist in New Jersey, or clarify the uncertainty left by the
ruling.  Federal law, for example, prohibits states from passing
direct economic regulations that might affect interstate motor
carriers related to prices, routes or services, which the ruling
might be interpreted as doing.  A key change made in 2004 to a
Massachusetts statute created a similar test to the one adopted
by the California court but was determined by the state's high
court two years ago not to apply to motor carriers because it ran
afoul of that federal law.

THE ABC TEST IN CALIFORNIA
The court adopted the so-called ABC test that exists in some
jurisdictions and requires a company to classify a worker as an
employee unless it can prove all three of these factors:

   -- Free from control and direction: The worker is free from
control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the
performance of the work, both under the contract for the
performance of the work and in fact.

   -- Work is outside of hirer's usual business: The worker
performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring
entity's business.

   -- Independent: The worker is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation or business of the
same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.
The biggest problem for trucking companies that use independent
contractors is obviously the second rule.

"That is going to be a very hard threshold for a lot of these
employers to meet," said Doug Bloch, political director at
Teamsters Joint Council 7 in Northern California, the Central
Valley of California and Northern Nevada.

Previously in California, under the common law known as the
Borello test, there were multiple factors to consider, the
principal one being whether the hiring company had the right to
control the manner and means of accomplishing the desired result.

It's not just an issue for California trucking companies.
Industry players in other states also are looking to see what
happens.

"California is a little ahead of, but we are right behind, we are
under attack," said Gail E. Toth, executive director of the New
Jersey Motor Truck Association.

New Jersey has had an ABC test for decades, but there are
exemptions for many industries, Ms. Toth said.  As of this year,
those exemptions are the potential target of a new state task
force on worker misclassification.  The California ruling is
adding pressure to those efforts, she said.

Some in the industry draw a distinction between entrepreneur
owner/operator truck drivers, who know how to run a successful
business, and drivers labeled independent contractors by
companies that control them as employees but avoid the expense of
actually employing them.

Mr. Bloch, the union official, said that in the Teamsters
national agreement there is language that covers
owners/operators. Many trucking companies start with a single
truck.

"I would never deny that there is a place in the supply chain for
owner/operators," he said.

"But for the small or large companies that have people that are
working exclusively for them, and hiring those people as
independent owner/operators, and this is the only place they go
for work and they do it more than full-time, I would be nervous
about that."

Yet the California court said the desire of owner/operators to
remain independent is outweighed by the need for all workers to
be able to access the state's extensive worker protections under
its employee labor laws.

Devine Intermodal previously won an expensive and lengthy court
battle with state regulators over alleged misclassification of
employees as independent contractors, Mr. Coyle said.

"We finally won, completely, but with the new interpretation, we
would have lost," he said. [GN]


EIGHT SLEEP: Photoglou Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK PHOTOGLOU, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. EIGHT SLEEP
INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01038-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), contends that, while
conducting its "smart mattress" business, Eight Sleep engaged in
an invasive and unlawful form of communication: the transmission
of unauthorized "text message" calls to the cellular telephones
of consumers throughout the nation. In doing so, Eight Sleep
captured the cellular telephone numbers of consumers who called
its company and, without consent or warning, transmitted text
messages to those numbers. By effectuating these unauthorized
text message calls, the Defendant has violated consumers'
statutory and privacy rights and caused consumers actual harm,
not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation and
invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies such
unauthorized text messages, but also because consumers frequently
have to pay their cell phone service providers or incur a usage
allocation deduction from their calling plans for the receipt of
such text messages, notwithstanding that the text messages were
made in violation of specific legislation on the subject. The
Plaintiff and the Class members suffered a concrete injury in
fact conferring standing to bring this lawsuit.

Eight Sleep is an American technology company based in New York
City that specializes in developing and manufacturing smart
mattresses using data, design, science, and technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com


ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Application for Rehearing Filed in "Nichols"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is
seeking a rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court in the case
entitled, Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

Encompass Health was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that the company, some of
its former officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8,
2005.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to
which the company responded with a motion to dismiss filed on
December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012,
plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain
claims against the company. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional
securities fraud claims against Encompass Health and add several
former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the
plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action. One of the former officers named
as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to
federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012.

The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the
federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November
25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to
assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to
2002. On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims
were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme
Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. On March 23, 2018, the Alabama
Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that
the plaintiffs' claims were not derivative or time-barred, and
remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2018, the
company filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama
Supreme Court.

Encompass Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the
current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature
of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date,
and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we
do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in
this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of
loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an
adverse judgment or settlement of this case."

Encompass Health Corporation is one of the largest providers of
post-acute healthcare services, offering both facility-based and
home-based patient services in 36 states and Puerto Rico through
our network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health
agencies, and hospice agencies. The company is based in
Birmingham, Alabama.


EPIC SYSTEMS: Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements, SCOTUS Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a divided
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use
individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press
legal claims.  The decision potentially limits the rights of tens
of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the
first time on May 21 that a 1925 federal law lets employers
enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if they
bar group claims.  The majority rejected contentions that a
separate law guarantees workers the right to join forces in
pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let
companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses
into arbitration.  The latest decision applies directly to wage-
and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid
class action job-discrimination suits as well.

"The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has
instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must
be enforced as written," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the
majority.

Arbitration supporters say that forum is cheaper and more
efficient than traditional litigation. Critics say companies are
trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the
ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are
too small to press individually.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan dissented. Ginsburg called the ruling "egregiously
wrong."

"The inevitable result of the decision will be the
underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to
advance the well-being of vulnerable workers," Justice Ginsburg
wrote.

Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to pass legislation to
override the court's decision.  Justice Ginsburg successfully
issued a similar call a decade ago, urging Congress to bolster
the rights of women to press equal-pay lawsuits.

Scalia Seat
The ruling shows the impact of the 14-month battle over the seat
left vacant when Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in
2016.  President Donald Trump filled the opening with Gorsuch
last year after Senate Republicans blocked a vote in 2016 on
then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony
Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- all Republican appointees and members
of the court's conservative wing -- joined Justice Gorsuch in the
majority.

About 25 million employees have signed arbitration accords that
bar group claims, a lawyer for the workers in the case told the
court.

The workers said the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them
the right to press claims as a group, either in arbitration or in
court.  The 1935 law protects "concerted activities" by workers,
without explicitly mentioning lawsuits.

The majority said that language wasn't specific enough to
overcome a separate law, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, which
says arbitration agreements must be enforced like any other
contract.

That provision "focuses on the right to organize unions and
bargain collectively," Justice Gorsuch wrote.  "It may permit
unions to bargain to prohibit arbitration.  But it does not
express approval or disapproval of arbitration.  It does not
mention class or collective action procedures.  It does not even
hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act."

Discrimination Suits
Justice Ginsburg sought to limit the impact of the ruling, saying
its logic shouldn't prevent workers from banding together to
press broad discrimination claims under the 1964 Civil Rights
Act.

"It would be grossly exorbitant to read the FAA to devastate
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws enacted
to eliminate, root and branch, class-based employment
discrimination," she wrote.

The high court ruling is a victory for three companies involved
in the fight.  The group includes the accounting firm Ernst &
Young LLP, which was fighting allegations that it misclassified
thousands of employees to make them ineligible for overtime pay.

The court was also considering an appeal from Epic Systems Corp.,
a health-care software company that was sued by Jacob Lewis, an
employee who says the company misclassified him and other
technical writers so that they wouldn't be eligible for overtime
pay.

The third case involved a Murphy USA unit fighting allegations
that it underpaid four employees at its gas station in Calera,
Alabama.  The National Labor Relations Board had concluded the
company engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to let
the workers pursue their claims together.

Although the Trump administration backed the employers, the
National Labor Relations Board took the side of the workers
during arguments in October.  At the time, the board's general
counsel was a Democratic appointee.

Chamber of Commerce
The ruling drew cheers from business advocates, who said it will
reduce costly litigation.

"The decision is a victory for everyone but lawyers," said
Andrew Pincus, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. "Employees and businesses will continue to
have access to a quick, less expensive, and fair system for
resolving claims."

Some civil rights advocates suggested the ruling will undermine
class action discrimination lawsuits, even though the court
didn't directly address that issue.

"The Supreme Court has taken away a powerful tool for women to
fight discrimination at work," said Fatima Goss Graves, president
of the National Women's Law Center.  "Instead of banding together
with coworkers to push back against sexual harassment, pay
discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, racial discrimination,
wage theft and more, employees may now be forced behind closed
doors into an individual, costly -- and often secret --
arbitration process."

Still, the impact on civil rights claims is likely to be a
subject of future court fights.  Raymond Audain, senior counsel
at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that "we
agree with Justice Ginsburg that the decision does not apply to
discrimination claims."

The cases are Epic Systems v. Lewis, 16-285; Ernst & Young v.
Morris, 16-300; and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, 16-307. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Chapman, Esq. -- ron.chapman@ogletree.com -- and Christopher
C. Murray, Esq. -- christopher.murray@ogletree.com -- of
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for
J.D. Supra, wrote that on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the
United States settled the contentious class action waiver issue
that has riled courts for the past six years.  In a 5-4 opinion,
the Court upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements.
Relying heavily on the text of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
and "a congressional command requiring us to enforce, not
override, the terms of the arbitration agreements before us," the
Court ruled that the FAA instructs "federal courts to enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms -- including
terms providing for individualized proceedings."  The Court also
reasoned that neither the FAA's savings clause nor the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) contravenes this conclusion. Epic
Systems Corporation v. Lewis, Supreme Court of the United States,
Nos. 16-285, 16-300, 16-307 (May 21, 2018).

Background

In January 2012, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in D.R.
Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012) that employers cannot use class
action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees covered
by the National Labor Relations Act.  The Board reasoned such
waivers limit employees' rights under the NLRA to engage in
"concerted activities" in pursuit of their "mutual aid or
protection." That holding appeared to put the Board on a
collision course with Supreme Court precedent under the Federal
Arbitration Act approving class action waivers; however, the
Board reasoned the Supreme Court's prior cases had never involved
the NLRA and didn't apply.

Most federal courts disagreed with the Board's reasoning.  In
fact, the Fifth Circuit (in an appeal handled by Ogletree
Deakins) refused to enforce the Board's D.R. Horton decision.
Scores of lower federal courts subsequently refused to follow the
Board's ruling, citing the Fifth Circuit's rejection of it.  Two
other courts of appeals, the Second and the Eighth, similarly
spurned the Board's view.

Undeterred, the Board invoked its policy of not acquiescing to
federal courts lower than the Supreme Court and adhered to its
position in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014).  The
Fifth Circuit again refused to enforce that decision.

Although dozens of federal and state courts continued to reject
the Board's rationale as inconsistent with the FAA, recently two
courts of appeals went the other direction, creating a circuit
split.  The Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate
court to agree with the Board in Epic Systems v. Lewis in
May 2016.  The Ninth Circuit followed suit in August 2016 in
Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and, in 2017, the Sixth Circuit did
so as well.

The six-year long standoff between the Board and most courts, and
the more recent split between the Second, Fifth, and Eighth
Circuits on one side and the Seventh, Ninth, and Sixth Circuits
on the other, have left employers in a bind, as national and
regional employers have found their practices subject to
conflicting precedent depending on the circuit at issue.

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the
matter.  With at least a half dozen petitions for certiorari
pending on this class action waiver issue, the Court agreed to
hear appeals in Murphy Oil, Lewis, and Morris.  The Court also
consolidated the three cases.  On October 2, 2017, the Supreme
Court of the United States heard oral argument in the three
consolidated cases.

The Supreme Court's Decision

After a thorough examination of the FAA and Section 7 of the
NLRB, the Court concluded that "the law is clear: Congress has
instructed that arbitration agreements [] must be enforced as
written.  While Congress is of course always free to amend this
judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA -- much
less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the
Arbitration Act."  The Court considered the argument that the
FAA's savings clause -- which allows courts to refuse to enforce
arbitration agreements "upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract" -- creates an
exception on the basis that the NLRA renders class and collective
action waivers illegal.  Justice Gorsuch, relying on the Supreme
Court's 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion decision, reasoned
that this argument is flawed.  The savings clause permits courts
to invalidate agreements on the basis of contract defenses such
as fraud and duress, the Court ruled, and not, citing Concepcion,
on the basis of "defenses that apply only to arbitration"

The Court also rejected the argument that class action waivers
are invalid under Section 7 of the NLRA.  According to Justice
Gorsuch, "[t]he notion that Section 7 confers a right to class or
collective actions seems pretty unlikely when you recall that
procedures like that were hardly known when the NLRA was adopted
in 1935."  As a result, the Court reversed the judgments in Epic
Systems and Ernst & Young and remanded the two cases for further
proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.  The Court also
affirmed the judgment in Murphy Oil. [GN]


EQUINOX FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Orgies in Steam Room
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeroslyn Johnson, writing for Hollywood Unlocked, reports that
Equinox is being sued after one Manhattan location allegedly
allowed its male members to have orgies in the steam room.

A man is suing after he complained that another man who was
masturbating allegedly walked up to him and laid a hand on him.
That incident came after a manager told him orgies were taking
place in the steam room last October.

Now a group of five men have come together in a new class-action
lawsuit against Equinox over claims the gym ignores "the
reprehensible conduct occurring in [its] steam rooms."  The
34-year-old marketing rep, identified as R.S. in the suit, says
twice in three days he got more than expected when he went in for
a steam at the Columbus Circle location.

R.S. says he told a locker room attendant but says he saw the
masturbating man working out the next day as if nothing happened.
He then says he saw even more masturbating males during his next
steam room experience.  This caused R.S. to escalate his
complaint and that is when a manager at the location made mention
of the Thursday night orgies, where a clique took over the steam
room.

An Equinox spokeswoman claims that the gym revokes the membership
of those accused of lewd behavior.  R.S. decided to join the
Manhattan Supreme Court case after another man told The Post in
April about his encounter with masturbation in Equinox's steam
rooms. [GN]


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of "Burton"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice the case captioned ERICK BURTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 4:17-cv-02279-AGF
(E. D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff's motion states that his dismissal is without
prejudice, and there is no indication that the Plaintiff has
previously dismissed any action based on the same claim.
Therefore, the Court lacks authority to dismiss the case with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wxusbl from
Leagle.com.

Erick Burton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig R. Heidemann, DOUGLAS
AND HAUN & Nathan A. Duncan, DOUGLAS AND HAUN.

Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dan H. Ball --
DHBall@bclplaw.com -BRYAN CAVE LLP, James P. Emanuel, Jr. --
james.emanuel@bclplaw.com- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan R. Chally --
jchally@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice &
Philip E. Holladay -- pholladay@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., Express Scripts Holding Company &
Express Scripts Specialty Distribution Services, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Dan H. Ball, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan
R. Chally, KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice & Philip E.
Holladay, KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice.


EZCORP INC: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's class
certification motion is currently pending before the Court

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly
situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I.
Grimshaw (the company's chief executive officer) and Mark E.
Kuchenrither (the company's former chief financial officer) and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed
an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. On November
3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions
under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two
plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel
appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint,
the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our
Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20,
2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr.
Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading
statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the
Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the
financial performance of Grupo Finmart.

The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a
controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the
defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016.

On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
The Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to
file a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended
Complaint raises the same claims dismissed by the Court on
October 18, 2016, except plaintiffs now seek to represent a class
of purchasers of EZCORP's Class A Common Stock between November
7, 2013 and October 20, 2015 (instead of between November 6, 2012
and October 20, 2015).

On December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition
to the motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants
filed their reply brief on January 20, 2017.

Ezcorp said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that on May 8, 2017, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to claims related to
accounting errors relating to Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve
calculations for "nonperforming" loans, but denied the motion to
dismiss with regard to claims relating to accounting errors
related to certain sales of loan portfolios to third parties. The
case is now in the discovery stage.

The plaintiff has filed a Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel.

Ezcorp said, "We have opposed that motion and on March 16, 2018
submitted a brief supporting our opposition. The plaintiff's
class certification motion is currently pending before the Court.
We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and
claims."

Ezcorp, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Rollingwood, Texas. The company is a leading provider of pawn
loans in the United States and Latin America.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces New Class Action Over Cambridge Analytica
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 2018, Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, together with Saul
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho,
filed a national class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc.,
Cambridge Analytica LLC, and SCL Group, Ltd. for their combined
efforts to unlawfully distribute the personal information of up
to 87 million Facebook users.  That information contained
intimate photographs, sensitive personal information (including
emails, birthdays, and phone numbers) and extensive lists of
friends and contacts.  The theft of this user information began
as early as 2014 -- and continued well into 2016.  The
information was used for advertising purposes, enriching Facebook
and directly benefitting Cambridge Analytica, SCL and their
clients.

This misappropriation of user data was not without consequence.
Various news outlets and media reports have identified this
unlawful taking and misuse of Facebook user data as one of the
factors responsible for the election of the current President of
the United States.

The events that give rise to the class action lawsuit filed on
May 21 arose in 2014 when Cambridge Analytica hired a Cambridge
University academic, Aleksandr Kogan, to build a survey
application called "thisisyourdigitallife."  In the fine print of
the terms and conditions of the application, users were told that
their data was only going to be used for academic research
purposes.  Facebook's own policies barred third party developers
from using data acquired through their applications to be used
for the purposes of advertising.

Unfortunately, Cambridge Analytica had other ideas.  It not only
harvested the Facebook data of the roughly 270,000 Facebook users
who had downloaded the "thisisyourdigitallife" application (on
the understanding that their data would only be used for research
purposes), it also harvested the data of their Facebook friends
and contacts -- representing up to 87 million additional Facebook
users.  Once it had misappropriated the personal information of
almost half of all American Facebook users, it then used that
data to place targeted political advertisements in their personal
Facebook feeds.  And while this theft of data proceeded apace,
Facebook undertook no audits and conducted no oversight of
Cambridge Analytica or its parent company SCL.

As a result, up to 87 million Americans had their most personal
data taken and used for purposes to which they never consented
and of which they never approved.  Facebook's negligence and
Cambridge Analytica's willful disregard of the terms of the
authorization they had been given by 270,000 Facebook users (to
say nothing of the up to 87 million Facebook users who never
downloaded Cambridge Analytica's thisisyourdigitallife
application) are at the heart of the class action lawsuit filed
on May 21.

The whistleblower Christopher Wylie, formerly of Cambridge
Analytica, noted in written Congressional testimony that
"Facebook was first notified of C[ambridge] A[nalytica]'s
harvesting scheme in 2015.  It did not warn users then, and it
only took action [after the truth became publicly known."  He
went on to warn, "What I bore witness to at Cambridge Analytica
should alarm everyone.  Cambridge Analytica is the canary in the
coal mine to a new Cold War emerging online."

As Will Zerhouni, partner of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy noted, "It
is unconscionable that Facebook would facilitate and Cambridge
Analytica would execute a scheme to harvest the most sensitive
and intimate data of up to 87 million Americans without their
knowledge, approval or consent.  This unlawful scheme to deny up
to 87 million Americans the privacy that they bargained for was
not without consequence.  An American presidential election was
directly affected by these underhanded machinations -- and the
history of the world was literally changed as a result."

Mr. Zerhouni added, "We will seek to vindicate the privacy rights
of those Americans who trusted Facebook with their data and never
sought to be used as pawns in a larger geopolitical game."

April Falcon Doss, chair of cybersecurity and privacy at Saul
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, added that the impact of these privacy
violations falls equally across political party lines.  "It
doesn't matter what your politics are -- every user of Facebook
should be appalled by what they've done.  Millions of Americans
trust Facebook as a platform to share the most personal
information about their lives: photos of their children, the
status of their relationships, their religious affiliations, and
their political views.  When users entrust their personal
information to a large platform provider like Facebook, they
should be able to expect -- and demand -- that the company will
live up to its own promises regarding data privacy."

Doss pointed out that, at the time of these events, Facebook was
already subject to oversight by the Federal Trade Commission for
past privacy violations.  She added, "Facebook may believe it's
too big to be held to account.  We believe that when it violates
its users' trust, it's too big to be let off the hook."

              About Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A.

Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. -- http://ww.murphyfalcon.com-- is
a Baltimore-based law which specializes in complex civil,
criminal and civil rights litigation. [GN]


FASTAFF LLC: Court Certifies Class in "Dalchau" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned STEPHANIE DALCHAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FASTAFF, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin filed a putative
class action and a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
action on behalf of former and present hourly employees of
defendants U.S. Nursing Co. and its subsidiary, Fastaff, LLC,
employed pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter (AAL). They
allege that, as part of an employee's compensation, Fastaff
offers either a weekly housing stipend or supplies housing. It
excludes the value of this benefit from the employees' regular
rate for purposes of calculating overtime, resulting in
underpayment according to Dalchau.

She now seeks to certify the following class:

     All individuals, except for those who worked exclusively on
or after November 16, 2017 and received in-kind housing, who, at
any time from March 25, 2013 through the date of certification,
worked in California pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter
with Fastaff during which they received a housing stipend or in-
kind housing, received overtime pay, and had the value of the
housing benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime pay.

Numerosity

During the relevant period, Fastaff has employed over 5,000
employees in California under AALs. Dalchau also points out that
joinder is impracticable because the traveling nature of putative
class members' work means that the proposed class contains
members that are geographically diverse. Fastaff does not dispute
that the proposed classes satisfy the numerosity requirement.
Dalchau has satisfied numerosity.

Commonality

Fastaff argues that because the actual implementation of its
housing benefit policy does not uniformly result in hours-based
reductions to the housing benefit, Dalchau cannot establish
commonality.  The Court finds Fastaff's argument unpersuasive.
The commonality requirement does not require that class members
suffer identical harm. Rather, the existence of shared legal
issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a
common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal
remedies within the class. All Fastaff employees who are eligible
to receive housing benefits are subject to the same policy of
having the value of housing benefits excluded from the regular
rate used to calculate overtime.  Therefore, there exists at
least one common question whether Fastaff's policy of excluding
the value of the housing benefits from the regular rate properly
compensates class members pursuant to California law.

Based upon Fastaff's alleged failure to properly pay overtime,
Dalchau also asserts derivative state law claims for unlawful
business practices and waiting time penalties. Fastaff argues
that a class based on these derivative claims would also not be
able to establish commonality.  Dalchau's waiting time claim is
based on Fastaff's alleged violation of California Labor Code
section 203. Under Section 203, if an employer willfully fails to
pay wages to a discharged employee in accordance with Section 201
of the California Labor Code, which provides that wages earned
and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable
immediately, the employer is subject to penalties. Dalchau
asserts that by intentionally adopting the uniform policy of
excluding the value of housing benefits from the regular rate
despite tying the right to receive these benefits to satisfying
minimum work requirements, Fastaff willfully failed to pay
employees all wages owed by the conclusion of their employment.

Dalchau satisfies the commonality requirement for the derivative
state claims.

Typicality and Adequacy

Fastaff asserts that Dalchau's alleged injury is not typical of
the entire class she seeks to represent because Dalchau chose to
receive a cash subsidy, whereas employees who elected to stay in
housing provided by Fastaff did not receive any cash payment. In
Fastaff's view, employees who elected to stay in Fastaff-provided
housing rather than take a stipend would never have their housing
benefit reduced even if they did not work the required hours;
accordingly, Dalchau's injury is not typical of the alleged
injuries of those putative class members.

This argument ignores that Dalchau's injury under her theory of
liability is not the reduction in amount of the housing subsidy
paid to class members who did not meet their minimum hours.
Instead, Dalchau's injury is the exclusion of the value of the
housing benefit from the regular rate, resulting in overtime
underpayment. This is an injury shared by all prospective class
members, no matter which housing benefit option they selected.
Dalchau's injury is based on conduct that is not unique to
Dalchau (Fastaff's exclusion of the value of the housing benefit
from the regular rate).

It is typical of the proposed class.

Predominance

Fastaff's predominance argument mirrors its commonality argument:
because the actual implementation of Fastaff's housing guidelines
did not uniformly result in hours-based reductions, individual
issues predominate as to whether any given employee's housing
subsidy could be excluded from the regular rate under Dalchau's
theory. As discussed above, Fastaff's argument ignores that
Dalchau's theory of liability does not turn on whether employees
receive the full amount of housing benefits possible.

Dalchau instead argues that the common evidence demonstrates that
the right to the housing benefits is based on the amount of time
worked by an employee; because the value of the housing benefit
is tied to hours or after May 2017 days worked, it must be
considered compensation and its value included in the regular
rate. For class certification purposes, Dalchau has sufficiently
demonstrated that the question of whether Fastaff's policy of
excluding the value of the housing benefits from the regular rate
properly compensates class members pursuant to California law
predominates over any individual questions.

Superiority

Dalchau asserts that because liability for each claim hinges upon
the common questions of (1) whether Fastaff adopted a policy of
excluding the housing benefit from the regular rate when
calculating overtime, despite tying the right to receive this
benefit to satisfying minimum weekly work requirements, and (2)
whether this policy violates California law, determining the
legality of Fastaff's housing benefit policies and practices in a
single proceeding will reduce litigation costs and promote
greater efficiency.

Fastaff responds that individualized inquiries are necessary to
evaluate whether the value of any given employee's housing
subsidy must be included in the regular rate under Dalchau's
theory and that makes proceeding as a class unmanageable. This
argument again misstates Dalchau's theory of liability. The
question to be answered is not whether Fastaff decreases housing
benefits based on the number of hours worked every time an
employee fails to work the required amount of time. The question
Dalchau raises is whether Fastaff's policy of excluding the
housing benefit from the regular rate properly compensates class
members pursuant to California law. The individualized inquiries
that Fastaff suggests are not necessary to answer this question
and do not defeat superiority.

Accordingly, the Court grants Dalchau's motion for class
certification concerning its California state law claims.  The
following class is certified:

     All individuals, except for those who worked exclusively on
or after November 16, 2017 and received in-kind housing, who, at
any time from March 25, 2013 through the date of certification,
worked in California pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter
with Fastaff during which they received a housing stipend or in-
kind housing, received overtime pay, and had the value of the
housing benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime pay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y99ygc6e from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Dalchau, individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated & Michael Goodwin, individual on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Matthew Bryan Hayesmhayes@helpcounse.com, Hayes Pawlenko LLP &
Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes
Pawlenko LLP.

Fastaff, LLC & U.S. Nursing Corporation, Defendants, represented
by John S. Battenfeld -- jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Anne-Marie Estevez --
annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,
LLP & Shannon B. Nakabayashi -- snakabayashi@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


FIRSTLIGHT HOME: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstlight Home
Care Franchising, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Firstlight Home Care Franchising, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-05012 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

FirstLight Home is a senior care and home care franchise
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of FleetCor Technologies,
Inc. (NYSE: FLT) breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders.
FleetCor derives most of its revenue from the sale and
maintenance of fuel card programs to business owners to allow
their employees to purchase fuel at gas stations.

Investors filed a consolidated class action complaint against
Fleetcor for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  According to the class action complaint, Fleetcor
misrepresented and omitted material facts regarding the true
reasons for its earnings and growth, which were the result of
fraudulent billing practices, dissemination of misleading
marketing materials, and predatory sales tactics.  On May 15,
2018, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin Ma denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, paving the
way for litigation to proceed.  Specifically, the court found
that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that defendants made
material misrepresentations regarding their revenues when they
stated the cards were "fee free" because there where in fact a
multitude of fees involve.  The court also found that plaintiffs
had sufficiently alleged the prevalence of the fraud.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/fleetcor-technologies-inc-may-2018

FleetCor Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested. [GN]


FORD THAILAND: Court OKs Powershift Transmission Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bangkok Post reports that the Civil Court has accepted a class
action case against a subsidiary of Ford Thailand filed by 308
car owners for 24 million baht in damages.

The problem involves the PowerShift transmission, Ford's six-
speed dual clutch semi-automatic gearbox (DPS6), which some users
alleged they had trouble with.

The users of Ford Fiesta, Ford Focus and Ford EcoSport filed the
charges in April last year against four of Ford's subsidiaries --
Ford Motor Company (Thailand) Co Ltd, Ford Sales and Services
(Thailand) Co Ltd, Ford Operations (Thailand) Co Ltd and Ford
Services (Thailand) Co Ltd.  They accused the companies of
selling unsafe products due to substandard production and
distribution and of false advertising.

At the time, 10 owners, representing 421 others, filed the case,
seeking damages totalling 24.7 million baht.  After a settlement,
113 withdrew, leaving 308 as plaintiffs in the case.

The court scheduled to decide whether to accept the case on
May 21.

During the session, the plaintiffs decided to pursue the case
only against Ford Sales and Services (Thailand) and dropped the
charges  against the other three companies.  The court decided to
allow a class action trial for convenience, speed and efficiency
with no effect on persons or groups outside the case.

The plaintiff's witnesses will be heard on Aug 1 and those of the
defendants will be heard on Aug 30-31.  The court scheduled a
ruling on Sept 28. [GN]


FOSSIL GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Safransky" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Class Action Complaint in the case captioned TIMUR SAFRANSKY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. FOSSIL GROUP, INC.; and FOSSIL STORES I, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 17cv1865-MMA (NLS) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Timur Safranksy filed the FAC against Defendants Fossil
Group, Inc. and Fossil Stores I, Inc., alleging violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq. (UCL), False Advertising Law, Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 et seq. (FAL), and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. (CLRA).  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally misrepresent
prices for items with the Like Style tags because such prices are
overstated and do not represent a bona fide price at which Fossil
Outlet Products were previously sold.

The Court finds that the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff
fails to allege that he relied on the words Like Style is
misplaced. It is the Defendants' alleged pricing scheme the
juxtaposition of the price listed on the Like Style tags and the
in-store signage representing a certain percentage discount that
the Plaintiff challenges. The Plaintiff alleges that he relied on
the Defendants' misrepresentations when making his purchase.
Specifically, the Plaintiff purchased the Travis Workbag, bearing
a price of $198.00 on the price tag, after observing signage
above the subject item that advertised a percentage discount,
clearly indicating that the item was being sold at a significant
discount off the Reference Price.  The signage above the Travis
Workbag represented that the bag was on sale for 40% Off Ticketed
Price. The Plaintiff asserts that he relied on the Defendants'
advertising and believed that he was receiving a significant
discount, so he decided to purchase the item. Taking the
Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that he suffered economic injury as a result of
Defendants' conduct. Thus, the Court finds such allegations
satisfy reliance as to the Plaintiff's in-store purchase.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has statutory
standing to assert his personal claims.

The Plaintiff's claims do not depend on what type of product an
individual purchased from a Fossil Outlet Store. Nor do the
Plaintiff's allegations relate to the exact prices, percentages
of savings listed on the tags, or specific characteristics of the
underlying products, which would vary by product. Rather, the
Plaintiff's claims depend on Fossil Outlet Products bearing the
Like Style tags, and the surrounding in-store signage, similar to
those relied upon by the Plaintiff. the Plaintiff challenges the
alleged pricing scheme -- not the actual product sold by Fossil
Outlet Stores or the exact price or percentage of savings listed
on the product's tag.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has standing to
sue on behalf of purchasers of other Fossil Outlet Products with
uniform price tags and in-store signage that purported to offer a
substantial discount because Plaintiff is challenging the same
basic mislabeling practice across products.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient
to support his claim that the Like Style tags are deceptive. In
his FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that on November 16, 2016 (the
when), Plaintiff (the who) purchased a Travis Workbag, Style
SBG1136200 at a Fossil Outlet Store in Carlsbad, California (the
where).  The Plaintiff claims that Defendants misled customers
through the prices on the Like Style tags and in-store signage
(the what). Regarding the how, Plaintiff further alleges that the
Travis Workbag had a price tag attached to it, bearing a price of
$198.00.

The Court finds that it is plausible that reasonable consumers
could understand the prices on the Like Style tags to be a valid
representation of a true former price on the identical product
The court in Chase II found that reasonable consumers could have
been misled by the defendant's advertising even where a lengthy
disclaimer appeared on the in-store signage indicating the photo
frames are ALWAYS 50% off, and that the marked prices refer to
the value of similar products.

Here, however, there is no such explicit disclaimer. The
Defendants claim reasonable consumers would read the price in
connection with the Like Style language and understand the price
to be comparison to the price of a similar item not a former
price for the identical item. The Court is not persuaded. By the
Defendants' own admission, the word like, in adjective form,
means having the same or similar qualities. Thus, far from
Defendants' argument that the meaning of Like Style defies common
sense, it is entirely plausible that a reasonable consumer would
understand the price listed on the Like Style tags to represent a
former price for the same item.

Accordingly, taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true, which
the Court must at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds
that Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b).

The Court further finds the Plaintiff's allegations are
sufficient to state a claim for violations of the CLRA. With
respect to Section 1770(a)(9), the Plaintiff expressly alleges
that the misrepresentation at issue pertains to the purported
regular price and discounted price falsely advertised across all
items sold at Fossil's Outlet Stores. Moreover, with respect to
Section 1770(a)(13), the Plaintiff alleges that the prices listed
on the Like Style tags did not accurately reflect a true former
price for the same product, and that the purported discounts were
false because the product was never sold at the price listed on
the tags.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycvysp6s from Leagle.com.

Timur Safransky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by -- zev@zysmanlawca.com -- Law
Offices of Zev B. Zysman, APC.

Fossil Group, Inc. & Fossil Stores I, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Stephanie A. Sheridan -- ssheridan@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Hubbard Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
LACRYSTAL HUBBARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
similarly Situated, & KRISHA D. HOLLINGWORTH, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., and John or Jane
Does No. 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP
(S.D. Miss., May 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Hubbard and others similarly situated
worked as customer service representative but performed work
beyond the scope of their classifications, which they were not
appropriately compensated for.

General Dynamics provides information technology (IT), systems
engineering, professional, and simulation and training services.
The company offers commercial cyber services; and enterprise IT
solutions that include cloud computing and virtualization, cyber
security, data center modernization and consolidation, network
operations and maintenance, technology refreshment, and unified
communications and collaboration.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES
          P.O. Box 1953
          Hattiesburg, MS 39403
          Telephone: (601) 544 0950
          Facsimile: (601) 450 5395
          E-mail: robin@rablaw.net


GOOGLE INC: Faces $4.29-Bil. iPhone Privacy Case in U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Browning, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
iPhone users suing Google over data-collection claims may be
seeking as much as 3.2 billion pounds ($4.29 billion), the search
giant said in a court filing.

The group representing iPhone users, known as Google You Owe Us,
now includes 4.4 million people, according to documents filed
with the court at a hearing on May 21.  The group says the
Alphabet Inc. unit unlawfully collected people's personal
information by bypassing Apple Inc.'s iPhone default privacy
settings.

While any potential damages are still to be determined, the group
has suggested each individual could receive 750 pounds if the
case is successful, Google said in court documents.  The Mountain
View, California-based company denies the allegations and argued
at the hearing that the dispute doesn't belong in a London court.

Privacy has been a hot topic for the manufacturers of the world's
most popular devices, from Apple to Samsung Electronics Co. to
Google. In 2015, Apple allowed iPhone and iPad users to start
installing content blockers -- software that can block ads on
websites, for example -- on their devices as a way of giving
people more control over how their data is gathered and used.

Led by consumer advocate Richard Lloyd, the group is seeking
permission to hear the case as a "representative action" that is
akin to a U.S. class action, arguing that all the customers share
the same interests.

The group said that Google used an algorithm that allowed
developers to track a user's browsing history and collect
personal information.  The algorithm acted to get around the
default settings of Apple's Safari browser, which blocked third-
party tracking via cookies. [GN]


GREEN & COHEN: Tenants' Class Action Confidentially Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Barker, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Grace Ashford and Sarah
Cohen, writing for The New York Times, report that in 2015, a
federal class-action lawsuit against Green & Cohen said that the
firm had seemingly used "the same template for all the hundreds
of cases that they filed against tenants within the State of New
York within the past year," and that it had determined that
meaningfully reviewing cases before filing was "not as lucrative
as the filing of pleadings and motions" without review.  The case
was confidentially settled.

Green & Cohen did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
[GN]


HADASSAH UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Maternity Ward Segregation
---------------------------------------------------------
According to Palestine Chronicle, Haaretz newspaper reported that
in at least four Israeli hospitals, Arab women are separated from
Jewish women in maternity wards.

In a report based on testimonies collected from the four
hospitals, the paper said the segregation policy has become the
norm, explaining that the hospitals segregate the mothers either
at their request or because they deem it right.

According to the paper, the testimonies were collected from women
who gave birth at the Hadassah University Hospital, Mt. Scopus in
Jerusalem; Haemek in Afula; Nahariya's Western Galilee Hospital
in and Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba and who were victims of
the segregation policy.

"We are trying to make separate rooms because the culture is
really different and the visit hours," the paper quoted a
hospital nurse as saying during a recorded phone call.

According to Haaretz, four Arab women filed a class demanding the
hospitals end the policy and compensate those who were subjected
to it, they believe the Ministry of Health is aware of the policy
but turns a blind eye to it.

"The subject of segregation in maternity wards has been in the
headlines for a long time; it was in the Knesset, it was in the
press, it's not something new," the reported quoted Professor
Alon Klement, Israel's most prominent class-action attorney and
the clinic's academic supervisor, saying.

It is estimated that 1.8 million Arabs live in Israel; 20 per
cent of the population. [GN]


HALYARD HEALTH: Appeals Order in Bahamas Surgery Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is taking
an appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the
jury's verdict in the case entitled, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC
v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc.

Halyard Health said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for,
and have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas
Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard
Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"),
filed on October 29, 2014."

In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with
our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and
$350 million in punitive damages, and that Halyard was liable for
$0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100 million in punitive damages.

Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim
and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of
the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request
for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request
for injunctive relief.

On May 25, 2017, the company filed three post-trial motions: a
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to
decertify the class; and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or
amendment of the judgment. On March 30, 2018, the court ruled on
the post-trial motions. The court denied all three, except it
granted in part the motion to reduce the award of punitive
damages to a 5 to 1 ratio with compensatory damages.

On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor
of the plaintiff and against the company and Kimberly-Clark. The
judgment against us is $0.3 million in compensatory damages and
pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The
judgment against Kimberly-Clark is $3.9 million in compensatory
damages, $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest and $19.4 million
in punitive damages. On April 12, 2018, the company filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Halyard Health said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense
of the Bahamas matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. operates as a medical technology company
that focuses on eliminating pain, speeding recovery, and
preventing infection for healthcare providers and patients
worldwide. The company is based in Alpharetta, Georgia.


HALYARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Jackson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled,
Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E.
Voskuil, et al.

The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled
Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E.
Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June
28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class
action against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially
inflated the Company's stock prices during the respective class
periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-
Clark securities who subsequently received Halyard Health
securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the
alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard Health securities
is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in its favor. The plaintiff has 30 days from
the entry of judgment to file his notice of appeal. On April 27,
2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment
and for Leave to Amend.

Halyard Health said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense
of this matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. operates as a medical technology company
that focuses on eliminating pain, speeding recovery, and
preventing infection for healthcare providers and patients
worldwide. The company is based in Alpharetta, Georgia.


HARRIS RESEARCH: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris Research,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Harris Research,
Inc. doing business as: Chem-Dry, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
05016 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Harris Research Inc., doing business as Chem-Dry, provides
carpet, upholstery, and rug cleaning services to residential and
commercial customers in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Healthy Futures Class Cert. Bid Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HEALTHY FUTURES OF TEXAS, individually and
on behalf of all of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00992-KBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon, Judge Ketanji
Brown Jackson entered an order certifying a class of:

   "all entities awarded Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grants
   by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2015,
   with five-year project periods, whose grants HHS purported to
   "shorten," effective June 30, 2018."

The Court said, "The plaintiffs in Policy and Research, LLC, v.
HHS, No. 18-cv-346-KBJ (D.D.C.), Planned Parenthood of Greater
Washington and Northern Idaho v. HHS, No. 2:18-cv-00055 (E.D.
Wash.), King County v. Azar, No. 18-cv-00242 (W.D. Wash.), and
Healthy Teen Network v. Azar, No. 18-cv-00468 (D. Md.) are not
included in this class definition. This class action is certified
with respect to Healthy Futures' claim that HHS's decision to
"shorten" the project periods of TPPP grants without explanation
was an arbitrary and capricious action under 5 U.S.C."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kj71rnhK


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Campbell Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA CAMPBELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01104-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July
2, 2018, for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for appointment of Plaintiff as
a Class Representative, and for appointment of Keefe Law Firm, as
Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul DiGiorgio, Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224 9400
          E-mail: pdigiorgio@keefe-lawfirm.com
                  jkeefe@keefe-lawfirm.com


HONEY BAKED: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Honey Baked Ham
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Honey
Baked Ham Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05009 (S.D.
N.Y., June 5, 2018).

The Honey Baked Ham Company is a food retailer which sells hams,
turkey breasts and other pre-cooked entrees, side dishes, and
desserts. It was founded in 1957 in Detroit, Michigan, and its
headquarters is in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IMPERVA INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Poinsignon" FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIEN POINSIGNON, Plaintiff, v. IMPERVA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05653-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against his former
employer alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) and its state analogues, the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA).  During his
employment application process, Mr. Poinsignon signed a
disclosure and authorization form provided by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants obtained a consumer
report of Mr. Poinsignon, but that the Form authorizing this
action violated FCRA in that it did not contain a clear and
conspicuous disclosure and was not in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint.  The Defendants
make four arguments for the dismissal of the Complaint:

   -- First, they argue that the Form meets the statutory
requirements. Any extraneous language is contained in the
authorization section of the Form, not the disclosure section.

   -- Second, Defendants argue that some of Mr. Poinsignon's
claims should be dismissed, because they fail to allege actual
damages.

   -- Third, Defendants argue that Mr. Poinsignon is not entitled
to injunctive relief.

   -- Fourth, they argue that Mr. Poinsignon has not adequately
alleged that Defendants obtained his consumer reports, so the
statutory requirements at issue were never triggered.

The United States District Court for Northern District of
California finds that the Defendants' argument that the Form does
not violate Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) is without merit. The statute
does not require that some section be free of extraneous
information additional to the disclosure. It requires that the
document be free of such additional information: the document
must consist solely of the disclosure, except that the
authorization may be made on the document.  Hence, the
Defendants' argument that the Form complies with Section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) is without merit. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss Claim 1 is denied.

The Defendants request dismissal of parts of Claims 1, 3, and 4
for failure to allege actual damages. The Complaint alleges that
the Plaintiff and class members have been injured including, but
not limited, to having their privacy and statutory rights invaded
in violation of the FCRA. Mr. Poinsignon fails specifically to
allege actual damages.

ICRAA provides that a defendant is liable to a consumer for any
actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the
[defendant's] failure or, except in the case of class actions,
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever sum is greater.
Plaintiff does not claim actual damages. An individual plaintiff
who has not incurred any actual damages may still recover $10,000
in statutory damages. However, ICRAA does not provide for the
recovery of statutory damages on a class-wide basis. Thus, the
class claims for damages under the ICRAA are dismissed.

Given Mr. Poinsignon's failure to allege actual damages under
FCRA and his concession that he seeks no such damages, the Court
dismisses Claims 1 (FCRA) insofar as he alleges a negligent
violations. Only willful violation of the FCRA survives, in
addition to the Claim 4 (CCRAA) claim for both negligent and
willful violations. Additionally, the Court dismisses Claim 3
(ICRAA)'s class claim because no actual damages are sought and
statutory damages are unavailable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gljyv2  from Leagle.com.

Julien Poinsignon, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Howard Scott Leviant
-- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Imperva, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Shannon Elizabeth Turner -- sturner@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and
West LLP & Laurence F. Pulgram -- lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Fenwick
& West LLP.


INTERACTIVECORP: Changes Terms of Use to Avert Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Williams Pelegrin, writing for Android Authority, reports that
if you are Tinder and wanted to limit the number of lawsuits
thrown your way, why not limit everyone else's ability to do so?
That is exactly what the mobile dating app looks to have done in
the latest change to its terms of use.

Spotted by a handful of Tinder users, section 16 of the terms of
use now states that neither you or the dating app can go to court
to "assert or defend any claims between you and Tinder." You also
cannot participate in a class action lawsuit or other class
proceeding, whether they be past, present, or future class action
lawsuits.

Even though you can opt out of the additions, Tinder does not
make it easy to do so.  You must send an email to
tinderoptout@match.com with your full name, actual address, email
address, phone number associated with your Tinder account, and a
statement that you are opting out of the "Retroactive Application
of this Arbitration Agreement."

You have until June 7 to opt out of the changes, which are likely
an attempt to settle disputes through the American Arbitration
Association rather than the court system.

The changes might also be in response to the numerous lawsuits it
currently faces.  One such lawsuit deals with alleged age
discrimination against older users, since those over 30 years old
had to pay $20 for Tinder Plus.  By comparison, younger users
paid either $10 or $15 for the premium service.

Another lawsuit deals with alleged discrimination against
transgender individuals. According to Ariel Hawkins, Tinder
deleted her profile after she added "camgirl on the side. preop
trans woman" to her profile's bio.

A few hours after the edit, Tinder reportedly notified her that
her account violated the app's terms of use and was subsequently
deleted as a result.

The age and transgender discrimination lawsuits are ongoing. [GN]


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Au Pairs Can File Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to File a Third Amended
Complaint in the case captioned JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO
HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ,
JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE MAPLEDORAM, LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ, and
SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON, Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC.,
USAUPAIR, INC., GREATAUPAIR, LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL
INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair, EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE
PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC.,
d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair, AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR
INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a Au Pair
Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair
in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair,
AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.EX. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a
ProAuPair, 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The International Au
Pair Exchange, ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAu Pair,
and GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-
03074-CMA-CBS (D. Colo.).

The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, certifying
18 classes and subclasses and appointing class counsel. The Court
ordered the parties to confer about class notice procedure and to
submit proposed notices and a proposed notification plan within
ten (10) days of the Order.

The parties submitted the Joint Report Regarding Proposed Rule 23
Notification Plan. The Joint Report states that the parties
conferred and largely agree to a proposed notice and notification
plan. However, the parties cannot reach agreement on five issues.
They request that the Court enter a Rule 23 Notification Plan or
set a streamlined schedule for deciding remaining issues
necessary for a Rule 23 Plan.

The parties have essentially agreed upon a notice to the class,
save for two issues.

CLASS END DATE

The parties dispute whether the classes and subclasses should
close and, if so, when they should do so. In their Complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants continue to set au pair
wages as an illegal cartel, to the detriment of au pairs and the
relevant labor markets, and that their fixed weekly rate was and
continues to be an artificially depressed wage for standard au
pair services.

The Plaintiffs propose that the classes and subclasses should end
120 days before trial, with the Defendants to supplement their
production of au pair contact information in advance of that date
to permit a supplemental notice to be sent to the au pairs added
to the class between the initial notice and that date.

The Defendants disagree with that assumption, stating that claims
by individuals who became au pairs after the lawsuit was filed
are different than those brought by the named plaintiffs because
the sponsoring organizations have changed representations they
make regarding the stipend, and the case has been widely
publicized.

The Courts orders that the 28 classes and subclasses it certified
on February 2, 2018, must close 120 days before trial. The
Defendants must continue to produce recent au pair contact
information in advance of that date, so that a supplemental
notice can be sent to class members added after the initial
notice. If later events suggest that an earlier end date is
appropriate, the Court has the power to amend the classes' end
dates.

NUMBER OF NOTICES

The Plaintiffs and at least two Defendants disagree on how many
notices should be sent and how classes and subclasses should be
identified in the notice(s).

The Plaintiffs propose a single notice to the entire au pair
population with an appendix defining the classes and subclasses.
This proposal, according to the Plaintiffs, serves the goal of
informing the class members of which classes they are members
while still being administratively manageable. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants' proposal to send at least three
separate notices would increase confusion and add unnecessary
administrative complexity, burden, and cost for no material
benefit. The Court agrees, as it seeks to minimize the complexity
of this Byzantine action.

The parties will issue one notice to all au pairs. The notice
will include an appendix, like the one Plaintiffs propose, that
clearly defines each class and subclass.

NOTICE PROCEDURE

TIMING

The Plaintiffs argue that the first round of class notices should
be sent without further delay because the classes and subclasses
have been certified. According to the Plaintiffs, au pairs have a
right to know about the lawsuit being prosecuted on their behalf,
and a right to opt out if they so choose. The Defendants counter
that class notices should not be sent at least until the Tenth
Circuit has ruled on their Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to
Appeal. They assert that it would be confusing and prejudicial to
both parties if notices are being distributed and class members
are communicating regarding opting out at the same time that the
question of class certification is being considered by the Tenth
Circuit.

In the instant matter, the Court concludes that there is no
reason to delay class notification. The Court will not condition
the sending of notice on the Tenth Circuit's ruling on the
Defendants' Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal. Waiting
until the Tenth Circuit resolves the petition will unacceptably
further delay the resolution of this litigation. The parties are
ordered to notify au pairs expeditiously.

AU PAIR CARE'S INVOLVEMENT

Defendant AuPairCare argues that in light of its appeal and the
limited stay, the Court only has jurisdiction to certify a class
against it to the extent that it asserts an antitrust claim by au
pairs who were sponsored by Defendants other than AuPairCare. It
asks that the notice be revised to reflect that, and, according
to the Plaintiffs, have specifically asked to modify the notice
by omitting the New Jersey Training Subclass, the AuPairCare
Michigan Subclass, and the AuPairCare Pennsylvania Subclass.

The Plaintiffs argue that such modifications are unnecessary
because Defendant AuPairCare cannot be prejudiced if its au pairs
receive accurate information about the claims in this lawsuit and
their status.

The Court is satisfied with the Plaintiffs' proposed compromise.
The Court orders the parties to withhold notice to au pairs
sponsored by Defendant AuPairCare and to insert the proposed
language about the appeal into the notice.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs will file a Third Amended Complaint that
includes the three additional named plaintiffs. The Third Amended
Complaint will be the operative complaint going forward. The case
caption in all future filings shall include the newly-added named
plaintiffs.

   2. The parties will confer regarding the Court's resolutions
of their disputes. The parties will submit a revised proposed
notice and a revised proposed notification plan that incorporate
the Court's rulings in this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y78ltkht from Leagle.com.

Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs &
Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua
James Libling, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo
Valdivieso, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sabria Alexandria McElroy, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, &
Alexander Neville Hood -- alex@towardsjustice.org -- Towards
Justice.

Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated,
Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Dawn
Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice.

InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- BColaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Joseph
H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: $18-Mil. Agreement Reached in NY Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Company
has reached an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit for $18 million.

On August 12, 2015, the Company reached a final settlement with
the SEC in connection with the SEC's investigation into a
proprietary trading pilot operated within AlterNet for sixteen
months in 2010 through mid-2011. The investigation was focused on
customer disclosures, Form ATS regulatory filings and customer
information controls relating to the pilot's trading activity,
which included (a) crossing against sell-side clients in POSIT
and (b) violations of Company policy and procedures by a former
employee. These violations principally involved information
breaches for a period of several months in 2010 regarding sell-
side parent orders flowing into ITG's algorithms and executions
by all customers in non-POSIT markets that were not otherwise
available to ITG clients.  According to the terms of the SEC
settlement, the Company paid an aggregate amount of $20.3
million, representing a civil penalty of $18 million,
disgorgement of approximately $2.1 million in trading revenues
and prejudgment interest of approximately $0.25 million.

In connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation
regarding AlterNet, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
with respect to the Company and certain of its current and former
executives, which were consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omitted
to disclose material facts concerning, among other subjects, the
matters that were the subject of the SEC settlement regarding
AlterNet and the SEC investigation that led to the SEC
settlement.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
under the federal securities laws.

Investment Technology Group said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on April 26,
2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff leave
to file a motion to amend its complaint. On June 12, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint against certain
of the individual defendants who were dismissed from the case in
the court's April opinion.

In its latest SEC report, the Company disclosed that on March 23,
2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend, thereby
affirming its dismissal of certain of the individual defendants
from the case.  On April 19, 2018, the Company reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit. In exchange for a release of claims and a
dismissal with prejudice, the settlement includes a payment to
class members of $18 million, which is well within the policy
limits of, and is expected to be paid by, the Company's insurance
carrier.

The condensed consolidated statements of financial condition at
March 31, 2018 include a payable to class members of $18.0
million in accounts payable and accrued expenses (also, see Note
11, Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses) that is fully offset
by a receivable from the Company's insurance carrier in other
assets. As a result, the settlement is not expected to impact the
Company's results. The settlement reached is solely to eliminate
the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation and does not constitute an admission of liability by
the Company or its current or former executives or directors.

Specifically, the Company and its current and former executives
and directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims
made and make no admission of any wrongdoing. The parties
anticipate entering into a final settlement agreement outlining
the complete terms of the settlement. The settlement is subject
to certain conditions, including, among others, preliminary and
final court approval and notice to the class of plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

There is no assurance that a final settlement will be completed,
court approval will be obtained or that class member
participation will be sufficient.

Investment Technology Group, Inc. (ITG) is a global financial
technology company that helps leading brokers and asset managers
improve returns for investors around the world. ITG empowers
traders to reduce the end-to-end cost of implementing investments
via liquidity, execution, analytics and workflow technology
solutions. ITG has offices in Asia Pacific, Europe and North
America and offers execution services in more than 50 countries.
The company is based in New York.


J&W GRADING: Seeks to Certify Class of General Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Michael Brown, Jr., Nathan Cole, Aaron
Floyd, Brandon Horton, Eric Moore, Gregory Seal, John Wilterding,
Manny Rivera, Richard Padilla, Dan Vischansky, Neal Nida, Brent
Reed, Kevin Shofner, Shaun Stockton, Michael Wade Yearby, Kyran
Adams, Cody Piper, John Gable, Donna Turbville, individually,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. J&W Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc., Radar_Apps,
Inc., ECO IQ LLC, Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy LLC, Mojo Transport,
LLC, Ronnie Guthrie, Jonathon Kotthoff, Carol Leese, Jason
Neilitz; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01263-
PAD (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional
certification of collective action and authorization to send
initial and subsequent Court-supervised Notices to:

   "all current and former general laborers working for J&W
   Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc., Radar_Apps, Inc., ECO IQ LLC,
   Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy, LLC, Mojo Transport, LLC in Puerto
   Rico performing clean-up efforts after Hurricane Irma from
   September 2017 to the present and who were deprived of regular
   wages, minimum wage, overtime wages, per diems and lease
   payments."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SohUnt9B

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

          Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Esq.
          MENDOZA LAW OFFICES
          P.O. Box 9282
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 722 5522
          E-mail: mendozalo@yahoo.com

               - and -

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234 7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

Attorney for J&W Grading, Inc. and Ronnie Guthrie:

          Herschel V. Keller, Esq.
          GENTRY LOCKE ATTORNEYS
          801 Main Street, 11th Floor
          P.O. Box 6218
          Lynchburg, VA 24505
          E-mail: keller@gentrylocke.com


JNV GLASS: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSE ADRIAN GUEVARA, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JNV GLASS INSTALLATION AND REPAIR LLC, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-10625-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and
for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in"
plaintiffs.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: eaw@beaumontcostales.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Revised Settlement of FX Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the revised
settlement of the litigation related to FX transactions remains
pending.

The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government
authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and
trading activities and controls related to those activities. FX-
related investigations and inquiries by government authorities,
including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is
cooperating with and working to resolve those matters.

In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of
federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the Firm was sentenced,
with judgment entered thereafter and a term of probation ending
in January 2020. The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a
five-year exemption of disqualification that allows the Firm and
its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional
Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") until January 2023.

The Firm will need to reapply in due course for a further
exemption to cover the remainder of the ten-year disqualification
period. Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition
Commission referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other
banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal, which is
conducting civil proceedings concerning that matter.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers
defending a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates (the "U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the
"ERISA actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX
instruments (the "indirect purchaser action").

Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action,
including the exchange-based actions. That agreement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court and a final approval hearing
was scheduled for May 2018.

Certain members of the settlement class have filed requests to
the Court to be excluded from the class. JPMorgan Chase said in
its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017, that the District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA
actions, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The consumer
action, a second ERISA action and the indirect purchaser action
remain pending in the District Court.

In its recent SEC report, the Firm said the District Court has
also dismissed the indirect purchaser action, and the plaintiffs
have sought leave to replead their complaint.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Mediation Underway in Interchange Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that parties in the
Interchange Litigation have engaged in an ongoing mediation
process.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as
well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and
debit card interchange fees and enacted respective rules in
violation of antitrust laws. The parties settled the cases for a
cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which
the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten
basis points of credit card interchange for a period of 8 months
to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-
out period.

The settlement also provided for modifications to each credit
card network's rules, including those that prohibit surcharging
credit card transactions. In December 2013, the District Court
granted final approval of the settlement.

A number of merchants appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the
District Court's certification of the class action and reversed
the approval of the class settlement.

JPMorgan said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that both the plaintiffs and the
defendants filed petitions seeking review by the U.S. Supreme
Court of the Second Circuit's decision, and those petitions were
denied in March 2017. The case has been remanded to the District
Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate
decision.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and MasterCard, as well
as against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are
proceeding.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Updates on Benchmark Rate Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, provided updates on
various LIBOR and other benchmark rate investigations and
litigation.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission ("CFTC") and various state attorneys general, as well
as the European Commission ("EC"), the Swiss Competition
Commission ("ComCo") and other regulatory authorities and banking
associations around the world relating primarily to the process
by which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers
Association ("BBA") in connection with the setting of the BBA's
London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies,
principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate
to similar processes by which information on rates was submitted
to the European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection with the
setting of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates ("EURIBOR") and
to the Japanese Bankers' Association for the setting of Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rates ("TIBOR") during similar time periods, as
well as processes for the setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates
and other reference rates in various parts of the world during
similar time periods, including through 2012. The Firm continues
to cooperate with these ongoing investigations, and is currently
engaged in discussions with the CFTC about resolving its U.S.
dollar ISDAFIX-related investigation with respect to the Firm.
There is no assurance that such discussions will result in a
settlement.  The Firm has resolved EC inquiries relating to Yen
LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR. In December 2016, the Firm resolved
ComCo inquiries relating to these same rates. ComCo's
investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other
banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the EC issued a
decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement
of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has
filed an appeal with the European General Court.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
filed in various United States District Courts. These actions
have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that
in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either
individually or collectively manipulated various benchmark rates
by submitting rates that were artificially low or high.
Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or
other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes
in these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust
claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various
stages of litigation.

The Firm has agreed to settle a putative class action related to
Swiss franc LIBOR, and that settlement remains subject to final
court approval.

In an action related to EURIBOR, the District Court dismissed all
claims except a single antitrust claim and two common law claims,
and dismissed all defendants except the Firm and Citibank.

In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR, the District Court
dismissed certain claims, including antitrust claims brought by
some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did not have
standing to assert such claims, and permitted antitrust claims,
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims to
proceed. The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for
lack of standing have filed an appeal. In January 2018, the Firm
agreed to settle a putative class action related to exchange-
traded Eurodollar futures contracts. This settlement is subject
to further documentation and court approval. In February 2018,
the District Court (i) granted class certification with respect
to certain antitrust claims related to bonds and interest rate
swaps sold directly by the defendants, (ii) denied class
certification with respect to state common law claims brought by
the holders of those bonds and swaps and (iii) denied class
certification with respect to two other putative class actions
related to exchange-traded Eurodollar futures contracts and
LIBOR-based loans held by plaintiff lending institutions. The
Firm and another defendant have petitioned for leave to appeal
the class certification of the antitrust claims related to bonds
and swaps, and the two class plaintiffs whose class certification
motions were denied have also petitioned for leave to appeal.

In an action related to the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and
the Singapore Swap Offer Rate, the District Court dismissed
without prejudice all claims except a single antitrust claim, and
dismissed without prejudice all defendants except the Firm, Bank
of America and Citibank. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in September 2017, which the Firm and other defendants
have moved to dismiss.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. In April 2016, the Firm
settled this litigation, along with certain other banks. Those
settlements have been preliminarily approved by the Court.


KLOECKNER METALS: Settlement Reached in Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID GALARZA, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KLOECKNER
METALS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04910-FMO
(PJWX) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on June 28,
2018 for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement, and
      preliminarily finding the terms of the Settlement to be
      fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of
      the settlement fund; the amount of distributions to class
      members; the procedure for giving notice to class members;
      the procedure for objecting to or opting out of the
      Settlement; and the maximum amounts allocated to an
      incentive payment, costs and attorney's fees;

   2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes the
      Settlement Class:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
      employee in California at any time between July 5, 2013 and
      June 25, 2018";

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appointing Gregory N. Karasik ofKarasik Law Firm and Emil
      Davtyan of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as counsel
      for the Settlement Class;

   5. appointing Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator,
      and directing the Settlement Administrator to provide
      notice to class members and perform other settlement
      administration duties as set forth in the Settlement;

   6. establishing the deadlines for members of the Settlement
      Class to opt out of the settlement or to object to the
      Settlement; and

   7. scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 90 days after preliminary approval of the
      Settlement to consider whether the Settlement should be
      finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under
      Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
      rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and incentive
      payment to be submitted by Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275
          Los Angeles, California 90064
          Telephone: (818) 312 6800
          Facsimile: (818) 943 2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          6 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 1367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Sued over Illegal Conspiracy of Employees' Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK JOHNSON 9354 Burnett Avenue no. 114 North Hills, CA 91343
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG Moosacher Str. 80 80809 Munich
Germany; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC Arthur Peck Drive Westminster,
Carroll County, MD 21157; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC 748 Starbuck
Avenue Watertown, NY 13601; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION 1001 Air Brake Avenue Wilmerding, PA 15148; FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT, S.A. 3, rue du 19 mars 1962 92230 Gennevilliers CEDEX
- France; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC. 50 Beechtree
Boulevard Greenville, SC 2960, and DOES 1-20, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01493-RDB (D. Md., May 24, 2018), challenges an
illegal conspiracy among Knorr, Knorr Brake, N.Y. Air Brake,
Wabtec, Faiveley, Faiveley North America, and others to suppress
the compensation of each company's employees in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Without the knowledge or consent of their employees, Defendants
and senior executives at these companies entered into express
agreements to eliminate or reduce competition among them for
skilled labor. This conspiracy consists of at least three
agreements -- between Wabtec and Knorr Brake, between Knorr Brake
and Faiveley North America, and between Wabtec and Faiveley North
America -- that each company would not hire or attempt to hire
employees from the other company without prior consent from that
company. The intended and actual effect of this Conspiracy is to
suppress employee compensation, and to impose unlawful
restrictions on employee mobility. During the relevant period,
Knorr, Wabtec, and Faiveley were the three largest rail equipment
suppliers in the world and often each other's direct competitors.
Their employees possessed skills that were particularly valuable
to each other, and so their no-poach agreements were an effective
means of reducing competition for employees and suppressing
employee pay below competitive levels. The Defendants' Conspiracy
restrained trade and is per se unlawful under federal law.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD
          100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825 0066
          E-mail: bcarney@gwcfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 W. Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962 9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962 0722
          E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953 1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953 1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  jcamilleri@donahoo.com


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY CHACON, on behalf of herself and all
other similar situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT,
an Illinois Professional Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02766 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks Court to enter an
order certifying two classes:

     Count I Class:

The class consists of (a) individual(s) who own(s) a unit
property within an homeowner's association governed by or formed
under the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, 765
ILCS 160/1 et seq., (b) who received a form collection letter
similar to Plaintiff's form Collection Letter, and whose
collection letters were not returned by the United States Postal
Service as undelivered or undeliverable.

The class period is between September 17, 2016 and April 12,
2017, the date of filing of this action. Excluded from the Class
are Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz has a controlling
interest, any officers or directors of Kovitz, the legal
representative, heirs, successors, and assigns of Kovitz, and any
Judge assigned to this action, and his or her family.

     Count II Class:

The class consists of (a) individual(s) who own(s) a unit
property within a homeowner's association governed by or formed
under the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, 765
ILCS 160/1 et seq., (b) was sued by Kovitz in an attempt to
collect a debt for assessment, and whose lawsuits contained
substantially similar, or identical to the allegations in
Plaintiff's State Action.

The class period is between September 17, 2016 and April 12,
2017, the date of filing of this action. Excluded from the Class
are Kovitz, any entity in which Kovitz has a controlling
interest, any officers or directors of Kovitz, the legal
representative, heirs, successors, and assigns of Kovitz, and any
Judge assigned to this action, and his or her family.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order appointing
Plaintiff as the class representative and Kenneth M. DucDuong of
KMD Law Office, Ltd. as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yLuXJZA2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD Law Office, Ltd.
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Ste. 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: 312 997 5959
          Facsimile: 312 219 8404
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com


KS MAINTENANCE: Peterson Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PETERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KS MAINTENANCE, LLC a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation, and KENNETH STYLES, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00254-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 24,
2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked as "laborers" and/or as
a "foremen" for Defendants and performed related activities for
Defendants' customers (i.e. driving trucks, facility maintenance,
etc.). In this capacity, the Plaintiffs earned between $100 and
$225 per day. However the Plaintiffs were never paid additional
compensation for overtime hours worked.

The action is intended to include each and every laborer and
foreman who worked for the Defendant at any time with the past 3
years within the state of Florida.

KSM is a facility maintenance company conducting business in the
state of Florida and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574 4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423 5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com


LISA PINKNEY: "Holm" Suit Moved to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Holm, the Plaintiff, v.
Lisa Pinkney on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. RIC18006597, was
removed from the Superior Court of California County of
Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on May 24, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01100-GW-KS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H.
Wu.[BN]


LIVING ASSISTANCE: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Living Assistance
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Living
Assistance Services, Inc. doing business as: Visiting Angels,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05015 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Living Assistance Services, Inc. was founded in 2003. The
company's line of business includes home health care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LONG BEACH ASSISTED: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Beach Assisted
Living LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Long
Beach Assisted Living LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04985
(S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Long Beach Assisted Living LLC is enga an assisted living
facility in Long Beach, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Court Denies Certification of "Shabazz" Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Karen L. Hayes of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
MALIK SHABAZZ, SECTION P, v. KEVIN WYLES, ET AL. Civil Action No.
18-0124. ( W.D. La.)

The Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations against
Defendants Kevin Wyles, Stacey Kaderka, Butch Hatten, Michael
Crain, Teresa Corley, Gabel Morton, Regina Beckly, Clayton
Spires, and Sgt. Caroll in their individual and official
capacities. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants retaliated
against him for filing a Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint,
an inadequate access to court grievance, and a sexual harassment
grievance. According to the Plaintiff, Defendants Beckly, Morton,
and Spires entered his housing unit, and Beckly sprayed an
unknown chemical agent into his face and eyes, causing burning
and injury.  The Plaintiff then attempted to block the spray and
turn and run away but was tackled by Defendant Spires. While he
was face down on the ground with both hands behind his back,
Defendant Morton shot him in his back twice with his Taser-gun
leaving two permanent scars.

The Plaintiff moves to certify a class of allegedly similarly
situated inmates with claims common to his.

The Court rules that the Plaintiff should not be permitted to
litigate his claims as a class action.  First, the Plaintiff
makes no effort to demonstrate that he would be an adequate
representative.  The Fifth Circuit has recognized that the
adequacy requirement mandates an inquiry into [1] the zeal and
competence of the representative's counsel and [2] the
willingness and ability of the representative to take an active
role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests
of absentees.
Further, it must appear that the representative will vigorously
prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.
Thus, the class representative must possess a sufficient level of
knowledge and understanding to be capable of controlling or
prosecuting the litigation.

Courts have recognized, however, that a pro se prisoner is not
adequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a
class action.

As one judge observed: "because a lay person ordinarily does not
possess the legal training and expertise necessary to protect the
interests of a proposed class, courts usually will not certify a
class represented by a pro se litigant. Ability to protect the
interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel,
and the competence of a layman representing himself is generally
too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others."

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Report and
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycu57clc  from
Leagle.com.

Malik Abdullah Shabazz, also known as, Plaintiff, pro se.


LOUISIANA HEALTH: Opelousas' Antitrust Suit Remanded
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand
in the case captioned OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff, v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY CO., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01708-RDP (N.D. Ala.).

The Plaintiff had contracted with Louisiana Health Service &
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana
(Louisiana Blue Cross), a Louisiana corporation, to provide
medical services under the Defendant's healthcare network. The
Plaintiff alleged that Louisiana Blue Cross had violated
Louisiana antitrust law by colluding with other Blue Cross
entities to eliminate competition in payment for medical
services. The Plaintiff brought suit individually and on behalf
of all other Louisiana healthcare providers who had entered into
network contracts with Louisiana Blue Cross.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an Illinois
corporation, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the action.
That same day, although leave to intervene had not been granted,
Defendant Louisiana Blue Cross and BCBSA removed the matter to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3), invoking
federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C.A. Section 1332(d).

Here, the propriety of the Defendants' removal turns on the
applicability of the voluntary-involuntary rule. The voluntary-
involuntary rule has been recognized for well over a century. The
rule survived the codification of section 1446, and is still
followed by the Eleventh Circuit. The rule provides that only a
voluntary act by the plaintiff may convert a non-removable case
into a removable one.

Thus, for example, if a resident defendant is dismissed from the
case by the voluntary act of the plaintiff, the case becomes
removable, but if the dismissal is the result of either the
defendant's or the court's action against the wish of the
plaintiff, the case cannot be removed.

Here, the Association may very well be entitled to intervene as a
matter of right. But that is not dispositive of the Defendants'
right to remove. The Plaintiff has vigorously opposed both
intervention and removal. Simply stated, nothing about the
Association's inclusion in this case could possibly be construed
as voluntary. The traditional rule is that only a voluntary act
by the plaintiff may convert a non-removable case into a
removable one. Thus, a defendant cannot show that a previously
non-removable case has become removable as a result of a document
created by the defendant.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' removal of the
action was improper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) and the
Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Remand is due to be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybqh5yrc from
Leagle.com.

Opelousas General Hospital Authority, doing business as Opelousas
General Health System, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C.
Morrow -- PatM@mmrblaw.com -- MORROW MORROW RYAN BASSETT & HAIK,
Arthur Mahony Murray, Murray Law Firm, James P. Ryan --
JamesR@mmrblaw.com -- MORROW MORROW RYAN BASSETT & HAIK, Stephen
B. Murray, Jr., MURRAY LAW FIRM, Stephen B. Murray, Sr., MURRAY
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Thomas A. Filo, Cox Cox et al.

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co, doing business as Blue
Cross Blue Shield Of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Daniel
E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
Gary J. Russo -- grusso@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker (LAF),
Allison Nunley Pham, Charles A. O'Brien, III, Graham Harris Ryan
-- gryan@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Mark A. Cunningham --
mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael Christopher
Drew -- mdrew@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Richard J. Tyler,
-- rtyler@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association, Intervenor, represented by
Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis,
Zach Holmstead -- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, Daniel E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com --
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, pro hac vice & William Egan Kellner --
wekellner@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


LU SIMON: Australian Law Firm Launches Cladding Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartizan, writing for World Socialist Website, reports that
Australian law firm Adley Burstyner and Roscon Property Services
in April announced a class action law suit against major
construction companies.  The case is on behalf of approximately
250,000 owners and residents from about 1,400 apartments clad
with flammable polyethylene core aluminium composite panels in
the state of Victoria.

The $4.2 billion case, the law firm says, is the first stage in a
national campaign to compensate owners for replacing the
dangerous cladding and installing sprinkler systems, plus
declines in their property values.  The law suit is expected to
target LU Simon Builders, Hickory Building, Hamilton Marino and
Probuild. Slater and Gordon, another legal firm, later said it is
considering a similar action.

The announcement came six months after 29 people were killed in a
flammable-cladding fuelled fire in South Korea, almost one year
after the Grenfell Tower disaster in London killed an estimated
71 people, and more than three years since a cladding blaze at
the multi-storey Lacrosse apartment tower in Melbourne, the
Victorian state capital, in November 2014.

These fires are universally a direct result of government
deregulation of building industry standards, cost cutting and
privatisation of safety inspection, in line with demands from
property developers and the construction industry.

While no one was killed in the Melbourne blaze, it spread across
13 floors on the outside of the building within 10 minutes.
Apartment owners are currently fighting LU Simon in the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal over who should pay the costs
of replacing the cladding.  The case is due to start in
September. According to building specialists, the average cost of
cladding replacement on a high-rise building is between $40,000
and $60,000 per apartment.

Irrespective of these legal actions, Australian governments,
state and federal, are refusing to take any serious action to
prevent future catastrophes facing those living and working in
high-rise buildings clad with the proven deadly material.

Architects and building safety officials have reported the
"rampant" use of flammable cladding, which is $35 per square
metre less expensive than fire-resistant counterparts, throughout
the Australian construction industry.

In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower blaze, Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Labor Party opposition leader Bill
Shorten cynically feigned concern.  State governments initiated
building audits and promised increased building safety in an
industry that Liberal and Labor governments alike have
systematically deregulated, opening the way for massive profits
for developers and construction companies.

The federal government agreed to extend an existing Senate
inquiry over the use of dangerous materials in the construction
industry to include flammable cladding.  Labor and independent
Senators used this platform to demagogically denounce the serious
decline in building industry safety standards.  While the inquiry
eventually called for a total ban on the import and use of the
flammable cladding, the federal government rejected this
recommendation out of hand.

Three months after the Senate inquiry, LU Simon legally
challenged a previous Victorian Building Authority (VBA) order
requiring the construction company to replace external cladding
with non-flammable products on Lacrosse and five other non-
compliant buildings.

The Victorian state Supreme Court found in favour of LU Simon,
ruling that the VBA, a state government authority, could not
issue a directive to fix illegal work after a certificate of
final inspection or an occupancy permit had been issued.  The
granting of these certifications has been privatised over the
past 15 years.  The ruling meant that all six LU Simon buildings
involved, some finished ten years ago, were exempted from the VBA
directive.

Despite state and federal governments posturing about "getting
tough" on illegal constructions, the court verdict highlights the
fact that the current legislation renders regulatory authorities,
such as the VBA, powerless to act against any building company.
All the financial and legal responsibility for repairing unsafe
properties falls on building and apartment owners, the innocent
victims of cost-cutting construction methods.

As a result, thousands of owners and residents throughout
Australia are still living in potential death traps.  And it is
"business as usual," with multi-million dollar profits for
developers and construction corporations, and windfall tax
receipts for governments. [GN]


LVNV FUNDING: Summary Judgment in "Dorrian" Vacated
---------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, vacated the
District Court's summary judgment favoring LVNV in the case
captioned TARA DORRIAN, vs. LVNV FUNDING, LLC (and a consolidated
case), No. SJC-12355 (Mass.).

After being sued for the failure to pay debts, the plaintiffs,
Tara Dorrian and Virginia Newton, each individually filed suit
against the defendant, LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV), claiming
unlicensed debt collection.  The plaintiffs also alleged
violations of G. L. c. 93A, asserted claims of unjust enrichment,
and sought to proceed against LVNV in a class action suit. A
judge in the Superior Court consolidated the cases and certified
them as a class action.  On cross motions for summary judgment,
the judge concluded that LVNV violated G. L. c. 93, Section 24A,
because it operated as a debt collector without a license and
granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs.  On the claim that
LVNV violated G. L. c. 93A, the judge granted summary judgment to
LVNV because it met the exemption from liability in G. L. c. 93A,
Section 3, as the division of banks of the Office of Consumer
Affairs and Business Regulation (division) had permitted LVNV to
operate without a license.

On appeal, LVNV argues that (1) the judge erred in certifying the
class because neither plaintiff is a proper class representative;
(2) the judge's remedy was improper, and at most the judgments
should merely be voidable; and (3) the judge should have deferred
to the division's interpretation of the statute concluding that
LVNV did not require a license.

The Court concludes that passive debt buyers that is, debt buyers
engaged "only in the practice of purchasing delinquent consumer
debts for investment purposes without undertaking any activities
to directly collect on the debt" do not fall under either
definition of debt collector in G. L. c. 93, Section 24.

The first definition of debt collector in G. L. c. 93, Section
24, encompasses entities of which the principal purpose is the
collection of a debt. As for this definition, the plain language
is instructive but not conclusive. LVNV's business is to invest
in debt, usually those in default, and profit from the eventual
collection of the debt. If the debt is not collected, LVNV has no
revenue. Nonetheless, the debt collection itself is entirely
undertaken by third parties. Indeed, all aspects of the debt
collection process are contracted out to and conducted by
Resurgent, a licensed debt collector. Resurgent determines the
appropriate course of action for each account and whether to
initiate legal action.8 In sum, the principal purpose of LVNV is
not perfectly clear. LVNV itself is a debt buyer, not a debt
collector, but the success of its business model is dependent on
debt collection by its licensed contractor.

The division's long-standing interpretation of G. L. c. 93,
Sectdions 24, is that the term debt collector does not apply to
passive debt buyers like LVNV that purchase debts and use
licensed third parties to collect the debts. The division adopted
this interpretation because passive debt buyers are investors in
consumer debts that hire another duly authorized entity, either a
Massachusetts-licensed debt collector or a Massachusetts
attorney, to conduct the actual debt collection.

The Court approves the division's reasonable and expert
interpretation in this complex regulatory environment. The
division's interpretation helps resolve the ambiguity in the
plain language of the statute, drawing a line between debt buyers
and collectors based on whether they are involved in any
collection activities with consumers. The division's
interpretation also reflects and respects the core concern of the
statute, which is to prevent abusive debt collection practices.

The Court therefore concludes that the first definition of debt
collector in G. L. c. 93, Section 24, does not apply to passive
debt buyers like LVNV that have no contact with consumers and
rely entirely on licensed third parties to collect their debts.

The second definition of debt collector applies to any entity who
regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, a debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another. This definition, by its plain meaning, applies only to
the collection of a debt that is owed or due or asserted to be
owed or due another. Therefore, an entity cannot be a debt
collector under the second definition if it deals with debts that
it owns instead of debts owed to another.

The Court adopts this plain language interpretation under the
MDCPA and concludes that LVNV, as a matter of law, is not a debt
collector under the second definition of the MDCPA because it
does not deal with debts that are owed to another.

The Court concludes that LVNV is not a debt collector under G. L.
c. 93, Section 24. The judgment is vacated, and the matter is
remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent
with the opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Judicial Court's April 9, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y94fusrz from
Leagle.com.

David Schultz (Andrew M. Schneiderman also present) for LVNV
Funding, LLC.

Kenneth D. Quat (Josef C. Culik also present) for Tara Dorrian &
another.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

Nadine Cohen & Philip Weinberg for Greater Boston Legal Services
& others.

Merrily S. Gerrish, Special Assistant Attorney General, & Heather
L. Bennett for division of banks of the Office of Consumer
Affairs and Business Regulation.

Donald S. Maurice, Jr., & Brady J. Hermann for Receivables
Management Association International, Inc.

Daniel S. Blynn, Meredith L. Boylan, & Benjamin E. Horowitz, of
the District of Columbia, David L. Feinberg, Joseph L. Demeo, &
Lawrence S. Delaney for Cavalry SPV I, LLC.


M & T BANK: Flynn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EDWARD R. FLYNN, GENE DAISEY, DOUGLAS J.
ABBOTT, and CATHERINE HOSICK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. M&T BANK
CORPORATION and MANUFACTURERS and TRADERS TRUST COMPANY a/k/a M&T
BANK, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04806-WB (E.D. Pa), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order holding the class
determination in abeyance, while permitting this motion to as
serve as a placeholder motion to preclude an anticipated attempt
by Defendants to moot this class action.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5rHAKA0p

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (800) 601 0808
          Facsimile: (888) 769 1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


MACY'S INC: Court Dismisses Benson as Named Plaintiff in "Haley"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order Regarding Dismissal of Plaintiff Todd
Benson as a Named Plaintiff in the case captioned KRISTIN HALEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants, This
document relates to Case No. 3:16-cv-01252-HSG. Case No. 4:15-cv-
06033-HSG, No. 3:16-4 cv-01252-HSG., 4:16-cv-02850-HSG, 4:16-cv-
03341-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Todd Benson is named as one of the class
representatives in the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint for Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, on July 28, 2017 in the case entitled, Haley
v. Macy's Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-06033-HSG.

The Plaintiffs have agreed, and the Court approves, to dismiss
Todd Benson as a named plaintiff without prejudicing his right to
participate in a class recovery, and each party bearing their own
fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8javlll from Leagle.com.

Kristin Haley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas
rrivas@zlk.com, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Robert S. Green --
gnecf@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C.

Sylvia Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Erica Vinci, Zohreh Farhang & Mr. Job Carder,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C.
Macy's, Inc. & Bloomingdale's, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Brian Michael Parsons, Macys Law Department, Stephanie Anne
Sheridan, Esq. -- ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP
& Meegan Bay Brooks, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


MAIN STREET: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Main Street
Radiology at Bayside, LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Main Street Radiology at Bayside, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05010 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Main Street Radiology At Bayside, LLC was founded in 2000. The
company's line of business includes the practice of general or
specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed
practitioners.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Court Dismisses Appeal in Condo Owners' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to EdgeProp, the Malay Mail reported on May 21 that the
appeal made by Maju Puncakbumi Sdn Bhd against the decision that
granted the developer a stay of the damages previously awarded to
137 homeowners was on May 21 dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

According to a media statement by the homeowners' lawyer Vincent
Lim Chang, the developer's appeal was dismissed and it was
ordered to deliver vacant possession of the condominium units to
137 owners of The Arc@Cyberjaya, reported the daily.

The developer also has to pay the homeowners RM3.97 million worth
of rentals, which include the total of agreed liquidated damages
from the date of the termination of the guaranteed rental returns
(GRR) scheme until its expiry date, interests, and cost of
RM15,000.

The liquidated damages is equivalent to the value of monthly
rental while the cost of appeal to be paid by the developer is
RM7,000, said the Malay Mail.

Owners of units in The Arc @ Cyberjaya condo had earlier launched
a class action suit against its developer Maju Puncakbumi for
allegedly defaulting on a guaranteed rental return scheme
payment.

In November 2017, the Shah Alam High Court awarded the owners
RM3.97 million -- comprising the outstanding rentals until May
2017, 8% interest on the outstanding rentals, agreed liquidated
damages, general damages, aggravated damages of RM10, exemplary
damages, 5% interest on the overall damages and costs of
RM15,000.  It allowed an interim stay for vacant possession of
the units.

The Arc@Cyberjaya is a freehold mixed-use development comprising
four blocks of serviced apartments with 2- and 3-bedroom fully-
furnished serviced apartments, four institutional towers, and a
sports academy.

The units range from 913 sq ft to 1,915 sq ft and are priced from
RM350,000. [GN]


MARIAN WOODS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marian Woods, Inc.
The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marian Woods, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04987 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Marian Woods Inc is an eldercare facility for the religious
community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATTERSIGHT CORP: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Mattersight Corporation in its filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission disclosed that on May 16, 2018, a
purported stockholder of Mattersight commenced a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Michael E. Shade v. Mattersight
Corporation, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware (the "Stockholder Action").  The complaint names as
defendants Mattersight and the members of the Mattersight Board
of Directors.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with
the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Mattersight with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018 (the "Schedule 14D-9").
Specifically, the complaint asserts that the Schedule 14D-9 omits
or misrepresents material information regarding certain aspects
of Mattersight's financial projections, certain data and inputs
underlying the analyses performed by Union Square, and
Mattersight insiders' potential conflicts of interest. As relief,
the complaint requests an order enjoining the defendants from
closing the Offer or taking any steps to consummate the Merger
until additional disclosures have been made.  If the Merger is
consummated, the complaint seeks to rescind it or recover
damages. The complaint also seeks to recover the plaintiff's
costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

Mattersight believes the Stockholder Action lacks merit, and
intends to vigorously defend the Stockholder Action.  Additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement and
the transactions contemplated thereby may be filed in the future.
[GN]


MB FINANCIAL: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Investigated
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP, on May 21
disclosed that it has launched an investigation into whether the
board members of MB Financial, Inc. ("MB Financial") (NASDAQ:
MBFI) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed sale of the Company to Fifth Third Bancorp ("Fifth
Third")(NASDAQ: FITB).

On May 21, 2018, MB Financial announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with Fifth Third.  Under terms of the
deal, MB Financial shareholder will receive $54.20, comprising
1.45 shares of Fifth Third common stock and $5.54 in cash.
However, shareholders will be subject to the future price
fluctuation of Fifth Third's stock price.

The investigation concerns whether the MB Financial board failed
to satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including
whether the board adequately pursued alternatives to the
acquisition and whether the board obtained the best price
possible for MB Financial shares of common stock.  Nationally
recognized Johnson Fistel is investigating whether the proposed
deal represents adequate consideration, especially given the
Company's projected revenue and earnings growth.

If you are a shareholder of MB Financial and believe the proposed
buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more
about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-
814-4471.  If emailing, please include a phone number.

                   About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


MDL 2804: Lockhaven May Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Stiver, writing for The Express, reports that Lockhaven
City Council was expected to decide on May 21 to join a class
action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies that make opioids

At the same meeting, council members were expected to consider
the pros and cons of medical marijuana dispensaries in Lock
Haven.

By state law "a dispensary may not be located within 1,000 feet
of the property line of a public, private or parochial school or
a day-care center," according to information from City Manager
Gregory J. Wilson.

The city has many school properties, including Lock Haven
University's, and this state regulation would mean that a
dispensary could not open in the city's commercial district,
Mr. Wilson said.

City Council does have the ability to recommend to the state
Department of Health that this requirement be waived, at least in
part, to allow for this new type of economic development, Wilson
said.  It is up to council whether or not to support this idea,
he said.

The class action lawsuit that council was set to consider is
against companies that have produced drugs like OxyContin and
other opioids.  It is open to local governments with law
enforcement agencies that would have been impacted by the opioid
crisis, Mr. Wilson said.  This includes Clinton County, which has
a sheriff's department.

City Council will look at agreements with Rosamilia, Brungard and
Rosamilia, a local law firm, as well as with Boni, Zack and
Snyder.

Also on council's agenda are speed limits for the PennDOT streets
the city is accepting through the Turnback program.  They are
portions of Hanna Street, Second Avenue, Third Avenue, Maple,
Bennage, and Woods Avenue.  All of these roadways currently have
speed limits of 35 miles per hour, Mr. Wilson said, and council
will consider lowering that to 25 mph.  Council may choose to
change the speed limit on all of these roads, on just some of
them, or on none of them, he said. [GN]


MEDIATION RECOVERY: Faces "Peek" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediation Recovery
Center Inc. The case is styled as Cynthia Peek, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mediation
Recovery Center Inc, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00377-KGB (E.D.
Ark., June 5, 2018).

Mediation Recovery Center Inc. is a debt collection agency in
DeKalb, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
   Crowder McGaha, LLP
   5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 205-4026
   Fax: (501) 367-8208
   Email: cmcgaha@crowdermcgaha.com

      - and -

   William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
   CrowderMcGaha, LLP
   5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 205-4026
   Fax: (501) 367-8208
   Email: wcrowder@crowdermcgaha.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Court Granted Bid to Stay further Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELIN OLSON, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v.
MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 8-CV-
793 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an on
Order on May 29, 2018, granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

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


MICHIGAN: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Hill"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case
captioned HENRY HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK SNYDER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-14568 (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs are individuals who were sentenced to mandatory
life without parole for homicide crimes that they committed as
juveniles.  From the outset of the case over seven years ago,
they have alleged that Michigan's sentencing scheme violates
their constitutional rights by depriving them of a meaningful
opportunity for release, first challenging their mandatory
sentences of life without parole, and now, in light of the
Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460
(2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), they
challenge Michigan's statutes, policies, and procedures
implemented in the post-Miller world.

In Miller, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of
life without parole for a juvenile offender convicted of homicide
violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. In Montgomery, the Court held that Miller applied
retroactively.

In Count V, the Plaintiffs challenge Mich. Comp. Laws Section
769.25a(6), which provides that individuals resentenced under
Michigan's post-Miller sentencing scheme shall not receive any
good time credits, special good time credits, disciplinary
credits, or any other credits that reduce the defendant's minimum
or maximum sentence.

The Defendants argue that because the constitutional issue turns
on an issue of state law, this Court should leave both the
constitutional and state law issues for decision by the state
courts. They base their abstention arguments on Railroad Comm'n
of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and also argue that the Court should
decline to exercise its declaratory judgment jurisdiction.

The Court finds each of these arguments without merit.

The Pullman doctrine of abstention acknowledges that federal
courts should avoid the unnecessary resolution of federal
constitutional issues and that state courts provide the
authoritative adjudication of questions of state law.

Certification of this question to the Michigan Supreme Court
would be inappropriate for the same reason Pullman abstention is
unwarranted, the delay involved in such a process. The Sixth
Circuit has noted that federal courts will not trouble the
Court's sister state courts every time an arguably unsettled
question of state law comes across our desks. When the Court sees
a reasonably clear and principled course, it will seek to follow
it ourselves Finally, as Plaintiffs note, the Eastern District of
Michigan's Local Rule regarding certification requires written
findings by the court that certification of the issue will not
cause undue delay or prejudice. This Court cannot make such a
finding.
Accordingly, this Court will not decline to exercise its
jurisdiction under Pullman, nor certify this issue to the
Michigan Supreme Court.

The Defendants argue that this Court should abstain from deciding
the issue based on the principles of federalism and comity set
forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

Younger applies where: (1) state proceedings are pending; (2) the
state proceedings involve an important state interest; and (3)
the state proceedings will afford the plaintiff an adequate
opportunity to raise his constitutional claims.

Here, Younger abstention is not appropriate, because the
Plaintiffs are not seeking to interfere with, or enjoin, any
ongoing judicial proceedings. Michigan courts do not typically
play any role in determining good time and disciplinary credits
to which a defendant may be entitled. Rather, the Michigan court
rules require the sentencing court to state only the time served
by the defendant.  It is the MDOC that regularly calculates good
time and disciplinary credits to determine eligibility for
parole. And MDOC has done this historically when a prisoner
serving a life sentence has been resentenced to a term of years.

Thus, the relief this Court now orders will not present any
interference with the state courts, within the meaning of
Younger.
Therefore, Younger abstention is not warranted.

The Court now turns to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claim on
Count V. Plaintiffs allege that Mich. Comp. Laws Section
769.25a(6), which provides that individuals resentenced under
Section 25a shall not receive any good time or disciplinary
credits, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits any law which imposes a
punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was
committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then
prescribed.

Disciplinary credits were created in 1982, and were deducted from
both the minimum and maximum sentences of prisoners convicted of
certain crimes, including first and second-degree murder.
The Defendants argue there is some shade of gray. They point out
that the good time statute indicates that a prisoner shall
receive a reduction from his or her sentence, up to and including
the period fixed for the expiration of the sentence. They argue
that prisoners serving a life sentence cannot have that sentence
reduced, and that there is no time fixed for the expiration of
such sentence; therefore, they say, this statute cannot be
applied to prisoners serving a life term.

The Defendants have no explanation for the explicit inclusion of
first-degree murder as one of the crimes for which credits could
be earned. They maintain that the language in other parts of the
statute, which references deductions from a minimum and maximum
sentence, means that the statute cannot apply to those serving a
life sentence, as such prisoners have no minimum or maximum term.
But again, a plausible interpretation of the statute and one that
renders the statute as a whole internally consistent is that the
disciplinary credits are not applied to a life sentence, although
prisoners serving such term still earn them. To agree with the
Defendants would be to ignore a portion of the statute, and
courts have a duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause
and word of a statute.

The lack of any ambiguity in the statutory language is, perhaps,
best evidenced by the action of the Michigan legislature itself,
in adopting Mich. Comp. Laws Section 769.25a(6). If the
legislature had believed that Michigan law did not provide
credits to those convicted of first-degree murder, there would
have been no purpose for a provision that expressly stripped them
of those credits. The inference is ineluctable that the
legislature understood that these individuals would invoke these
credits unless the legislature affirmatively repealed them. In
doing so, the legislature eloquently testified to the state of
Michigan law prior to the adoption of Section 769.25a(6).

The Defendants argue that the Michigan Supreme Court recognized
that the good time statute does not apply to someone serving a
life sentence in Meyers v. Jackson, 224 N.W. 356 (Mich. 1929). In
Meyers, the petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to
life in prison; the governor later commuted his sentence so that
the same will expire 15 years from the date of sentence. The
court denied the petitioner's request for good time credit,
stating that if he accepts the benefit of the commutation
granted, he must accept it in accordance with the terms imposed
by the executive authority granting it.

The court also noted that the question of good time applies only
to those where the date of expiration of sentence is fixed.
Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The period of
his imprisonment was not fixed.

This last statement is dictum, as it was not necessary to the
Meyers court's holding that a prisoner who accepts a commutation
must accept it according to its terms.

Thus, the only decision by the Michigan Supreme Court containing
a holding applicable to our case accords with the view that
credits are earned by those convicted of first-degree murder and
applied to their sentences once those sentences become term-of-
years sentences. The holding of a state's highest court on a
matter of state law is entitled to respect and ordinarily should
be followed.

Further evidence of the state of Michigan law is MDOC's long-
standing policy to calculate and award credits for those serving
life sentences. The Plaintiffs have provided an affidavit from
Richard Stapleton, the former Administrator of the MDOC Office of
Legal Affairs, who spent thirty-four years at MDOC. Stapleton
averred that when a prisoner was originally serving a life
sentence and was then resentenced to a term-of-years sentence, it
was routine and regular practice for the department's records
office staff to compute a prisoner's new sentence by applying the
time already served and by awarding good time or disciplinary
credits in accordance with MCL 800.33to the new terms of years'
sentence.

For all of these reasons, this Court interprets Mich. Comp. Laws
Section 800.33 to provide good time and disciplinary credits to
prisoners who were serving a term of life imprisonment. The
elimination of those credits by Mich. Comp. Laws Section
769.25a(6), therefore, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the
Constitution. The Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on
Count V, and the Defendants must apply good time and disciplinary
credits in calculating parole eligibility dates for prisoners
resentenced under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 769.25a.

The Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment on Count VI, which
alleges that they are deprived of a meaningful opportunity for
release due to the Defendants' failure to provide them with
rehabilitative programming. The Plaintiffs allege that the 236
juvenile offenders who are the subject of motions for life
sentences are currently considered to be ineligible for parole,
and thus are denied access to rehabilitative programming.

The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs have not shown that
they are denied a meaningful opportunity for release based on a
denial of rehabilitative programming pending their resentencings.
The Court will deny both motions for summary judgment on Count VI
without prejudice to allow further discovery to take place.
Because there has been no discovery, the summary judgment record
is very thin. The Plaintiffs point to an affidavit from 2013
stating that the Parole Board often denies release to prisoners
who have not completed recommended programs. The Defendants rely
on the MDOC Policy Directive 06.05.100, which sets forth several
factors for the Parole Board to consider; they also argue that 44
out of 45 juvenile homicide offenders have been released on
parole.

Given the lack of a fully developed record, the Court will deny
summary judgment at this time. Discovery is ongoing with respect
to Count IV, and the Court believes that its decision on Count VI
will benefit from additional information regarding the concerns
and considerations of the Michigan Parole Board, particularly
regarding the 45 individuals who went before the Board following
their resentencings.

The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, declaratory
judgment and permanent injunction is granted in part and denied
in part.  The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment,
declaratory judgment and permanent injunction is granted in part
and denied in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybz6oq4a from
Leagle.com.

Keith Maxey, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin --
dkorobkin@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan, Ezekiel R. Edwards, The American Civil Liberties
Foundation, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Ronald J. Reosti -- ron.reosti@gmail.com --
Reosti & Sirlin, P.C., Steven M. Watt, American Civil Liberties
Union, & Deborah A. LaBelle.

Giovanni Casper, Jean Cintron, Nicole Dupure & Dontez Tillman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, Deborah A. LaBelle & Ronald J.
Reosti, Reosti & Sirlin, P.C.

Rick Snyder, HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Michael Eagen & Bill Schuette,
Defendants, represented by B. Eric Restuccia, Michigan Department
of Attorney General, Joseph T. Froehlich, Michigan Attorney
General Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division,
Kathryn M. Dalzell, State of Michigan -- Attorney General &
Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of Attorney General Civil
Litigation, Employment & Elections Division.


MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Medicaid Program-Enrolled Persons Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned M.R., on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NICK LYON, in his
official capacity only as Executive Director of the Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Denise Page
Hood entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals that are or will be enrolled in Michigan's
      Medicaid Program at the time this Order is entered; have
      been or will be diagnosed with a chronic infection of the
      Hepatitis C Virus; are 18 years of age or older; require,
     or in the future will require, treatment for Hepatitis C
      with direct-acting antiviral medication; and do not meet
      the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services'
      current treatment criteria, which restricts direct-acting
      antiviral treatment to individuals with a minimum metavir
      fibrosis score criteria of F-2";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff, M.R., a proper class
      representative to advance and protect the interests of the
      certified class pursuant to MCR 3.501;

   3. appointing law firm of Dickinson Wright as proper class
      counsel to advance and protect the interests of the
      Certified Class pursuant to MCR 3.501;

   4. granting Preliminary Approval of the Parties' proposed
      class action Settlement Agreement; and

   5. approving the Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement
      to Class members and Notice of the Fairness Hearing to
      Class members as delineated in the Stipulated Order for
      Notice to the Putative Class.

The Court further ordered that the following dates will govern
the process to finalize the settlement:

   -- May 24, 2018:
      Status conference was held;

   -- May 29, 2018:
      Preliminary settlement approval;

   -- June 15, 2018 (or 17 days after preliminary settlement
      approval):

      the Parties will send initial notice to class members,
      which will include notice of attorney fees;

   -- June 15, 2018:
      file motion for attorney fees;

   -- July 17, 2018 (43 days from initial notice and 30 days from
      motion for attorney fees):

      deadline for class members to file written responses or
      requests to testify at a fairness hearing;

   -- August 7, 2018:
      fairness hearing;

   -- August 15, 2018 (assuming there are not objections from a
      class member):

      the Parties will file a motion for final approval of
      settlement;

   -- August 31, 2018:
      order of final approval;

   -- September 21, 2018:
      the Parties will mail notice of settlement approval and
      claim forms to class members; and

   -- October 1, 2018:
      Settlement Agreement terms to go into full effect.

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Parsons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley C. Parsons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., a Kansas corporation, and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00797-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 24, 2018), seeks to recover damages
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding that
Defendants' form debt collection letter violated the FDCPA.

More than 8 years ago, Mr. Parsons fell behind on paying his
bills, including a debt he allegedly owed for an HSBC Bank Nevada
credit card account. Sometime after that debt went into default,
it was allegedly acquired by Midland, which tried to collect upon
it by having its sister company, MCM, send Mr. Parsons a form
collection letter, dated June 7, 2017. This letter repeatedly
urged him to pay the debt, via various payment options and listed
various "Benefits of Paying Your Debt".

Moreover, the letter did not disclose that if Mr. Parsons entered
into an agreement to pay the debt, he could re-start the statute
of limitations. In fact, neither Defendant could sue to collect
the debt at issue because it was time-barred by the statute of
limitations in the State of Alabama.

MCM operates a nationwide defaulted debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every
state, including consumers in the State of Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (205) 802 2200
          Facsimile: (205) 802 2209
          E-mail: bbotes@bondnbotes.com


MONSANTO CO: Continues to Defend Roundup Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Neff, writing for Wisconsin Gazette, reports that lawsuits
against Monsanto Co. grow as naturally as weeds.

The biocide maker's response is to try killing the complaints
with motions for dismissal.

But the company recently lost one such motion in U.S. District
Court in Madison, where a class-action suit -- with a demand for
a jury trial -- has been filed on behalf of consumers who
purchased Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

"They tried to get rid of the case and failed," said
Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- an attorney in the
case.

The lawsuit alleges Monsanto, based in Missouri, and Scotts
Miracle-Gro Co., based in Ohio, falsely promote Roundup weed
killer as safe for people and pets.

Advertising, promotions on YouTube and product labeling say
Roundup works by interfering with an enzyme in plants that's not
"in people or pets."  The active ingredient in Roundup,
glyphosate, kills weeds by interfering with an enzyme that
governs amino-acid formation.

The class action suit, filed a year ago in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin, argues beneficial bacteria
in the human gut and the guts of other mammals -- as well as
mucous membranes and skin -- depend on that enzyme to function
properly.

"All these bacteria that comprise the large portion of our body
mass, they rely on that enzyme to live and thrive," said
Mr. Wisner, of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman P.C.

Another case making that argument was filed in April 2017 by
Richman Law Group on behalf of Beyond Pesticides and the Organic
Consumers Association in the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C.

The lawsuit also alleges Monsanto misled consumers with false
advertising and product labeling that Roundup is safe for people
and pets.

"The disruption of the gut biome is associated with a host of
21st-century diseases, including asthma, autism, bacterial
vaginosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Crohn's disease,
depression, inflammatory bowel disease, leaky gut syndrome,
multiple sclerosis, obesity, Type 1 and 2 diabetes and
Parkinson's," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond
Pesticides.

In May, Monsanto lost its motion to dismiss that case when U.S.
District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled the organizations presented
enough evidence to support their allegations against the company.

"The science on the hazards of Roundup -- glyphosate -- are clear
and Monsanto officials know it," said Mr. Feldman.  "With this
case, we seek to ensure that the public is not misled by false
advertising and product labeling in the marketplace.  It is a
critical step toward ensuring that people are fully informed
before purchasing toxic products that can poison them, their
families and the communities where they live."

Ronnie Cummins, international director of OCA, said newer studies
indicate glyphosate may be carcinogenic and its use may harm
cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous and reproductive systems.

Yet, Mr. Cummins said, "no reasonable consumer seeing the claim
on this product that glyphosate targets an enzyme not found 'in
people or pets' would expect that Roundup actually targets an
important bacterial enzyme found in humans and animals."

Monsanto trying to hide the truth
There are thousands of personal-injury cases pending against
Monsanto, in addition to the false advertising suits.

There also are multiple suits brought by consumer advocacy
groups, farm associations and environmental organizations.

Mr. Wisner said the suits against Monsanto have uncovered decades
of corporate malfeasance, of wrongful conduct by Monsanto.

He raised this question: If glyphosate doesn't affect people, why
did Monsanto seek a patent for antimicrobial properties that
referred to the chemical's effect on the enzyme? The patent was
requested in 2003 and granted in 2010.

"At the end of the day, we get a label changed," he said.  "And
consumers are told this does affect humans. . . .This stuff is
not table salt. You can't take a bath in it."

Monsanto has maintained that hundreds of studies show glyphosate
is safe.

And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is
safe for humans when used in accordance with label directions.

Madison 'ideal location for a trial'
The lead plaintiff in the Wisconsin case is Thomas Blitz, of
Waunakee.  On multiple occasions, Mr. Blitz purchased Roundup at
a Home Depot and the lawsuit says product labeling misled him.

The five other plaintiffs named in the case -- Kevin Blair from
Illinois, Gregory Chick from California, Mario Washington from
New York state, Terence Moore from New Jersey, and Richard
Dulniak from Florida -- also say they were misled.

The plaintiffs do not claim they are sick, but say they were
duped into buying a product that could make them sick -- or make
family or pets sick.

"Monsanto omits material, contrary information -- namely, that
human gut bacteria produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by
Roundup," the complaint states.

It also states, "Because of the false statements and material
omissions, defendants were able to sell more Roundup products and
were able to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would
have been."

Monsanto was unjustly enriched, the plaintiffs argue, and its
actions violate Wisconsin's Trade Practices Act, as well as
consumer laws in other states.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for themselves and class
members equal to what they paid for Roundup products, items such
as Roundup Garden Weeds Weed and Grass Killer.

Madison, Mr. Wisner said, is an ideal location for a trial.

"We like the jurisdiction," he said.  "We think Madison is a good
jury pool.  We're looking for a court that moves quickly.  And we
like the law in the 7th Circuit. [GN]


MONTGOMERY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in "Hill" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PERRY HILL, both individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MICHAEL AMATO, and MICHAEL FRANKO, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:14-cv-00933-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order on May 29, 2018:

   1. dismissing claim for injunctive and declaratory relief
      without prejudice;

   2. granting Hill's motion for leave to file an amended
      complaint and Rogers' motion to intervene as a named
      Plaintiff, for purposes of: (1) adding Rogers as a
      Plaintiff with a Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment
      conditions of confinement damages claim, reflecting his
      status as both a pretrial detainee and convicted prisoner
      at MCJ; and (2) clarifying Hill's status as a pretrial
      detainee; and (3) clarifying that Plaintiffs seek
      certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4);

   3. denying Hill's motion for leave to file an amended
      complaint and Rogers' motion to intervene;

   4. directing Hill to file by June 12, 2018, either (1) an
      amended complaint, as discussed supra; or (2) a second
      motion to amend and to intervene for purposes of adding a
      Plaintiff with standing to pursue a claim for injunctive
      and declaratory relief. If such a motion is filed, the
      Court will consider it, along with any response by
      Defendants, which must be filed by June 19, 2018, together
      with the pending motion for class certification. If Hill
      elects not to file such a motion, the Court will consider
      the motion for class certification based on the amended
      complaint and any further briefing; and

   5. directing Plaintiffs to file a letter brief addressing the
      requirements in Rule 23(b)(3), if Plaintiffs seek
      certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4)
      by June 19, 2018, and directing Defendants to file a letter
      brief in response by June 26, 2018.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Jonathan M. Bernstein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          8 Southwoods Boulevard, Suite 300
          Albany, NY 12211


NATURAL HEALTH: Court Approves $1.75 Million Settlement in "Ford"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has
approved a class-wide settlement of the action entitled, Ford v.
Natural Health Trends Corp., in the amount of $1.75 million

In January 2016, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and its top executives in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated these
actions under the caption Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-TJH-AFMx, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs,
Mahn Dao and Juan Wang, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi
& Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 29, 2016. The
consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between March 6, 2015 and March 15, 2016 under (i) Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng,
Timothy S. Davidson and George K. Broady (together, the
"Individual Defendants"), and (ii) Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Individual
Defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the legality of its business operations in China,
including running an allegedly illegal multilevel marketing
business. The consolidated complaint seeks an indeterminate
amount of damages, plus interest and costs.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June
15, 2016. After full briefing and a hearing, the Court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss on December 5, 2016. On February
17, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint. On April 14, 2017, the Court entered an order setting
case management deadlines for the case, which included the
conclusion of fact discovery in May 2018 and a final pretrial
conference in August 2018.

Natural Health Trends said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 10, 2017,
the Court entered a stipulation between the parties, postponing
all deadlines and staying the case for thirty days to allow the
parties to engage in settlement discussions. On July 17, 2017,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action. On July 18, 2017, the parties jointly filed a stipulation
and proposed order with the Court, seeking to extend the stay for
approximately sixty days to allow them an opportunity to
negotiate the terms of a written settlement agreement and prepare
and file the documentation necessary to obtain Court approval of
the settlement. The Court entered the requested order on July 25,
2017, effecting a further stay of the case until September 25,
2017. The proposed class-wide settlement in the amount of $1.75
million was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval on
October 3, 2017.

On April 2, 2018, the court approved a class-wide settlement of
the action in the amount of $1.75 million, which will be fully
funded by the Company's insurers.

Natural Health Trends Corp. is an international direct-selling
and e-commerce company. Subsidiaries controlled by the company
sell personal care, wellness, and "quality of life" products
under the "NHT Global" brand. The company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries have an active physical presence in the following
markets: the Americas, which consists of the United States,
Canada, Cayman Islands, Mexico and Peru; Greater China, which
consists of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China; Southeast Asia, which
consists of Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam; South Korea; Japan;
and Europe. The company also operates through an engagement of a
third-party service provider in Russia and Kazakhstan. The
company is based in Rolling Hills Estates, California.


NETGEAR INC: Klebba Sues over Arlo Baby Smart Monitor Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netgear, Inc.'s Arlo baby smart monitor fails to perform as
advertised, the case, RYAN KLEBBA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NETGEAR, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00438-RP (W.D. Tex., May 24, 2018),
alleges.

Netgear described the Arlo Baby as a revolutionary "smart" baby
monitor, capable of a host of "smart" features -- such as the
ability to play music or operate as a night light -- in addition
to its core functionality of video and audio monitoring of
babies. Netgear also advertised that the Arlo Baby would allow
consumers to "[a]lways stay connected to the most important
things in your life, even when you can't be where they are."
Netgear further added: "Arlo Baby is an all-in-one smart baby
monitoring camera designed with you and your baby in mind. Get a
good night sleep and peace-of-mind knowing you'll never miss a
moment."

Klebba purchased an Arlo Baby in August 2017 for $244 at
amazon.com in anticipation of the birth of his twin babies, who
were born in November 2017. The price Klebba paid was a
significant premium over other competing baby monitors, costing
several times as much as many more traditional monitors. Sometime
in September 2017, Klebba set up the Arlo Baby in his nursery and
experimented with its functionality, where he rapidly realized
that the video and audio monitoring features of the Arlo Baby
were unreliable and ineffective, and prone to extended bouts of
heavy pixelization and static.

Netgear is a global networking company that delivers innovative
products to consumers, businesses and service providers.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed classes:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322 3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com


NEW BROADVIEW: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Broadview Manor
Home For Adults, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
New Broadview Manor Home For Adults, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04986 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

New Broadview Manor Home For Adults is a 200 bed adult home
facility licensed by the New York State Department of Health but
privately owned and operated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW DOMINION: September Trial Scheduled for Earthquake Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wilmoth, writing for newsok, reports that a lawsuit claiming
oil company New Dominion LLC is responsible for damage caused by
the 2011 earthquakes near Prague has gained class-action status
and is scheduled for trial in September.

Judge Lori Walkley ruled on May 18 that the class includes
Oklahoma citizens with residential or business property in nine
central Oklahoma counties that suffered damage from the November
2011 earthquakes.  The class includes properties in Cleveland,
Creek, Lincoln, Logan, Oklahoma, Okfuskee, Payne, Pottawatomie
and Seminole counties.

"It's very important to the class members and to my clients, and
it allows the process to be as efficient as possible," said
Scott Poynter, the attorney who is representing the affected home
and business owners.

Fred Buxton, New Dominion's vice president and general council
declined to comment on May 21.

"We don't comment on pending litigation," he said.

The lawsuit claims that New Dominion's wastewater disposal
operations caused a trio of November 2011 earthquakes, including
a magnitude-5.7, which was the strongest quake in recorded state
history until a magnitude-5.8 quake struck near Pawnee in
September 2016.

Judge Walkley scheduled the trial to begin Sept. 10.

Affected home and business owners in the nine-county area are
considered to be in the class unless they opt out.  If the
lawsuit is successful, class members would be able to file claims
with the court.

"We intend to prove in September the science behind induced
seismicity and how these quakes in 2011 were caused by New
Dominion's operations," Mr. Poynter.  "That decision will be
binding on all participants."

It is unclear how many people qualify as class members, but
Mr. Poynter said the Federal Emergency Management Administration
inspected about 400 homes at the time and some business owners
received low-interest disaster loans to help pay for repairs
following the quakes.

Several other earthquake-related lawsuits are pending throughout
the state.

A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 23 and 24 in a lawsuit concerning
the Pawnee quake.


The Pawnee Nation recently withdrew its lawsuit from tribal court
and filed a similar suit in federal court instead.  The tribe is
claiming $400,000 in damage from the Pawnee earthquake.

A case concerning home and business owners in Payne and Logan
counties is ongoing, but has been stayed until September. [GN]


NEW ENGLAND: DOC Hepatitis C Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenifer McKim, writing for New England Center for Investigative
Reporting, reports that lawsuits highlight other challenges the
state of New England faces in caring for sick prisoners.  In
March, the DOC settled a class-action suit with a group of men
who alleged the prison system failed to provide drugs to cure
their hepatitis C.

The suit said more than 1,500 inmates suffered from the disease,
a liver infection that is spread through contact with blood or
bodily fluids, but only three were being treated for it.  If the
settlement is approved by the court, the inmates should soon be
treated more frequently and with more effective drugs, at an
estimated cost of $30,000 to $50,000 per prisoner.

The agreement did not come in time for one of the suit's two
named plaintiffs, Emilian Paszko, a convicted murderer who died
at age 64 of liver disease and kidney failure and is buried at
the Gardner prison cemetery, death records show.

One inmate, Antonio Gomes, wrote a letter to the court in April
urging the state to immediately provide him medical attention,
worried the disease will lead to cancer. "I am a lifer, 65 years
old, and unless I can somehow overturn the conviction or obtain a
reduction in penalty, I cannot get treatment [anywhere] else but
here."

One avenue to reducing the costs of care is medical parole.  With
passage of the new criminal justice law, dozens of inmates are
likely to apply for it, hoping to get out before they die. [GN]


NEW YORK: FDNY Sued Over Discriminatory EMS Promotion Method
------------------------------------------------------------
Janon Fisher, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the
New York City Fire Department (FDNY) is promoting less-qualified
white men in its Emergency Medical Services division -- the most
integrated department in the city -- using murky and
discriminatory criteria, a union charged on May 21 in a class
action suit.

Less than a quarter of lieutenants in the city's EMS, which was
merged with the fire department in 1996, are women, the Uniform
EMS Officers Local 3621 said in the suit, and only 18% of the
women in the department have risen to the rank of captain.

Of those female captains, only 36% are not white and only 47% of
lieutenants are women of color.

In the entire FDNY there are only 52 women, according to the
union.

"Our members deserve proper recognition for their work,
irrespective of their race or gender, just like anyone else,"
Vincent Variale, president of the union that filed the suit.

The union claims that white men are climbing the ranks in the EMS
division because there's no civil service exam above the rank of
lieutenant.

After that, those hoping for promotion are asked to submit
application packages which are reviewed by the mostly the white
male supervisors.

"The decision to instead test these qualifications through
subjective methods is knowingly designed to lack transparency and
allow for the promotions are not standardized and do not
reasonably relate to the tasks and standards for the ranks of
captain, deputy chief and above," according to the suit.

The current method for promoting above the rank of lieutenant "is
merely a pretext, used to allow mostly white and male supervisors
to exert excessive discretion in ultimately being able to select
who they want to promote, not based on merit, but on
impermissible factors," according to the suit.

Lt. Renae Marscol, a black woman who has been an EMS worker since
2010, has been denied promotions to captain four times despite
scoring second highest on the lieutenants exam and an "excellent"
performance record.

"The city is not served by promoting less-qualified applicants. A
promotional process that does not include proper measurements for
skill and knowledge allows for too much discretion," Mr. Variale
said.

The FDNY and the city Law Department did not immediately respond
to calls for comment.

The city Law Department will review the complaint and respond
accordingly, spokesman Nicholas Paolucci said. [GN]


NHL INTERACTIVE: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NHL Interactive
Cyberenterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
NHL Interactive Cyberenterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-05007 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

NHL Interactive Cyberenterprises, LLC is a privately held company
in New York, categorized under sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Valentine Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARY VALENTINE, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTH SHORE
AGENCY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00810-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PKX6ckl7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


OCLARO INC: Neinast Balks at Merger Deal with Lumentum
------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS NEINAST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OCLARO, INC., MARISSA
PETERSON, EDWARD COLLINS, GREG DOUGHERTY, KENDALL COWAN,
DENISE HAYLOR, IAN SMALL, BILL SMITH, JOEL A. SMITH III,
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC., PROTA MERGER SUB, INC., and PROTA
MERGER, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC (N.D.
Cal., May 24, 2018), seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a
proposed stock and cash transaction valued at approximately $1.8
billion wherein Oclaro will be acquired by Lumentum Holdings
Inc., through its affiliates Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC.  The lawsuit says the deal was a result of an unfair
process and is for an unfair price.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
March 12, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Oclaro
will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lumentum, and
Oclaro shareholders will receive a mix of cash and stock totaling
$5.60 in cash and 0.0636 shares of Lumentum common stock for each
share of Oclaro common stock they own. At the time of the signing
of the Merger Agreement, Lumentum shares were trading for $68.98,
resulting in an approximate valuation of Oclaro shares at $9.99
per share. Thereafter, on May 17, 2018, Lumentum filed a
Registration Statement on Schedule S-4 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.

The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number
of reasons. Significantly, the S-4 describes an insufficient
sales process in which the Board only paid lip service to its
fiduciary duties by creating a special committee of the Board to
serve as an "M&A Committee". However, the S-4 reveals that the
M&A Committee was inherently flawed as Defendant Dougherty, the
Company CEO, and an inside Director, who stands to receive tens
of millions of dollars upon the consummation of the Proposed
Transaction, was selected to sit on the committee.

Oclaro is a US-based business manufacturing and selling optical
components. Formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange and a
constituent of the FTSE 100 Index, the company now trades on the
NASDAQ.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicholas Neinast:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "McWhorter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a putative class action captioned
as, McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-cv-01831
(N.D. Ala.).

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the FDCPA by charging
borrowers a convenience fee for making certain loan payments.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The presiding court
previously ruled on Ocwen's motions to dismiss, and Ocwen has
answered the operative complaint.

The company's accrual with respect to this matter is included in
the$46.3 million legal and regulatory accrual.

Ocwen Financial said, "We cannot currently estimate the amount,
if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued."

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
services and originates loans. The company's goal is to be a
world-class servicing and lending company that delivers service
excellence to its customers and servicing clients and strong
returns to its shareholders. The company is based in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Accord in TCPA Suit Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court
preliminarily approved the settlement in the class action suit in
related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Generally, plaintiffs in these actions allege
that Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by using an automated telephone dialing
system to call class members' cell phones without their consent.

On July 28, 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. See Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
1:14-cv-08461-MFK (N.D. Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, 1:16-cv-08677-MFK (N.D. Ill.).

Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement will
include the establishment of a settlement fund to be distributed
to impacted borrowers that submit claims for settlement benefits
pursuant to a claims administration process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual
defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order
to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional
expense and demands on the time of its senior management that
such litigation would involve.

Ocwen Financial said, "The court has preliminarily approved the
settlement and we have paid the settlement amount into an escrow
account held by the settlement administrator. However, there can
be no assurance that the court will finally approve the
settlement. In the event the settlement is not finally approved,
the litigation would continue, and we would vigorously defend the
allegations made against Ocwen. Additional lawsuits may be filed
against us in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is
unable to predict the outcome of these existing lawsuits or any
additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits
or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our
operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not
successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and
results of operations could be materially and adversely
affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
services and originates loans. The company's goal is to be a
world-class servicing and lending company that delivers service
excellence to its customers and servicing clients and strong
returns to its shareholders. The company is based in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Two Opt-Out Securities Suits Filed
---------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is
facing two separate opt-out securities fraud suit in relation to
the company's restatement of its 2013 and first quarter 2014
financial statements.

Ocwen Financial said, "We have previously disclosed the
settlement of the consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit that contained allegations in connection with the
restatements of our 2013 and first quarter 2014 financial
statements, among other matters, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned In re Ocwen
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 9:14-cv-81057-WPD
(S.D. Fla.) (such consolidated lawsuit, the Securities Class
Action)."

In March 2018 and April 2018, respectively, Ocwen was named as a
defendant in two separate "opt-out" securities fraud actions
brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen based
on similar allegations to those contained in the Securities Class
Action. See Brahman Partners et al. v. Ocwen Financial
Corporation et al., 9:18-cv-80359-DMM (S.D. Fla.) and Owl Creek
et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:18-cv-80506-BB
(S.D. Fla.).

Ocwen Financial said, "We cannot currently estimate the amount,
if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued.
Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits
are not successful, our business, financial condition, liquidity
and results of operations could be materially and adversely
affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
services and originates loans. The company's goal is to be a
world-class servicing and lending company that delivers service
excellence to its customers and servicing clients and strong
returns to its shareholders. The company is based in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


ORTHOTOUCH: Withdraws Appeals in HSAG Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that property
group Orthotouch has criticised the developments in the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA), which saw the group withdraw its appeals
and tendering punitive legal costs to the Highveld Syndication
Action Group (HSAG).

Orthotouch claims its legal counsel wasn't given an opportunity
to argue its case in full and that the appeals were withdrawn to
avoid references of impropriety that may have been made in a
judgment.

The appeals were against two scathing High Court judgments
involving Orthotouch and its owner, property magnate Nic
Georgiou.  The courts found Georgiou acted unethically and abused
the legal system when he secretly settled the claims of the six
applicants who represented around 7 000 HSAG members in the
applications to have the Section 155 Scheme of Arrangement set
aside and for the certification of the class action.  After
settling the claims, the six withdrew their applications and
changed lawyers without informing the HSAG's lawyers.  If
allowed, it would have scuttled the applications.

Press statement

In a press statement, Orthotouch says it is "disappointed that
the SCA did not allow its full legal argument to be heard . . .
and believes that had the Orthotouch counsel been given the
opportunity to argue the appeals, the court would have been in a
position to give clarity on the rights and obligations of the
representative plaintiffs in applications to certify class
actions".

The statement, which largely addresses inaccurate media reports,
went on to state that the appeals were withdrawn by Orthotouch
and Georgiou's "legal teams to avoid any inference of impropriety
being drawn and costs were tendered.  There was furthermore no
concession that Georgiou acted unethically and abused the legal
system".

Moneyweb did not attend the hearing, but has confirmed from
several sources that the full bench of judges was highly critical
of Orthotouch and Georgiou's conduct during their counsel's legal
argument.

SCA response

Moneyweb put Orthotouch's claims of not being allowed to present
their full legal argument to the court to the chief registrar of
the SCA, Mrs C van der Merwe.  She officially responded as
follows:

"The following is what, in fact, occurred. Proceedings took place
in open court.  During the course of argument by counsel on
behalf of the appellants, they were afforded an opportunity to
take instructions.  After a fairly lengthy adjournment the court
was informed that the appellants were withdrawing the appeals and
tendered costs.  The respondents were unwilling to accept costs
other than on a punitive scale.  At that stage the parties could
not reach agreement on costs.  Consequently, the court reserved
judgment in relation to costs.  Minutes thereafter, counsel on
behalf of the appellants informed the court in chambers that they
were now offering costs on a punitive scale."

HSAG response

The HSAG legal representative Jacques Theron of Theron and
Associates, rejected Orthotouch's version of events.  "It is
startling to even suggest that five judges of the SCA disallowed
a party to present its arguments to the court.  If this was the
case, it should be a national scandal of historic proportions!"

He said that Orthotouch and Georgiou's counsel set out their
arguments in their Heads of Argument, which were filed at the
court prior to the hearing.  "The five judges simply made it
clear that they were very unimpressed with any of those
arguments."

In response to Orthotouch's assertion that the appeals were
withdrawn to avoid any inference of impropriety being drawn,
Theron said two high courts already found improprieties in
Orthotouch and Mr. Georgiou's conduct.

He added that the tendering of punitive costs "speaks volumes . .
. any punitive costs order is given only if a party acted in a
way that warrants the strongest disapproval or condemnation by
the court".

He added that the HSAG is of the view that Georgiou and
Orthotouch, through their withdrawal, prevented the judges to
give a scathing written judgment.

Late payment of interest

Derek Cohen, receiver of the scheme, also took action against
Orthotouch regarding the late payment of interest to investors.

In a letter addressed to investors he states that the late
payments are unacceptable.

"Late payments persist despite the latitude given to Orthotouch
and Zephan in this regard. In recent months payment of monthly
interest on the 7th of each month (per the arrangement) has
become the exception rather than the rule.  More recently, there
has been a deterioration in the payment patterns.

"I find this position to be unacceptable and therefore my
attorneys have been instructed to address a letter of demand to
Orthotouch and Zephan placing them on terms and inter alia
demanding that should future monthly interest payments not be
paid by the 7th of each month I will be compelled to approach the
courts." [GN]


OSSIC: Backers of 3D Sound Headphones Threaten Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Matney, writing for Techcrunch, reports that after taking
tens of thousands of crowdfunding pre-orders for a high-end pair
of "3D sound" headphones, audio startup Ossic announced it is
shutting down the company and backers will not be receiving
refunds.

The company raised $3.2 million across Kickstarter and Indiegogo
for their Ossic X headphones, which they pitched as a pair of
high-end head-tracking headphones that would be perfect for
listening to 3D audio, especially in a VR environment.  While the
company also raised a "substantial seed investment," in a letter
on the Ossic website, the company blamed the slow adoption of
virtual reality alongside their crowdfunding campaign stretch
goals that bogged down their R&D team.

"This was obviously not our desired outcome.  The team worked
exceptionally hard and created a production-ready product that is
a technological and performance breakthrough.  To fail at the 5
yard-line is a tragedy.  We are extremely sorry that we cannot
deliver your product and want you to know that the team has done
everything possible including investing our own savings and
working without salary to exhaust all possibilities."

Techcrunch has reached out to the company for additional details.

Through January 2017, the San Diego company had received more
than 22,000 pre-orders for their Ossic X headphones.  This past
January, Ossic announced they had shipped out the first units to
the 80 backers in their $999 developer tier headphones.  In that
same update, the company said they would enter "mass production"
by late spring 2018.

In the end, after tens of thousands of pre-orders, Ossic only
built 250 pairs of headphones and only shipped a few dozen to
Kickstarter backers.

Crowdfunding campaign failures for hardware products are rarely
shocking, but often the collapse comes from the company not being
able to acquire additional funding from outside investors.  Here,
Ossic appears to have been misguided from the start, and even
with $3.2 million in crowdfunding and seed funding, which they
said nearly matched that number, they were left unable to begin
large-scale manufacturing.  The company said in their letter that
it would likely take more than $2 million in additional funding
to deliver the existing backlog of pre-orders.

Backers are understandably quite upset about not receiving their
headphones.  A group of more than 1,200 Facebook users have
joined a recently created page threatening a class action lawsuit
against the team.

Update: A representative from Indiegogo stated that the figure on
their site included the funds raised by Kickstarter, putting
total crowdfunding of Ossic X at $3.2 million, not $5.9 million.
[GN]


PACIFIC COAST: Portion of Settlement Funds Not Yet Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------
The $7.6 million settlement in a California class action lawsuit
has not yet been fully distributed to class members, Pacific
Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, against the Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, PCEC
(GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive
officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and
the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement
that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence
and strict liability claims under the Securities Act and alleges
that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue
statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The
plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific
Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC
(GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same
claims and makes the same allegations, against the same
defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014,
the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single
action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle
the consolidated action. On June 12, 2017, the Court entered a
final judgment in the action approving the settlement in the
amount of $7.6 million.  On February 28, 2018, the Court
determined that the approved settlement amount had not yet been
fully distributed to class members.

As a result, the Court set an additional hearing date of May 22,
2018 to allow time for the claims administrator to determine
whether the remaining funds could be distributed to class
members.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. The approved settlement does not require any
payment from the Trust.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed
in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant
to a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP
("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National
Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The
Trust Agreement was amended and restated by PCEC, the Trustee and
the Delaware Trustee on the inception date (May 8, 2012).


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Website not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04633 (S.D.N.Y., May
24, 2018), contends that the Defendant fails to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website WWW.PIMCO.COM to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, in a violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer.

Pacific Investment is an American investment management firm
headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with over 2,000
employees working in 13 offices across 12 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575 4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


PERCEPTA LLC: Layton Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LAUREN LAYTON And all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. PERCEPTA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01488-CEM-DCI
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks Court to grant conditional
certification of this action and:

   a. require that within 30 days hereof, the Defendants
      provide Plaintiff's counsel with a list of all current and
      former customer service/call center employees who worked
      for Defendant, PERCEPTA in the State of Florida, from
      August 14, 2014 to the present so that each member of the
      Putative Class can be notified of the pendency of this
      action and his/her rights;

   b. approve the sending of notice by U.S. Mail to each
      current and former employees who worked as a customer
      service/call center employee for the Defendant in the State
      of Florida, from August 2014 to the present;

   c. require the Defendant to post the Notice in a
      conspicuous place in Defendants' Melbourne, Florida in
      either an employee break room and/or next to the Minimum
      Wage Notice posters located in each of Defendant's Customer
      service/Call centers;

   d. appoint Maurice Arcadier, Esquire of Arcadier, Biggie &
      Wood, PLLC., as counsel for the putative class; and

   e. award other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uu56WCyF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan B. Babb, Esq.
          Maurice Arcadier, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
          Stephen Biggie, Esq.
          ARCADIER, BIGGIE & WOOD, PLLC.
          2815 W. New Haven, Suite 304
          Melbourne, FL 32904
          Telephone: (321) 953 5998
          Facsimile: (321) 953 6075
          E-mail: office@wamalaw.com
                  arcadier@wamalaw.com


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Faces "Weintraub" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performant
Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Angelica Weintraub, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Performant Recovery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03301 (E.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Performant Recovery, Inc. offers audit and recovery services to
payers of healthcare claims to protect against lost revenues. Its
services include identification and recovery of underpayments and
overpayments that result from erroneous, fraudulent, and wasteful
procedures. The company serves government and private
organizations that outsource their services to agencies whose
core competencies are in the examination and resolution of
healthcare related assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


PERSONAL HEALTH: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Personal Health
Imaging, PLLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Personal
Health Imaging, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05013 (S.D.
N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Personal Health Imaging, PLLC is a medical diagnostic imaging
center in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


PHARMAVITE: Court Reinstates Vitamin E Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court has reinstated a proposed class action over Pharmavite's
vitamin E supplements, finding a lower court wrongly dismissed a
California man's claims that the product had been falsely labeled
as promoting cardiovascular health.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said Noah Bradach had standing to pursue
his claims under California law, as certain statements on dietary
supplement labels were not preempted by the U.S. Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA). [GN]


PHH CORPORATION: Fratis Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen Financial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMI FRATIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHH CORPORATION, JAMES O. EGAN,
JANE D. CARLIN, JAMES C. NEUHAUSER, CHARLES P. PIZZI, KEVIN
STEIN, CARROLL R. WETZEL, JR., and ROBERT B. CROWL, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09674-RBK-JS (D.N.J., May 24, 2018),
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on
a proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the proposed
merger unless, and until, material information is disclosed to
PHH shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the
Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and the other public holders of the common stock of
PHH Corporation against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between PHH and Ocwen
Financial Corporation. On February 27, 2018, the Board caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to
which Company shareholders will receive $11.00 per share in cash
for each share of Company common stock they own, a deal valued at
$360 million. On April 6, 2018, in order to convince PHH
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
PREM 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Though Defendants have extolled the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the
fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections for
the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by
the Board in recommending that Company shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Merger. The financial projections were also
utilized by PHH's financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, in conducting the valuation analyses in support of its
fairness opinion that the consideration to be received by PHH via
the Proposed Merger was fair from a financial point of view to
the Company. Further, the Proxy omits material information
regarding the Company's confidentiality agreements it reached
with strategic parties during the sales process. It is imperative
that the material information that has been omitted from the
Proxy is disclosed prior to the shareholder vote in order to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Merger.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 310
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 225 9001
          Facsimile: (201) 225 9002
          E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983 1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983 0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


PHILLIP KNOWLES: Ct. Conditionally Certifies "Morfin-Arias" Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification of FLSA Putative Class in the case
captioned PEDRO MORFIN-ARIAS, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP KNOWLES, DBA
CERAMIC & STONE DESIGN, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06114-BLF (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' seeks conditional certification of a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to
pay overtime compensation.

Morfin-Arias brings a claim for violation of overtime provisions
of the FLSA, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees. Morfin-Arias further asserts claims for: violation of
California Labor Code Section 510 (failure to pay overtime
wages); violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512
(failure to provide meal and rest breaks); violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200;
injunctive relief; and violation of California Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA).

CSD objects to (1) several declaration statements of Morfin-Arias
regarding his employment at CSD; (2) Morfin-Arias' earnings
statements; (3) several declaration statements of Morfin-Arias'
counsel, David Baker, regarding CSD's timecard printouts for
several employees; and (4) a list of forty-three potential
members of the FLSA class. Morfin-Arias filed a reply to CSD's
objections.

The Court rules that the objected evidence is relevant to the
issue of overtime pay.  The objected declaration statements are
based on Morfin-Arias' own experiences and Mr. Baker's own
observation of CSD's timecard printouts and thus there is
sufficient foundation which can be relied upon at the conditional
certification stage. If Morfin-Arias' declarations are based on
an incorrect view of the situation, then defendant can bring that
up on a motion to de-certify the class. Accordingly, the Court
also overrules CSD's objections to the evidence as being
irrelevant, speculative, or lacking foundation.

In its opposition, CSD argues that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because Morfin-Arias' original complaint does not
allege that either CSD or its employees engaged in interstate
commerce.

The Court finds that the FAC's allegations on their face are
sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts
have subject matter jurisdiction over all colorable civil claims
arising under the laws of the United States. Here, the FAC's
enterprise theory allegations" are not patently immaterial,
insubstantial or frivolous. Indeed, CSD chose not to refile its
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but
instead submitted its answer to the FAC.

The Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction based
on the FAC's allegations.

Accordingly, the Court rejects CSD's argument that Morfin-Arias'
motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action should
be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court next
turns to whether Morfin-Arias has satisfied his burden to show
that the potential class members are similarly situated.

Morfin-Arias contends that the complaint's allegations and the
discovery produced by CSD show that he and the potential class
members are similarly situated. Specifically, Morfin-Arias
contends that CSD has a policy of not paying overtime wages to
its nonexempt hourly stone and tile workers.

To support the allegation that CSD failed to pay overtime
compensation, Morfin-Arias provides his own and his counsel's
declarations as well as his earning statements and several
timecards obtained through discovery.

The Court is satisfied that Morfin-Arias has made substantial
allegations that are supported by declarations and exhibits.
Morfin-Arias has stated that he did not receive overtime
compensation and that other workers complained about not being
paid overtime wages. Morfin-Arias' allegations are supported by
the documents obtained through discovery. He has submitted
timecards of three employees (including his own) which indicate
that CSD has paid its workers with check and cash and that CSD
calculated the overtime pay using the employee's regular pay
rate.

Accordingly, there is sufficient support at the conditional
certification stage to establish that the putative members were
paid using the same mathematical calculation and thus are
similarly situated. Morfin-Arias' allegations and the submitted
documents go beyond boilerplate and legal conclusions and provide
a reasonable basis for concluding that CSD's alleged payment
policy applied to the proposed class members.

CSD further avers that it had no set policy or formula on how its
employees' pay was split between check or cash. According to CSD,
the ratio between the check and cash payment varied from employee
to employee. Id. As an example, CSD contends that the timecard of
one employee, Louis C., shows that CSD paid him $1100 for 50
hours of work in check and the remainder in cash. The Court is
unpersuaded that CSD's argument defeats conditional certification
at the notice-stage.

While there may be variations between employees on the amount of
wages CSD paid in cash, that fact does not change Morfin-Arias'
allegation that CSD failed to pay overtime to the proposed class
members. Indeed, CSD does not dispute that the mathematical
calculations shown in the submitted timecards use the employees'
regular rate to calculate overtime compensation. To further
inquire whether there are significant variations on CSD' payment
of wages to the proposed class members would require an
evaluation of the merits of claims, which the Court declines to
do so at the notice-stage.

At this juncture, Morfin-Arias need not conclusively establish
that collective resolution is proper, because CSD will be free to
revisit this issue at the second stage.

The Court grants Morfin-Arias' motion to conditionally certify an
FLSA collective action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8nkkcd3 from Leagle.com.

Pedro Morfin-Arias, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Robert David Baker
-- rbaker@rdblaw.net -- Robert David Baker, Inc.

Phillip Knowles, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Daniel A. Brodnax -- dbrodnax@nowlandlaw.com -- Law Offices of
Thomas F. Nowland, Sean Bruce Janzen, Law Offices of Thomas F.
Nowland & Thomas F. Nowland, Law Offices of Thomas F. Nowland.


POLAND SPRING: Judge Dismisses Spring Water Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Connecticut
has dismissed a lawsuit that accuses Poland Spring's parent
company of selling water that's sourced from wells, not springs.

Charles Broll, general counsel for Nestle Waters North America,
praised the judge's decision to dismiss the "meritless lawsuit."

Stamford, Connecticut-based Nestle Waters North America contends
the matter was already litigated in 2003 in Illinois and that a
federal court can't pre-empt a state court.  That case ended with
a $12 million settlement and Poland Spring continuing to tout
"100 percent natural spring water."

Poland Spring says its product meets the FDA's definition that
allows a bottling company to call its product "spring water" if
it is drawn from the same source as a natural spring and meets
certain requirements for chemical composition. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Geis" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Katie Geis, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00859 (E.D. Wis., June 5, 2018).

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Accounting Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Gannon, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
PPG is facing a class action suit in connection with the
company's ongoing investigation into improper accounting
procedures at the global paints giant.

A complaint filed May 20 in the U.S. District for the Central
District of California alleges that PPG misled shareholders about
its first quarter financial statements and the quality of
internal controls.

Investors purchased shares in PPG at artificially inflated prices
because the accounting errors were hidden and the stock price
fell by 5 percent per share after the mistakes were disclosed,
the suit states.

The Downtown-based company said in April that it was
investigating errors in its results after an internal reporting
system identified $1.4 million in expenses that should have been
accrued in the first quarter.

On May 10, PPG fired its controller, Mark C. Kelly, and
reassigned two employees who worked for him.

Also that day, the company disclosed that the investigation found
errors in the first-quarter report that would result in a net
decrease in income before taxes of $7.8 million.

PPG notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
plans to refile its first-quarter results and said it has also
found errors in its 2017 reported results.

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit are being represented by
Boston law firm Block & Leviton. [GN]


PPG INDUSTRIES: Violates Exchange Act, Mild Says
------------------------------------------------
TREVOR MILD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL H.
MCGARRY, VINCENT J. MORALES, and MARK C. KELLY, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04231 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2018), seeks
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of PPG from April 24, 2017
through May 10, 2018, inclusive. On April 24, 2017, the Company
filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 with the
Securities Exchange Commission, which provided the Company's
first quarter 2017 financial results and position. The 1Q 2017
10-Q stated there "were no changes in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Company's most recent fiscal quarter that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting." The 1Q 2017
10-Q was signed by Defendants Morales and Kelly.

On February 15, 2018, PPG filed an annual report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC, which
provided the Company's annual financial statements and position.
The 2017 10-K was signed by Defendants McGarry, Morales and
Kelly. The 2017 10-K contained signed SOX certifications by
Defendants McGarry and Morales attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to
the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.

According to the complaint, the statements referenced were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PPG's consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 and the quarterly
financial statements of 2017 contained improper accounting
entries and could no longer be relied upon; (2) PPG failed to
maintain adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

PPG Industries is an American Fortune 500 company and global
supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. With
headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG operates in more
than 70 countries around the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PPG INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of PPG Industries, Inc. (NYSE:PPG)
from April 24, 2017 through May 10, 2018, both dates inclusive
("Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PPG
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the PPG class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1343.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PPG's consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2017 and the quarterly financial statements of
2017 contained improper accounting entries and could no longer be
relied upon; (2) PPG failed to maintain adequate internal
controls; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 19, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1343.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen?firm.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action
Services for number of securities class action settlements in
2017.  The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since
2013. [GN]


PROJECT MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
SHAUN A. JACKSON, JAMES O. CASHER, DAVID A. HOWELL, JOSE R.
QUINONES, KYLE L. SEENEY, and BRELAND J. THIBODEAUX, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, and MICHAEL E. WARD, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00281-RGD-RJK (E.D. Va., May 24,
2018), contends that the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40
hours per week, but the Defendant failed to pay them all of the
overtime pay they were due by neglecting to include an "hourly
per diem" in their regular rate of pay. As a result, the
Plaintiffs were each underpaid $15 for each hour of overtime they
worked.  The lawsuit asserts violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Project Management is doing business in staffing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christian L. Connell, Esq.
          CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C.
          555 East Main Street, Suite 1102
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 533 6500
          Facsimile: (757) 299 4770
          E-mail: christian.connell@outlook.com


RICHARD EVANS: "Holm" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Holm on their own behalf
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Richard Evans, the Defendant, Case No. RIC18006603, was removed
from the Superior Court of California County of Riverside, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside) on May 24, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01098-JFW-RAO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F.
Walter.[BN]


SAMSUNG: Motion to Send Class Action to Arbitration Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that a federal judge has denied Samsung's effort
to arbitrate a proposed class action over allegations that one of
its phones has a tendency to overheat and catch fire.

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor on May 21 denied Samsung's
motions to either send the class action to arbitration, or
dismiss the claims entirely.  Although the phone maker had pushed
for arbitration, noting that lead plaintiff Brittany Jones never
opted out of the company's arbitration agreement, Judge Ponsor
said the agreement and opt-out language were too inconspicuously
buried in the phone's informational manual to be enforceable.

"The degree of prominence of the arbitration agreement here seems
calibrated with dual goals: on the one hand, just enough to
persuade a court to smother potential litigation; on the other
hand, not enough to make it likely that a consumer will actually
notice the agreement and perhaps hesitate to buy," Judge Ponsor
said. "It is one thing to hold consumers to agreements they have
not read; it is another to hold them to agreements that, perhaps
by design, they will probably never know about."

Judge Ponsor sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, but the case was assigned to him by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  According to Judge Ponsor,
Ms. Jones sued the device maker after her Samsung 3S allegedly
overheated when it was charging in her mother's house and caught
fire.  The complaint said the incident eventually caused $10,000
in damage to the home. Jones brought strict liability,
negligence, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation
claims.

In response to the suit, Samsung sought to compel arbitration, or
to dismiss the claims entirely.   The company noted that the
phone came with an informational booklet, and contended that a
sticker on the outside of the box the phone came in notified
Jones about the significance of the booklet.

According to Judge Ponsor, the arbitration agreement appeared on
page 19 of the 64-page booklet, in a section regarding
warranties.  Along with saying that all disputes needed to be
resolved at arbitration and that disputes couldn't be
consolidated with other claims against Samsung, the booklet said
the buyer had 30 days to opt out of the arbitration agreement,
Judge Ponsor said.

There was no dispute that Ms. Jones did not opt out of
arbitration. The company contended that Judge Ponsor should
follow the 1997 case in Hill v. Gateway 2000, in which the
Seventh Circuit compelled arbitration despite a plaintiff's
claims that he had not read the arbitration agreement.  Judge
Ponsor instead chose to follow precedent established in the Ninth
Circuit's 2017 case Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America
and the Third Circuit's decision from last year in Noble v.
Samsung Electronics America.  Those cases, Judge Ponsor said,
came to similar conclusions that an arbitration agreement that is
"buried inconspicuously" should not be enforceable.

"Defendant noted at argument that, if Samsung had wanted to make
the arbitration agreement even more inconspicuous, it could
have," Judge Ponsor said.

"This is probably true, though it would not have been easy."
Daniel Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Sedran & Berman,
who, along with Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce & Associates, is
representing Ms. Jones, said he was pleased with the ruling.  "We
believe that the judge decided correctly," Mr. Levin said.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer attorney Robert Katerberg --
robert.katerberg@arnoldporter.com -- who is representing Samsung,
did not return a call seeking comment. [GN]


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Deka" Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case
entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-
K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was
brought against the Company, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent
public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems
and oversight. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was
denied.

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes.  Santander said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 11, 2017,
the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the
resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re
Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is the holding company for
Santander Consumer USA Inc., a full-service, technology-driven
consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-
party servicing. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Trigo Gonzalez" Underway in Puerto Rico
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that Santander,
Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander Puerto Rico, Santander
Securities LLC, a broker-dealer headquartered in Boston,
Santander Asset Management, LLC and several directors and members
of senior management of these entities are defendants in a
purported class action and shareholder derivative suit pending in
the United States District Court for the District of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico captioned Dionisio Trigo Gonzalez et
al. v. Banco Santander, S.A. et al., No. 3:2016cv02868.

Brought by customers of certain Puerto Rico closed-end funds, the
complaint alleges misconduct including that the entities and
individuals created, controlled, managed and advised certain CEFs
within the First Puerto Rico Family of Funds from March 1, 2012
through the present to the detriment of the Funds and their
shareholders. Brought on behalf of the Funds and Puerto-Rico-
based investors, the complaint seeks unspecified damages but
alleges damages to be at least tens of millions of dollars. The
court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to Puerto Rico
state court, and plaintiffs have sought reconsideration of that
decision.

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Ponsa-Rabell" Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that Santander
Securities LLC, Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander Puerto Rico,
Santander Consumer, and Banco Santander, S.A. are defendants in a
putative class action alleging federal securities and common law
claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of more than
$180 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101 million of closed end
funds during the period from December 2012 to October 2013. The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et.
al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243 (the "Ponsa-Rabell
Lawsuit").

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale
of Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds. The
court denied a motion to consolidate the Trigo Lawsuit with the
Ponsa-Rabell Lawsuit.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Suit over Mexican Government Bonds
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on March 30,
2018, a purported antitrust class action was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters & Pension Retirement System, et al. v.
Banco Santander, S.A. et al., No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO.  The MGB
Lawsuit is against the Company, Santander Investment Securities
Inc., Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A. Institucion de
Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and Santander
Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of a class
of persons who entered into Mexican government bond transactions
between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons
were either domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled
outside the United States, transacted in the United States. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander
defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws
by conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Former CFO Dropped as Defendant in "Parmelee"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has
dismissed one of the defendants in the case, Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

A court on January 3, 2018, granted Santander Consumer's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit as to defendant Ismail Dawood (Santander
Consumer's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the motion
as to all other defendants.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District
of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the "Parmelee Lawsuit"). On April
4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the "Benson Lawsuit").

Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed
against SC and certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired SC's securities between
February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson
Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the
consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint. The amended class action complaint in the
Parmelee Lawsuit alleges that SC made false or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange
Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with,
among other things, SC's change in its methodology for estimating
its ACL and correction of such allowance for prior periods in,
among other public disclosures, SC's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2015, SC's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and SC's amended
filings for prior reporting periods.

The amended class action complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On March 14,
2017, SC filed a motion to dismiss the Parmelee Lawsuit. On March
14, 2017, SC filed a motion to dismiss the Parmelee Lawsuit. On
April 25, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss, and on June 9, 2017, SC filed a reply to the
plaintiffs' opposition, Santander said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is the parent holding company of
Santander Bank, National Association, (the "Bank" or "SBNA"), a
national banking association, and owns approximately 59% of
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (together with its
subsidiaries, "SC"), a specialized consumer finance company
focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. SHUSA is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office
is in Wilmington, Delaware.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Fife has filed a class action lawsuit against Scientific
Games Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On April 17, 2018, plaintiff Sheryl Fife filed a putative class
action against Scientific Games Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington. In her
complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all
persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly
lost chips playing Scientific Games' online social casino games,
including but not limited to Jackpot Party(R) Social Casino and
Gold Fish(R) Casino.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of
Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's
consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.

Scientific Games Corporation is a leading developer of
technology-based products and services and associated content for
the worldwide gaming, lottery, social and digital gaming
industries. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Gonpo" FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part a magistrate
judge's Report and Recommendation recommending denial of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMPA GONPO, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 16-40138-MGM (D. Mass.).

In her Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends
the Court (1) deny both 12(b)(1) motions, and (2) deny the Motion
to Dismiss re: Improper Addition of Claims and Parties.

12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss -- Involvement of Interstate Commerce

The Defendants moved to dismiss the FLSA claims in the original
and amended complaints on identical grounds. They contended in
both instances that the Plaintiff failed to allege their
employment involved interstate commerce and that such failure
deprived the court of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The
R&R correctly noted that such allegations are not a
jurisdictional requirement but an element of FLSA claims and on
that basis denied the Defendants' jurisdictional challenge.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient
to satisfy both those elements. The amended complaint alleges
that (i) Stonewall has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per
year, and (ii) purchases and handles goods moved in interstate
commerce (including flagstone, bluestone, and marble), and
engages in construction in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Connecticut, and New York. These allegations are more than enough
to establish enterprise coverage at this stage, where all
inferences are drawn in Plaintiff's favor.

Accordingly, these objections are overruled.

As construed here, the Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Tolling
sought two forms of relief: (i) tolling of the statute of
limitations for claims asserted by Phulotsang, Tobden, and
Dechen, and (ii) tolling of the statute of limitations for any
claims ultimately made by potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The R&R
denied the former without prejudice and the latter as a premature
effort to elicit an advisory opinion.

The Defendants now object that both denials should have been made
with prejudice.

As for the contention that denial of the request to toll claims
for potential opt-in plaintiffs should be made with prejudice,
the court likewise overrules the objection, which appears to be
premised on the court's adopting the R&R's recommendation to deny
conditional certification, which is rejected above. Suffice to it
say that the timeliness of potential plaintiffs' claims should be
addressed when particular plaintiffs, if any, opt in writing.

The R&R granted the Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion with respect to
the Plaintiff's Section 7434 claims without prejudice to the
Plaintiff's ability to seek leave to file an amended complaint
that cured pleading deficiencies. The Defendants object that
denying without prejudice will allow a third bite at the apple.
The court defers to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on this issue.
Pursuant to common practice and the court's general referral
order the magistrate has and will continue to oversee discovery
and future motions for leave to file amended pleadings, and the
court sees no reason to interfere with that process.

12(b)(6) Allegations Supporting Willfulness of FLSA Violations

The court agrees with the R&R's analysis concerning the
sufficiency of the Plaintiff's allegations to support a claim of
willful violation of the FLSA and denial of Defendant's 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss the same.

Here, the Plaintiff's allegations concerning willfulness pass
muster. He has alleged, among other things, that the Defendants
failed to keep full and accurate records of hours worked,
underreported his hours on pay slips, sometimes paid wages in
cash, and consistently failed to pay overtime wages. These
allegations alone are enough to allow for reasonable inferences
of willfulness, just as the evidence of the same allowed the fact
finders to reasonably find willfulness in the cases cited in the
R&R. The Defendants are correct in noting the cases cited in the
R&R involved findings of fact made from evidence that included
more detail than the facts alleged here, but those allegations
are nevertheless enough at this stage.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwv42vj from
Leagle.com.

Jampa Gonpo, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy -- johntroy@troypllc.com --
Troy Law, PLLC, pro hac vice & Rebecca G. Pontike --
rpontikes@psemploymentlaw.com -- Pontikes & Swartz, LLC.
NFN Tobden, Jamyang Gyatso Phulotsang & Tulku Dechen, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC & Rebecca G. Pontikes,
Pontikes & Swartz, LLC.

Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, doing business as & Sonam Rinchen
Lama, Defendants, represented by Thomas T. Merrigan, Sweeney
Merrigan Law.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Implements Changes After Foster Care Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that can you imagine being
responsible for 40 children? How about 75 or more? It's simply
too much to ask, but that's what some Department of Social
Services caseworkers are dealing with as the foster care agency
strives to beef up staffing and reduce caseloads.

At the same time, the agency is recruiting more foster families.
More than 600 are still needed to meet a goal set in 2015 to
recruit 1,500 new ones.

As reported by The Post and Courier's Seanna Adcox, about 350 DSS
caseworkers, or 40 percent of the workforce, are responsible for
40 or more children, and 22 of them are juggling 75 or more
children.

Only about a third of caseworkers are overseeing fewer than 25
children, a goal DSS set four years ago in response to a class-
action lawsuit that alleged a wide range of deficiencies in the
agency serving some 4,500 children statewide.  According to a
separate 2015 report by The Post and Courier, South Carolina
placed its youngest wards into group homes or institutions at the
highest rate of any state.

Since then, DSS has made significant progress under director
Susan Alford, who was appointed to shape up the agency. Its child
welfare budget has more than doubled to more than $20 million,
with the authority to fill 186 caseworker and 37 supervisor
positions over the coming fiscal year.

DSS has increased caseworker visits with foster children, raised
pay for foster families, investigated abuse allegations quicker,
stopped temporarily housing foster children in hotels and office
buildings, and stopped holding foster children with no other
place to go in juvenile halls, among other improvements.

This year the state created a separate Department of Child
Advocacy to investigate complaints of abuse or mistreatment
involving foster children.  Another piece of legislation makes it
easier for the agency to disclose to foster families a child's
medical and mental health records.

But hiring and retaining caseworkers remains a persistent
problem.  The turnover rate has been reduced from a high of about
40 percent in 2014 to less than 30 percent recently.  But like
many other state jobs, starting pay is relatively low -- about
$35,000 per year -- and the agency has struggled to find
qualified caseworkers.  As it is, DSS has only come about a third
of the way toward meeting its hiring goal by 2020.

As part of the settlement of the lawsuit, Ms. Alford is scheduled
to update U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel on the agency's
progress.

Admittedly, Ms. Alford is in a tough position.  But she has a
strong advocate in Judge Gergel, and she should use the court's
influence -- as the judge himself has urged -- to help her make
the mandated reforms.

Some lawmakers and court-appointed monitors have criticized Ms.
Alford for failing to hire caseworkers fast enough to make net
gains and for having money for hiring left over from the previous
year's budget.

Ms. Alford should consider using any leftover funding for sign-on
bonuses or other creative incentives.  The agency already helps
employees cover tuition for continuing education.  DSS is still
recovering in part from budget cuts dating to the Great
Recession, and it can ill-afford to fall behind now when funding
is flowing.

To bring caseloads down to 25 children per caseworker and to
conform to the terms of the lawsuit settlement, significant
strides in hiring will need to be made over the next two years.
The health, safety and happiness of thousands of children in
foster care depend on it. [GN]


SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Court Dismisses SAC in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned ARENA
RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN
GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-
CV-03805-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Arena Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Pacifica Restaurants,
LLC, Vine and Barrel LLC, and Daniel Flores filed this putative
class action against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC and
Southern Glazer Wine & Spirits of America, Inc.  The  Plaintiffs
are California-based businesses that had accounts with Southern
Glazer, wherein they and authorized agents thereof were permitted
to purchase liquor from Southern Glazer using the Plaintiffs'
respective liquor licenses (issued by the California Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control and/or their Southern Glazer-issued
account numbers.

The Court orders as follows:

   -- the Defendants' motion to dismiss the eleventh claim as
duplicative of the breach of contract claim with prejudice is
granted;

   -- the first claim for promissory fraud is dismissed with
leave to amend;

   -- the second claim for below-cost sales is dismissed with
leave to amend;

   -- the third claim for loss-leader sales is dismissed with
leave to amend;

   -- the fourth claim for secret rebates is dismissed with leave
to amend;

   -- the fifth claim for unlawful threats and intimidation is
dismissed with leave to amend;

   -- the sixth claim for constructive trust is dismissed with
prejudice;

   -- the seventh claim for breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed
with prejudice;

   -- the eighth claim for common law fraud is dismissed with
leave to amend;

   -- the ninth claim for unfair business practices is dismissed
with leave to amend;

   -- the tenth claim for breach of contract is dismissed with
leave to amend; and

   -- the eleventh claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing is dismissed with prejudice.


The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' promissory fraud and common
law fraud claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine unless
an exception applies.  The Plaintiffs' promissory fraud and
common law fraud claims fall far short of Rule 9(b)'s requirement
to plead fraud with specificity. The theory of falsity underlying
both claims is that the Defendants promised to keep the
Plaintiffs' account information confidential, but despite this
promise the Defendants allegedly used the Plaintiffs' account
information to make sales to third parties.  However, the
Plaintiffs fail to plead any specific facts about these alleged
third-party sales. The only facts in the SAC are the conclusory
allegations that the Defendants used the Plaintiffs' liquor
license numbers and/or their Southern Glazer account numbers to
sell liquor to bars/restaurants/clubs that do not possess liquor
licenses.

The Plaintiffs do not allege who made the alleged third-party
sales, when the sales were made, or what was sold. Nor do the
Plaintiffs identify the third parties. The Plaintiffs argue that
they will require discovery to specifically plead the facts of
such fraudulent behavior. However, the Plaintiffs do not even
allege any specific details about information that would already
be under the Plaintiffs' control, such as alleging that they had
been billed or had paid for products that they did not order or
receive.

Because the SAC fails to allege with specificity the conduct
underlying the Plaintiffs' theory of falsity, the Plaintiffs'
claim for promissory fraud fails because the Plaintiffs have not
adequately alleged that the Defendants failed to perform the
promise to keep the Plaintiffs' account information confidential.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs' common law fraud claim fails because
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a misrepresentation.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the first and eighth claims for promissory fraud and common law
fraud. Moreover, because the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled
their promissory fraud claim, the Plaintiffs do not qualify for
the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule.
Thus, the Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' first and eighth
claims because they are barred by the economic loss rule.
However, because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs may be able
to amend their complaint to adequately plead these claims and,
relatedly, to establish that they qualify for the fraudulent
inducement exception to the economic loss rule, the Court grants
the Plaintiffs leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybtpytx4 from Leagle.com.

Arena Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Pacifica Restaurants, LLC, Vine
and Barrel LLC & Daniel Flores, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Corey
Benjamin Bennett -- cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Scott Cole &
Associates, Kelley Gelini -- kelley@wakefordlaw.com -- Wakeford
Gelini, Wesley Dalrymple Wakeford -- wes@wakefordlaw.com -- The
Wakeford Law Firm & Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com --
Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Daniel Edward Purcell -- dpurcell@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest
& Peters LLP, Franco Emilio Muzzio -- fmuzzio@keker.com -- Keker,
Van Nest and Peters LLP, John Watkins Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP & Susan J. Harriman -- sharriman@keker.com -
- Keker & Van Nest, LLP.

Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Franco Emilio Muzzio, Keker, Van Nest and Peters LLP.


SP PLUS: 7th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Hector E. Lora, Esq. -- hlora@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a
putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) could not be removed to
federal court because the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing,
which deprived the federal trial court of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the federal
trial court with instructions to return the case to state court.

The lead plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Illinois
state court alleging that the defendant, which operates public
parking lots at Dayton International Airport, allegedly violated
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1) by printing the expiration date of the
plaintiffs' credit cards on their parking receipts.  The
complaint did not allege that the plaintiffs had suffered any
credit card fraud or identity theft.

The defendant removed the case to federal court. The defendant
then moved to dismiss, arguing that because the plaintiffs had
not alleged any concrete injury in fact, they lacked Article III
standing to sue and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

In response, the plaintiffs, in a surprise move designed to keep
their case alive in another forum despite the lack of any
concrete injury, also moved to remand the case to state court,
arguing that the defendant bore the burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction and, lacking that, the federal court
had to return the case to state court.

The federal trial court denied the motion to remand the case to
state court, reasoning that it had federal question jurisdiction
because the case arose under FACTA , and therefore it had subject
matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, which gives
federal courts "original jurisdiction" over claims "arising
under" a federal statute.

The federal trial court then turned to the issue of standing,
reasoning that because they did not allege any actual harm, but
only statutory violations, the plaintiffs could not establish
that they had standing and, accordingly, the court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction. The federal trial court granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend, but when they failed to do so,
dismissed the case with prejudice.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that as the party invoking
federal jurisdiction, the defendant had the burden of
establishing "that all elements of jurisdiction -- including
Article III standing -- existed at the time of removal. . . .
Removal is proper only when a case could originally have been
filed in federal court."

The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's reasoning that
removal to federal court was proper "because Sec. 1441(a) allows
removal of cases over which federal courts would have had
'original jurisdiction' and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 grants federal
courts 'original jurisdiction' over claims 'arising under' a
federal statute."  It reasoned that "reliance on the phrase
'original jurisdiction' is not enough, because federal courts
have subject-matter jurisdiction only if constitutional standing
requirements also are satisfied."

In other words, the Seventh Circuit reasoned, under the Supreme
Court's holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in order to establish
federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the removing defendant must
also show that the plaintiffs suffered a "concrete and
particularized" injury that is "actual or imminent" and not just
a technical statutory violation.

The Seventh Circuit noted that the plaintiffs "did not
sufficiently allege an actual injury" because merely alleging
"'actual damages' in the complaint's prayer for relief does not
establish Article III standing."

The Appellate Court concluded that because Article III standing
was lacking, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) required that a federal trial
court remand the case to state court if "at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction."

In addition, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the case should
not have been dismissed with prejudice because "[a] suit
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction cannot also be dismissed 'with
prejudice'; that's a disposition on the merits, which only a
court with jurisdiction may render." Dismissal with prejudice was
also not appropriate as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 41(b) because while the plaintiffs failed to amend
their complaint and "[a] willful failure to prosecute can fit the
bill, . . . no finding of willfulness in this case justified a
punitive dismissal on the merits."

The Appellate Court declined to award the plaintiffs their
attorney's fees under Sec 1447(c) because their "brief does not
adequately develop a basis to do so."  However, the Seventh
Circuit pointed out the defendant's "dubious strategy has
resulted in a significant waste of federal judicial resources,
much of which was avoidable."

Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was vacated with
instructions to remand the case to state court. [GN]


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Disability Rights Group Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Berkeley-
based Disability Rights Advocates is filing a class action
against Stanford University on behalf of at least three students,
all of whom, says the DRA, faced discrimination due to mental
health issues.

First reported by The Fountain Hopper, the suit alleges that
Stanford placed three students on 'involuntary leaves of absence'
after they reported suicidal ideation and self-harm.  The
university, claims Disability Rights Advocates, made no attempt
to seek alternate accommodations or arrangements for any of the
students.

Disability Rights Advocates says the action taken against their
three clients is tantamount to discrimination.  By evicting the
students from campus housing and pressuring them to take leaves
of absence, claims DRA, Stanford likely violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

"Despite being a highly selective university regularly ranked in
the top five nationally and globally and charging tuition in the
range of $50,000 per year, Stanford maintains antiquated
policies, practices, and procedures related to mental health that
violate anti-discrimination laws," says the lawsuit.

One of the three students, named only as Jacob Z. by the suit,
struggled with suicidal ideation and tendencies throughout the
first quarter of 2018.  Jacob Z. eventually checked into a
hospital for treatment, where he was visited by a Stanford
residence dean who claimed that J.Z. "caused his dormmates
psychological harm" and had "been a disruption to the community."

Before leaving, the dean told Jacob Z. that he couldn't return to
Stanford's dorms -- and if he did, legal consequences could be in
store.

"Throughout this process," alleges the suit, "Stanford has
treated Jacob more as a legal liability than as a student.

"Stanford has aggravated Jacob's stress with vague, incomplete
information and complicated processes which he must navigate
without assistance or explanation."

Another plaintiff, listed as Tina Y, was diagnosed with Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder after being sexually assaulted during
her first semester at Stanford.  The next year, writes The Daily
Californian, T.Y. was asked to avoid interacting with newly-
admitted students and their families during an annual
orientation.

Tina Y. was threatened with an involuntary leave of absence "if
she was perceived to be too much of a liability."  She, along
with other students, was purportedly forced to partake in
treatment courses and programs that her healthcare providers
recommended against.

Rather than seeking monetary damages, writes the Stanford Daily,
the plaintiffs 'seek a court ruling on the rights of all [. . .]
students who have a mental health disability as well as a court
order on Stanford's actions in the future.'

The 34-page lawsuit and filing accuses Stanford of abandoning
students in crises, punishing them for approaching campus
administration and trying to get help.

"In a mental health crisis, Stanford should be working with
students and their doctors, not making students apologize for
being ill," said attorney Monica Porter, an Equal Justice Works
Fellow with the DRA.

By and large, Stanford believes its employees didn't break the
law or engage in any illegal acts of discrimination.

"The University is mindful of our obligations in this area under
the law and believes we have complied with the law," said
Stanford spokesperson E.J. Miranda.

The lawsuit doesn't say why students like Tina Y. and Jacob Z.
may have been deemed disruptive, instead insisting that they were
punished only for undergoing crises and trying to seek help. [GN]


SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Alenkin" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Stanislav Alenkin, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03298
(E.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services for credit grantors in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel A. Louro, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dlouro@cml.legal


SYNDICATED OFFICE: Court Strikes Offer of Judgment in "McBroom"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to
Strike Defendant's Offer of Judgment in the case captioned
CHARLES McBROOM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNDICATED OFFICE SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a
CENTRAL FINANCIAL CONTROL, Defendant, Case No. C18-0102-JCC (W.D.
Wash.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Defendant made an offer of judgment to Plaintiff of $1001.00,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Rule 68 provides that a plaintiff who rejects a pretrial offer of
settlement and ultimately recovers less than the offer must pay
the Defendant's costs incurred after making the offer. The
Plaintiff's individual recovery under FDCPA is limited to $1,000.
If he rejects the Defendant's offer of $1,001.00 and the proposed
class is not certified, the Plaintiff will necessarily be liable
for the Defendant's costs even if he prevails on the merits.

The Court finds that the Defendant's offer is an unveiled attempt
to force the Plaintiff to abandon the interests of the purported
class in order to protect his own. Such an offer cannot be
considered valid.

The Court therefore strikes Defendant's offer of judgment as
invalid.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y855pl3x  from Leagle.com.

Charles McBroom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amorette Rinkleib
arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com, THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
PLLC.

Syndicated Office Systems LLC, doing business as Central
Financial Control, Defendant, represented by Damian Patrick
Richard -- drichard@sessions.com -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN &
ISRAEL, LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: "Amezquita" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Silverio Amezquita, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Target Corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CIVDS1808827, was removed from the San Bernardino County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District
of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on May 24, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01109 to the
proceeding.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States, behind Walmart, and a component of the S&P
500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Target Corporation:

          Jeffrey D Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856 7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com


TATA CONSULTANCY: Seeks to Decertify "Buchanan" Termination Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRIAN BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT,
SEYED AMIR MASOUDI AND NOBEL MANDILI, the Plaintiffs, v. TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01696-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Tata Consultancy Services will move the
Court on July 17, 2018, for an order decertifying Termination
Class, or otherwise clarifying the class definition so that it
excludes individuals who (1) signed arbitration agreements, (2)
were not subject to the deallocation process, or (3) who executed
releases at the time of their termination.

On December 27, 2017, the Court certified the following class of
individuals:

   "all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian
   national origin who were employed by Tata in the United
   States, were placed in an unallocated status and were
   terminated between April 14, 2011 and December 27, 2017."

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

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Michelle M. La Mar, Esq.
          Terry Garnett, Esq.
          Patrick N. Downes, Esq.
          Erin M. Smith, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310 282 2000
          Facsimile: 310 282 2200
          E-mail: mlamar@loeb.com
                  tgarnett@loeb.com
                  pdownes@loeb.com
                  esmith@loeb.com


TATE & KIRLIN: Faces "Corker" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tate & Kirlin
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Erica Corker, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02740-LMM-LTW (N.D.
Ga., June 5, 2018).

Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. is a Debt collection agency in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


TAX PROS: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS GARCIA on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TAX PROS LTD. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT
TAX SERVICE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03669 (N.D. Ill.,
May 24, 2018), alleges that during the prior three years, the
Defendant required Plaintiff and other Office Managers to work
more than 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks. In one
or more work weeks during the prior three years, the Plaintiff
and other Office Managers were not paid overtime at one and one-
half times their regular rates for all their time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.  The Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by
classifying Plaintiff and other Office Managers as exempt
employees and failing to pay them overtime pay, even though
Office Managers were non-exempt from the FLSA's and IMWL's
overtime provisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008


TD AMERITRADE: Averts Investment Mismanagement Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in
Pennsylvania on May 21 tossed a class action accusing TD
Ameritrade of mismanaging clients' funds by investing them in
volatile securities, finding that the case is inappropriate for
class action treatment and that the claims are subject to
arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

The court found that TD Ameritrade was only the custodian of the
lead plaintiff Marianne Antczak's $660,000 and that it did not
act as an adviser.

The case is styled ANTCZAK v. TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC. et al
Case No. 2:17-cv-04947 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Timothy J. Savage.  The case was filed November 3, 2017. [GN]


TEZOS SECURITIES: Class Action Over ICO Delays Mainnet Launch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Masters, writing for Cryptovest, reports that TEZOS,
one of the most promising ICOs in 2017, is still not over
roadblocks and hurdles.  The mainnet launch, still expected to
happen, has been delayed by squabbles, lawsuits, then a
rearrangement of the Tezos Foundation, which is also taking a
long time.

The tokens, known as "tezzies", have appreciated gradually from
recent lows, almost doubling in price.  XTZ tokens trade at
$4.76, relying on HitBTC and Gate.io exchanges. For a large-
scale, high-publicity project, TEZOS trading is extremely low, to
the tune of $600,000 per 24 hours.

This has caused ICO backers to lose patience, for being turned
into inadvertent holders.  For others, however, the forced HODL
policy was an inadvertent skin in the game, so the community
ended up defending Tezos against a bout of lawsuits:

Unfortunately, it was precisely the presence of a Swiss-based
Foundation to ensure legality that is hampering loops in
development.  For TEZOS, this turned into dead weight, not
allowing the speed needed in the cryptocurrency world.

It is unknown whether this would lead to a faster mainnet launch,
but at least it shows the project has a strong community.  In the
case of TEZOS, a launch may finally mean a rapid appreciation of
the digital asset, with some seeing the price easily reach $100.

For now, the rumors of a launch at the end of May seem to be
unconfirmed. The talk of a rogue launch by TEZOS code owner
Kathleen Breitman has also subsided -- and her Twitter has no
updates on the project.

One thing is sure -- if TEZOS makes it, it has chances of making
it big, but otherwise, it will continue testing the community's
patience. [GN]


TWITTER INC: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing on $2.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Sarraf Gentile LLP on May 21
disclosed that the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Mateo has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
common stock of Twitter, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement for Twitter, Inc.'s November 7, 2013
Initial Public Offering (NYSE:TWTR):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:  ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED OR
OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TWITTER, INC. ("TWITTER") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 7, 2013 AND FEBRUARY 18, 2014, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR
TWITTER'S NOVEMBER 7, 2013 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 16,
2018 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2,
Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action ("Action") for $2,500,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the
Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the release by the
Class of the Released Claims against the Released Parties, as set
forth in the Stipulation, should be provided; (4) for settlement
purposes only, a class should be certified under California Code
of Civil Procedure Sec 382; (5) to award Plaintiff's Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Long Notice"), which is discussed below); (6) to reimburse
Plaintiff for the costs and expenses he incurred in prosecuting
this action on behalf of the Class out of the Settlement Fund;
and (7) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court.
The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Fairness Hearing
without further notice to members of the Class.

This Action is a securities fraud class action brought on behalf
of those Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Twitter during the Class Period ("Class Members"),
against Twitter and nine of its current and/or former officers
and directors (collectively, "Defendants") for allegedly omitting
material facts from the Registration Statement filed with the SEC
in connection with Twitter's November 7, 2013 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO"), resulting in damages to Class Members when the
facts were revealed.  Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's
allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TWITTER COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN NOVEMBER 7, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 18, 2014,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

In order to qualify for a payment, you must timely mail a
completed and signed Proof of Claim postmarked on or before
August 31, 2018.  If you do not submit a timely Proof of Claim
form with all of the required information by August 31, 2018, you
will not receive a payment from the Settlement Fund.

If you are a Class Member but want to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must timely seek exclusion by July 17, 2018.  If you
do not timely request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound
by the Settlement and any Judgment entered in the Action, whether
or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

You may obtain a copy of the Long Notice, which more completely
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including
your right to exclude yourself from the Class or object to the
Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which among other things contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other
settlement documents, online at www.strategicclaims.net, or by
writing to the Claims Administrator:

          Twitter, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 230
          600 North Jackson Street - Suite 205
          Media, PA 19063

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries other than requests for the Long Notice or for a Proof
of Claim form may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 785-2610

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          14 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 699-8890

IF YOU WANT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY JULY 17, 2018, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE LONG NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE
NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT TIMELY FILE
A PROOF OF CLAIM.

Dated: May 3, 2018
By:
  HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER
  California Superior Court Judge [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Court Stays Proceedings in "Beaufrand" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARLOS BEAUFRAND, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00789-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
entered an order May 29, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to
stay further proceedings.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

On May 23, 2018, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this
motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fKqS4pTu


UNITED STATES: Averts Maryland Army Base Pollution Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Morris, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court declined on May 21 to revive a proposed $750 million class
action that alleges the U.S. Army is liable for injuries and
deaths caused by its negligent disposal of toxic chemicals at a
Maryland base.

The justices made no comment on their decision not to take up the
claims that the Army was liable for the deaths and illnesses
caused by the alleged exposure to the toxic substances improperly
disposed at Fort Detrick.

The case is styled Angela Pieper, et al., Petitioners v. United
States Case No. 17-1324 (U.S.).  The case was filed March 20,
2018. [GN]


VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Age Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca M. Lightle, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, reports
that an ADEA class was conditionally certified in a suit
asserting that a school system declined to rehire older employees
for IT positions.  Background Plaintiff Joseph Andreana has been
employed with Defendant Virginia Beach City Public Schools for
over 28 years, primarily as a computer resources specialist. [GN]


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Court Granted Bid to Stay "Fleenor" Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT FLEENOR, the Plaintiff, v.
WEBCOLLEX LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00797-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order
on May 29, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

On May 24, 2018, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this
motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fKqS4pTu


WELLMARK INC: "Chicoine" Suit Remanded to Iowa State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand
in the case captioned BRADLEY A. CHICOINE, et al., Plaintiff, v.
WELLMARK INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01707-RDP
(N.D. Ala.).

This case was filed on October 5, 2015, as a class action in the
District Court for Polk County, Iowa by chiropractic physicians,
who are licensed in Iowa and are all citizens of Iowa.  The
Plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based upon violation of
the Iowa Competition Act, Iowa Code Section 553.4 (2007), and
have alleged that a combination or conspiracy in restraint of
trade occurred in Iowa.  The purported class is limited to
chiropractic physicians who are citizens of Iowa. No violation of
federal law is alleged.

Plaintiffs' Petition names only two defendants: Wellmark, Inc.
d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa, and Wellmark
Health Plan of Iowa, Inc. (Wellmark). Both Defendants are Iowa
corporations with principal places of business in Iowa.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an Illinois
corporation, filed a motion to intervene in this litigation in
the Iowa District Court for Polk County, under Iowa Rules of
Civil Procedure 1.407(1) and 1.407(2). The same day, the two
named Iowa Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the United
States District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Central
Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3), invoking
federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Court finds that the Defendants' removal of this action was
improper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3). Plaintiff's
Emergency Motion to Remand is due to be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yacu933w from Leagle.com.

Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., P.C., Mark
A. Niles, D.C., Niles Chiropractic, Inc., Rod R. Rebarcak, D.C.,
Ben Winecoff, D.C., Steven A. Mueller, D.C., Bradley J. Brown,
D.C., Brown Chiropractic, P.C., Mark A. Kruse, D.C., Dr. Mark A.
Kruse, D.C., P.C., Kevin D. Miller, D.C & Larry E. Phipps, D.C.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Glenn L. Norris --
gnorrislaw@gmail.com -- HAWKINS & NORRIS PC, Harley C. Erbe --
erbelawfirm@aol.com -- ERBE LAW FIRM, Kara Marie Simons --
ksimons@2501grand.com -- WANDRO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. & Steven P.
Wandro -- swandro@2501grand.com -- WANDRO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Wellmark Inc, doing business as Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Iowa & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Patrick Roach --
BPR@NYEMASTER.COM -- NYEMASTER GOODE PC & Hayward L. Draper --
HDRAPER@NYEMASTER.COM -- NYEMASTER GOODE PC.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Joan M. Fletcher -- jfletcher@dickinsonlaw.com --
DICKINSON MACKAMAN TYLER & HAGEN PC & Zach Holmstead --
zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.


WYCKOFF HEIGHTS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyckoff Heights
Medical Center. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04983
(S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Wyckoff Heights Medical Center is an Hospital in New York City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YUMMYEARTH INC: "Sandoval" CLRA Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, remanded the case captioned SUMMER
SANDOVAL, Plaintiff, v. YUMMYEARTH INC., Defendant, No. CV 17-
01832 TJH (KKx) (C.D. Cal.).

Sandoval's First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged that
YummyEarth's labeling was a, inter alia: (1) Negligent
misrepresentation; (2) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.

YummyEarth removed this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441,
based on diversity jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter
jurisdiction on the basis of diversity when the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the parties are citizens of
different states.

The issue, here, is whether the amount in controversy threshold
has been met. Because it is not facially evident from the FAC
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, YummyEarth
must allege facts in the notice of removal to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00.

Sandoval alleged the lollipops cost $8.99 per bag. YummyEarth has
not substantiated that Sandoval, or any other individual putative
class members, purchased over 8,000 bags of lollipops. YummyEarth
cannot aggregate the putative class monetary relief claims to
meet the threshold because it did not remove this action pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(D)(2),
and none of the exceptions to aggregating putative class claims
are applicable, here.

It is Ordered, sua sponte, that the action be Remanded.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yctlk9 from Leagle.com.

Summer Sandoval, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Ferrell --
rferrell@apextrial.com -- Apex Trial Law APC & Thomas Wolfe
Kohler -- tkohler@apextrial.com -- Apex Trial Law.

YummyEarth Inc., Defendant, represented by Amit Rana --
rana@braunhagey.com -- BraunHagey and Borden LLP &Matthew B.
Borden -- borden@braunhagey.com -- BraunHagey and Borden LLP.


ZODIAC U.S.: $952,000 Accord in "Cuzick" Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KYLE CUZICK, the Plaintiff, v. ZODIAC
U.S. SEAT SHELLS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03793-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an
order:

   a. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
      class action settlement and Plaintiff's motion for
      attorneys' fees; and

   b. approving settlement amount of $952,000, including payments
      of attorneys' fees in the amount of $288,495; costs of
      $10,000; and an incentive fee for the named Plaintiff in
      the amount of $5,000.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to
implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The
parties are directed to submit a joint proposed judgment for
approval by June 1, 2018.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5OU62e6O


ZWANGER & PESIRI: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwanger & Pesiri
Radiology Group, LLP. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Zwanger & Pesiri Radiology Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-04975 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2018).

Zwanger & Pesiri Radiology Group, LLP is a Health Care Provider
in Laurelton New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


* California's Friendly Statutes Encourage Frivolous Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herbes, writing for Forbes, reports that California: the
land of beaches, Hollywood, and lawsuits.  A land where dreams
can come true and where plaintiff-friendly statutes and forgiving
federal judges allow consumer class actions to reign supreme.
The WLF Legal Pulse has previously blogged on series of cases
filed in California in which consumers allege that wording or
images on a packaged food product misled them into making a
purchase.  One notable subset of these cases involves supposed
geographical-location deception -- brewers make purchasers
believe their beer was brewed in a (usually exotic or foreign)
location when it was actually made someplace else.

These suits are made possible by permissive California laws which
allow plaintiffs to file class actions against any manufacturer
for just about any reason.  Federal district court judges in the
state compound the plaintiff-friendly atmosphere by being
especially tolerant of poorly plead (or frivolous) claims,
routinely handing plaintiffs' attorneys two or three bites at the
apple while also spelling out how to best amend their complaints.

Can of Beans: Beckman

From cases that allege food-labeling is misleading because it
claims the product is "natural" to those that quibble over
whether products are properly labeled as "organic," plaintiffs
lawyers have increasingly asked California courts to become food-
labeling regulators (and earn a quick buck in the process).
Often, those complaints entirely deficient, but filed with the
hope that they will eek past the motion to dismiss phase of
litigation, or at least that the presiding judge will explain how
they can be fixed.

In Beckman v. Arizona Canning Company, the plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit claiming that the defendant defrauded them because the
picture of beans on the can they purchased did not look like the
beans fresh out of the can.

The district court quickly and succinctly dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint.  Because each of the plaintiffs' claims
sounded in fraud, they were subject to heightened pleading
standards.  The court held:

Plaintiffs do not plead with particularity why the picture of the
ready-to-serve bowl of beans mislead them to believe the
unprepared product would appear the same. . . . Plaintiffs do not
provide explanations of [the label's] deceptiveness, explain why
this is misleading in light of the product's compliance with the
FDA standard of labeling the ingredients in order of
predominance, or explain how it is uncommon based on industry
standards.

Without any showing of how or why the labels were misleading, the
plaintiffs' lawsuit could not go forward--after all, who doesn't
understand that canned beans are packaged with water.  But the
plaintiffs still get their chance to amend; the district court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Over the last few years, beer manufacturers have come under siege
for alleged misrepresentations on their beer's labels and
packaging.  The WLF Legal Pulse has used the case against Kona
Brewing Company as an exemplar for the trend as a whole.  In
short, plaintiffs have filed a series of putative class actions
alleging that they had assumed based on its labeling and
packaging that the beer they purchased was manufactured in one
location (usually international) while it was in fact brewed in
another (typically domestically).

In the case of Kona Brewing Company, the plaintiff said he paid a
premium for Kona's beer because the packaging and label made him
believe that it was brewed on a Hawaiian island when it was in
fact brewed in the continental United States.  Chief among his
complaints, the plaintiff said he was led to belief the beer was
"imported" from Hawaii because its package showed a map of the
islands with a large star over Kona's headquarters and original
brewery.  This map was enough, according to the Food Court's
district judge to defeat Kona's motion to dismiss.

In Peacock v. The 21st Amendment Brewery CafÇ, LLC, the plaintiff
made nearly identical allegations, with a similar result.  There,
the plaintiff alleged that he paid a premium price for beer from
the Bay Area and that 21st Amendment's labeling, which had a map
of northern California with an "X" where the brewery was located,
led him to believe that it was brewed in California.  In fact,
21st Amendment, while headquartered in the Bay Area, produces all
of its beer in Minnesota.

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that 21st Amendment had
violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) which
creates a private right of action if a business practice is
unfair because, among other things, it violates a law or
regulation.  Here, the plaintiff alleged that 21st Amendment's
labels violated FDA regulations.

The district court allowed the plaintiff's misrepresentation
claim to go forward, citing the Kona case for support.  The judge
found that the map of California with an "X" marking its
headquarters could likely deceive reasonable consumers into
thinking that 21st Amendment's beer was actually produced in the
Bay Area.  While the judge was careful to note that he did not
feel as though it was a particularly strong claim, he held that
the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to defeat a motion to
dismiss.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's UCL claim because he
cited no specific regulation that 21st Amendment's labels had
violated and because FDA doesn't regulate alcoholic beverages.

Conclusion

Consumer class actions continue to be a drain on the marketplace;
forcing defendants to spent vast sums of money fighting often
frivolous cases and raising the price of consumer goods for all
Americans.  Thus it is incumbent on trial judges to hold
plaintiffs to their pleading burdens in these misrepresentation
cases.  Have the plaintiffs really plead the necessary
particularity of fraud?  If the plaintiff, or an entire class,
really believe that beer was brewed on a map or cans of beans
don't contain water?  Did they really pay a premium price for
these products?

Judges have the power to dismiss these cases early on and should
do so.  Anything else will just cause more customers to pay
higher prices for the same products, while plaintiffs' attorneys
laugh all the way to the bank. [GN]



                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *