CAR_Public/180613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 118



                            Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Calif. Superior Court
3M COMPANY: "Py" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
8POINT3 ENERGY: Clem Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics
AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: Carloss Sues over OT & Minimum Wages
AJI SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Workers, Rosas Claims

ALCON LABORATORIES: "Green" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
ALLIED POWER: Fails to Slow Down Class Certification Bid
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Kohl" Suit in E.D. New York
APACHE CORPORATION: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Personnel
APOLLO RETAIL: George Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements

APPLE INC: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Defective Keyboards
ARENA PHARMA: $24MM Class Settlement in "Scheuneman" Has Final OK
ARKANSAS: Darrough's Suit vs. Sheriff Can't Proceed as Class
ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action on Merger with Eli Lilly
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D. New York

ATLANTA, GA: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
AUSTRALIA: Shine Lawyers Optimistic on Wodonga Council Case
AUSTRALIA: Waste Levy Class Action Mulled Against Wodonga Council
AVIAGEN TURKEYS: "Myers" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
B.B.W. HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Drivers, Tatum Says

BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Sues over Robocalls
BAS OF FLORIDA: "Kott" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BAY RIDGE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
C&F FINANCE: "Miller" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarado & Garland Sue over Biometric Info

CALIFORNIA: Caron Files Suits v. Herold
CAPITAL GROWTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Fox Says
CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Baole Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
CASSANO'S INC: Lee Asks Court to Approve Notice to Drivers Class
CHRYSLER-DODGE: Certification of Two Classes Sought

CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says
CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Sept. 5 Fairness Hearing of "Vallejo" Deal
CYS INVESTMENTS: Stone Balks at Merger Deal with Two Harbors
DACM INC: Mejia Sues over Motor Vehicle Financing Terms

DCH CALABASAS-A: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Karapetian Says
DEALERS' CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Morin Says
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Reitans Claim Pinnacle Device Not Safe
DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages & OT to Nurses, Allison Says
DNATA AVIATION: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.

DR PEPPER: Drivers File Lawsuit Over COBRA Health Care Coverage
DR SMOOD: Brown Alleges Skimming of Credit Card Tips
DUNBAR ARMORED: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
EDWARD JONES: Faces Class Action from Black Employees
ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Go-Live Support Staff

EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge May Toss Quality Assurance Workers' Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Grants Petition to Stay $30-Bil. Privacy Lawsuit
FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Bautista Says
FANTASY DYEING: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garcia Says
FGNY 296: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Shomo Claims

FINANCIAL CREDIT: Rigo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIVE WEST HUBBARD CORP: "Nesbitt" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FORSTER & GARBUS: "Loiseau" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
FOUR M: Underpays Waiters and Bartenders, Dawkins et al. Say
FOUR SEASONS: "Nova" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

FRESENIUS USA: "Cota" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces "Ridgell" Suit in C.D. California
FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Certification Bid Dismissed as Premature
GAME INFORMER: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy
GAME SHOW: Faces Class Action Over Social-Casino Online Games

GEORGE WASH. UNIV.: Stanley Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
GETSWIFT: Federal Court Approves Shareholders' Class Action
GETSWIFT: Phi Finney McDonald to Lead Shareholder Class Action
GILBERT ROZON: Sexual Harassment Class Action Can Proceed
GLOBE-CON FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says

GREATER HUME: Class Action Over 2009 Fire Dismissed
HIPO MANAGEMENT: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
HOLLYWOOD BEAUTY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, "Pizarro" Suit Says
HOUSTON TEXANS: Former Cheerleader Sues Over Unpaid Wages

HOUSTON TEXANS: Faces 2nd Suit from Former Cheerleaders
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Court Won't Declare Offer Ineffective
J. CREW: Posts Bogus "Sale Prices", Class Action Claims
JEFFREY W. FELDMAN: Seeks to Claw Back Legal Defense Costs
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Talcum Powder Class Action OK'd

JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" Suit Remains in Calif. District Court
KARP SCARSDALE: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
LA ABUNDANCIA: "Mogollan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LAS VEGAS: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS: Faces "Gregory" Suit in N.D. Texas
LAZ PARKING: Barone Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
LIGHTHOUSE FISHMARKET: Faces "Basurto" Suit in S.D. New York
LOGITECH INC: Faces "Porath" Suit in N.D. California
MACONE INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MAGIC HOME: "Teshabaeva" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
MANDARIN GLEN: Wang Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
MANHATTAN WINES: Faces "Maldonado" Suit in S.D. New York
MAPLEWOOD, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Immunity in "Webb"
MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Sues over Minimum Wages & Tip Skimming

MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Faces "Gerstenhaber" Suit in S.D. Florida
MAX EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Drivers, Escobar Says
MDL 2047: MDL Court Won't Enjoin State Court Proceeding
MDL 2828: "Nathan" Suit over Intel CPU Defects Moved to Oregon
METROPOLE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Speck Says

MICRO FOCUS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $8.8-Bil. Tech Merger
MIDDLE GEORGIA: Bid to Certify Questions to Ga. High Ct. Denied
MONSANTO COMPANY: Killmeiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Brien Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Adams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORNING STAR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lawrence Says
MOVE INC: "Wilson" Suit Moved to Central District of California
MYLIFE.COM: Violates Right of Publicity Act, Deyerler Says
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Distribution

NAVY FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Overdraft Fees Suit
NETGEAR INC: Fischer Sues over WiFi Range Extenders
NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Says
NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in E.D. California
NOIR TRADING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rivas Says

NU IMAGE: Rivero Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
NVR INC: Court Narrows Class Claims in Smith et al. Suit
OCLARO INC: Faces Class Action Over $1.8-Bil. Tech Merger
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: $12.5MM Fund Distribution OK'd
OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "Butler" Suit in Cal. Superior Court

PAY CAR: Court Certifies Full-time Employees Class
PRISTINE DENTAL: Ryoo Dental Sues Over Illegal Fax Advertisements
PROENZA SCHOULER: Kiler Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Chiropractors' Suit Remains in Federal Court
RALPH LAUREN: Sends Spam Text Messages, Hudson Claims

RCW INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
ROCK SOLID: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROSEWOOD ON THE SOUND: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: No Ascertainable Class in "Romero"
SISYPHIAN LLC: Unlawfully Misclassifies Dancers, Nutt Claims

SITEONE LANDSCAPE: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
SNC-LAVALIN: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $110-Mil.
SOLVERE LLC: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Disableds' Class Cert
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Baker" Suit in C.D. California

STONEBRIDGE LIFE: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dubuisson"
STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act
SUPERDRY RETAIL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTON GARDENS: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
SUUNTO OY: Huntzinger and Bush Sue over Defective Dive Computers

THERANOS INC: Judge Declines to Certify Class of Investors
TJX COMPANIES: Denied OT Pay, Sick Day Off, "Findlay" Suit Says
TRADER JOE: "Jamison" Suit Says Fruit Bar Packaging Misleading
TRANS UNION: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
TRULIFE HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies "Aytch" Class

TZ MANOR: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
ULTA SALON: "Zepeda" Suit Transferred to E.D. California
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Schaechter" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED COMMUNITY: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action
UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Rhode Island Immigration Class Action

UNITED STATES: Judge Lashes Out at ICE at Class Action Hearing
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Police Investigates 52 Abuse Complaints
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: "Lieberman" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
VERO BEACH: Hopson Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
VILLA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York

VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Willoughby Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit
VIP HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ruda Says
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Wyman" Suit in N.D. California
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Iniguez Sues Over Illegal Call Recording
WILLIAM C. GROSSMAN LAW: Gluck Disputes Vague Collection Letter

WIRELESS VISION: Faces "Carrington" Wage-and-Hour Suit
WORLDPAY US: Faces Acebedo & Johnson Suit in N.D. Georgia
XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action from Shareholder
XTO ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
XUNLEI LIMITED: Court Consolidates "Dookeran," "Li" Suits

* City of Oahu Sues Over Service Members' Abandoned Cars






                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Calif. Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness.
The case is captioned as Melissa O'Brien, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 24 Hour Fitness, 24 Hour
Fitness Holdings LLC, 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc., 24 Hour Fitness
Worldwide Inc., and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-
00233556 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018).

24 Hour Fitness is a privately owned and operated fitness center
chain headquartered in San Ramon, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          560 S Winchester Blvd,
          San Jose, CA 95128


3M COMPANY: "Py" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brandon Py, Aimee Py, and Crystal
Benavides, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The 3M Company, formerly known as:
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; Tyco Fire Products L.P.,
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; Chemguard, Inc.;
National Foam; Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; and County of
Suffolk, the Defendants, Case No. 608013/2018, was removed from
the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District
Court for Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on June 1,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03225-
SJF-SIL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Sandra J. Feuerstein.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
based in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Patrick Kelly, Esq.
          GRUENBERG KELLY DELLA
          700 Koehler Avenue
          Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
          Telephone: (631) 737 4110
          Facsimile: (631) 737 4155
          E-mail: seanesq@msn.com

Attorneys for Tyco Fire Products L.P. and Chemguard, Inc.:

          David S. Weinraub, Esq.
          Katherine A. Armstrong, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849 7100
          E-mail: davidweinraub@quinnemanuel.com
                  katherinearmstrong@quinnemanuel.com


8POINT3 ENERGY: Clem Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Clem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 8point3 Energy Partners LP, 8Point3
General Partner, LLC, Charles D. Boynton, Mark R. Widmar, Natalie
F. Jackson, Alexander R. Bradley, Thomas C. O'Connor, Norman J.
Szydlowski and Michael W. Yackira, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02195, (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of 8point3 Energy
Partners LP by affiliates of Capital Dynamics, Inc., rescinding
it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the
event defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff further
seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      Email: lglancy@glancylaw.com


AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: Carloss Sues over OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JAIMIE CARLOSS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFTER-
SCHOOL ALL-STARS, LOS ANGELES, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC708589
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and
severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt
employee, from approximately January 2011 to approximately July
2015, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and
failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to
hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to set
work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other
class members' employment, and to supervise their daily
employment activities.

ASAS is a national non-profit organization that partners with
schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


AJI SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Workers, Rosas Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amado Rosas individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aji Sushi Greenpoint Inc., (d/b/a
Wasabi) and Guo Kang Huang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03103 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and
breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and his similarly
situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants as
delivery workers for some or all of the time period relevant to
this action. However, the daily work performed by Plaintiff
entailed additional responsibilities that were not related to
deliveries. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff
as a delivery worker, but in actuality his duties included
greater or equal time spent in non -delivery, non-tipped
functions such as dishwashing, sweeping and mopping, cleaning the
counters, bathroom, basement and sidewalk, among others.
Regardless of duties, the Defendants paid delivery workers at the
lowered tip credit rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Franco, Esq.
          LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
          42 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004


ALCON LABORATORIES: "Green" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christine Green and Jordan
Pitler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon
Research, Ltd., Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., and Allergan
Sales, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18SL-CC01587, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis)
on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-00796 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Wolfman, Esq.
          GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
          600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 661 6582

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241 2029
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Carnie, Esq.
          SIMON LAW FIRM, PC
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241 2029
          E-mail: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          James Muehlberger, Esq.
          SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474 6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421 5547
          E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com


ALLIED POWER: Fails to Slow Down Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jeffrey Blackburn Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Allied Power Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00347
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order
denying the Defendant's motion to stay briefing on the bid for
conditional class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 6, 2018,
the Defendant's motion to stay conditional certification briefing
is denied. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
is taken under advisement.  The Defendant's response shall be
filed by July 6. The Plaintiff's reply in support shall be filed
by July 20. Status hearing previously set for June 12 is stricken
and reset to September 12 at 9:30 a.m.

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Kohl" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Yehuda Kohl, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03235 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 1, 2018).

Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries
in the Unites States.[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


APACHE CORPORATION: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Personnel
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN PIERCE, individually and for all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-
cv-01803 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Apache employs oilfield personnel,
like Pierce, to carry out its work. Pierce, and other workers
like him, were typically scheduled for 12+ hour shifts, 7 days a
week, for weeks at a time. But Apache did not pay Pierce or the
other workers like him overtime. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, Apache paid these workers a day-rate and
improperly classified them as independent contractors.

Apache Corporation is an American petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Houston. The company is on the Fortune 500.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Telecopier: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


APOLLO RETAIL: George Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN GEORGE, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APOLLO RETAIL SPECIALISTS,
LLC, a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707893 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 1, 2018), alleges that throughout Plaintiff's employment,
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, in violation
of California Labor Code section 226. By way of example, the wage
statements Defendants provided to their employees failed to
include all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
period.

The Defendants provide full-service retail support services such
as merchandising, fixturing, remodeling, and new store build
outs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, California 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          Susan George, Esq.
          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Defective Keyboards
----------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that customer
complaints over Apple's butterfly keyboard have again turned into
legal action, with a class action lawsuit filed in California
court on May 22 claiming the company sold, and continues to sell,
a product known to be defective.

Filed in the Northern District Court of California, the complaint
echoes many of the claims made in a first class action lawsuit
regarding the same issue earlier in May.

In the immediate action, three named plaintiffs allege the
butterfly mechanism introduced with the 2015 MacBook, and later
applied to the MacBook Pro line in 2016, is prone to failure.

Though Apple advertises the ultra low-profile switch as being
more responsive and robust than traditional scissor-type
mechanisms, butterfly keyboards are easily defeated when dust or
other particles builds up beneath the keys, the lawsuit claims.
In some cases, the key switch completely fails, forcing owners to
take their laptop in for repairs.

Due to its design, a single broken key necessitates the
replacement of an afflicted MacBook's upper casing, which
includes the keyboard and battery.  For machines no longer
covered by Apple's warranty, the repair can cost hundreds of
dollars, and for those that are, the process can leave users
without their computer for a week or more.

According to the suit, Remy Turner bought his 2016 MacBook Pro in
April 2017 and shortly thereafter began to experience problems
with a sticky space bar.  He attempted to fix the issue using
Apple's recommended method of spraying the area with a can of
compressed air, but was unable to rectify the issue.

Turner ultimately returned the malfunctioning unit to Best Buy
for a replacement, though the same problem manifested.  He
repeated the replacement process a second time with identical
results.

A second named plaintiff, Christopher Martin, purchased a 15-inch
MacBook Pro in December 2016 and used the device without incident
until August 2017.  It was around that time that the unit's space
bar began to stick "roughly once every 1 to 2 weeks," a situation
that was remedied by a hard press on the key.

The failures began to occur more frequently over time, but the
air can cleaning process functioned as a temporary fix.  In
January 2017, however, Mr. Martin's space bar ceased to respond
to cleaning techniques and became stuck in the depressed position
every couple days, where it would remain for about a week.

As Mr. Martin's gratis warranty period is over, he is reluctant
to fork out money for the high-priced repair. Instead, the
plaintiff has resorted to shaking the laptop until the key
becomes unstuck.

Finally, Joey Baruch purchased a 13-inch MacBook Pro in July
2017.  Shortly after taking the unit home, he encountered issues
with the "R", "T" and "Enter" keys.  Like the suit's other
plaintiffs, Baruch found spraying beneath the key with a can of
compressed air alleviated the problem for a short time, but the
issue became progressively worse.

Mr. Baruch took his laptop in for warranty repairs in March 2018.
Apple replaced the keyboard, but the problem reoccured on the new
unit, this time extending to the space bar.

Aside from plaintiff testimonials, the suit cites numerous online
forum posts, blog accounts and reports detailing consumer
complaints with Apple's butterfly key mechanism.  Beyond sticking
keys, users describe troubles relating to the design including
broken key caps, among other flaws.

Apple introduced the butterfly mechanism in 2015 with the debut
of the 12-inch MacBook.  At the time, SVP of Worldwide Marketing
Phil Schiller touted the keyboard as "much more precise, and
accurate.  In fact it is four times more stable than that scissor
mechanism." Those claims are echoed in Apple's marketing for
current-generation MacBook and MacBook Pro models, the latter of
which feature a second-generation butterfly mechanism that offers
"four times more key stability than a traditional scissor
mechanism."

AppleInsider investigated the issue in April, and after
collecting data from Genius Bar locations and authorized third-
party shops found the 2016 MacBook Pro's keyboard failed roughly
twice as often in its first year of use as 2014 and 2015 MacBook
Pro models with scissor-type switches.

Within a week of the report's publication, a Change.org petition
called on Apple to recall all MacBooks with butterfly switch
keyboards.  The petition, which is cited in the May 22 suit, has
garnered nearly 27,000 signatures in under three weeks.

Though Apple has not acknowledged a widespread problem, it has
recognized customer complaints, as evidenced by a support
document detailing the aforementioned method of cleaning
butterfly keyboards with a can of compressed air.

Plaintiffs assert breach of express warranty, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Acts, violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The suit seeks class
certification, restitution, damages and legal fees. [GN]


ARENA PHARMA: $24MM Class Settlement in "Scheuneman" Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned TODD
SCHUENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:10-CV-01959-CAB-(BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

This putative class action lawsuit began when a complaint was
filed alleging various violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
Act). The Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for violations of the federal securities laws
that was subsequently amended

The settlement envisions certification of a class of all Persons
who purchased Arena common stock between March 17, 2008 and
January 27, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

The numerosity requirement is satisfied if the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Here,
notice packets were mailed to 139,542 potential class members.
Joinder of all these potential plaintiffs would be impracticable.
Accordingly, this requirement has been met.

This commonality requirement is satisfied if "there are questions
of law or fact common to the class.  Here, the commonality
requirement is satisfied because all of the class claims involve
common questions of law and fact surrounding Defendants'
purported violations of the federal securities laws as evidenced
by their alleged failure to disclose material facts regarding the
development of the weight loss drug Lorcaserin to investors and
by the making of false and misleading statements about the drug.

The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or
similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is
not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
members have been injured by the same course of conduct.  Here,
the typicality requirement is satisfied because the claims of
lead Plaintiff and the class are the same. The wrongful conduct
alleged in the complaint is not unique to the class
representative, and the damages to the class members, if any, are
similar insofar as they relate to violations of the federal
securities laws.

Here, there is no obvious conflict between Schwartz's interests
and those of the class members. Similarly, the Court is unaware
of any reason that would warrant altering its earlier
determination that Lead Counsel can adequately represent the
interest of the class. Furthermore, no Class Member has filed an
objection challenging the adequacy of the representative parties.
Accordingly, the Court finds this element satisfied for the
purposes of certification of the settlement class.

The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
It requires an examination into whether there are legal or
factual questions that qualify each class member's case as a
genuine controversy. The superiority inquiry requires
determination of whether the objectives of the particular class
action procedure will be achieved in the particular case.  Here,
all of the class members were allegedly subject to Defendants'
purported federal securities laws violations. The legal and
factual questions common to each class member's claim predominate
over any questions affecting individual class members. The
relatively limited potential recovery for the class members as
compared with the costs litigating the claims also support the
conclusion that a class action is superior to other methods for
adjudicating this controversy. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the predominance and superiority inquiries have been satisfied.

In light of this, the Court conditionally certifies the Rule 23
class for the purposes of settlement.

Where, as here, a settlement is reached prior to formal class
certification, there is an even greater potential for a breach of
fiduciary duty owed the class, therefore such agreements must
withstand an even higher level of scrutiny for evidence of
collusion or other conflicts of interest than is ordinarily
required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court's approval as
fair.

The Notice advised the Class of the terms of the Settlement, of
their rights: (1) to receive their share of the Settlement by
submitting a claim form; (2) to object to the Settlement and to
appear at the Final Approval Hearing, (3) to request exclusion
from the Settlement; (4) the manner and timing for doing any of
these acts; (5) the date and time set for the final approval
hearing; and (6) the binding effect of the judgment if they chose
to do nothing. Adequate periods of time were provided for each of
these procedures. No class members objected to the settlement or
the adequacy of the Notice, and only two class member requested
exclusion from the class.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Class received adequate
notice.

The Settlement has been reached after over seven years of pending
litigation, including an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The
Plaintiff's claims at issue in the settlement involve disputed
legal issues. The inherent risk of further litigation in this
matter is known to all involved with the case. Proceeding with
this case presents very real risks regarding class certification,
summary judgment, Daubert and in limine motions, proving the
necessary scienter, reliance and damages if the case proceeded to
trial, and a possible unfavorable decision on the merits.

While the Plaintiff believes in the merits of his case, the
Defendants have strong defenses to class liability, reliance and
damages determinations, and there is no guarantee that the
Plaintiff will prevail. The Court finds these risks weigh in
favor of settlement.

Basic to the process of deciding whether a proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate is the need to compare the terms of
the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation.

Here, the Settlement authorizes a recovery of $24,000,000, less
Court-awarded fees and expenses and the costs of administering
the Settlement. The average distribution is estimated to be $0.13
per damaged share before deduction of Court-approved fees and
expenses. Furthermore, the Company is currently experiencing a
financial downturn and has limited insurance coverage, meaning
that continued litigation could result in there being little to
no money being available down the road to satisfy any later
judgment.

In light of the risks associated with continuing this litigation,
the Court finds that a payout in this amount appears reasonable
and weighs in favor of approval of the settlement.

Here, the Settlement has been negotiated after years of pending
litigation and meaningful discovery has occurred. Counsel has
litigated this action through three rounds of motions to dismiss
and a successful appeal, engaged in investigation, research and
analysis of the class claims, participated in an arm's-length
mediation session, and obtained ample discovery. This history
evidences the parties' significant knowledge regarding the
relevant facts, law, and strengths and weaknesses of their claims
and defenses. Consequently, the Court finds this factor weighs in
favor of approval of the settlement.

The recommendations of the plaintiffs' counsel should be given a
presumption of reasonableness. Here, Lead Counsel has provided a
declaration detailing their experience in litigating federal
class action securities cases. Lead Counsel declares that their
support of the Settlement is based on an assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of the case, their extensive experience
in litigating class and securities actions, and an assessment of
the risks of proceeding with the litigation compared to the
certain value of settlement at this time. In light of the
foregoing, and according the appropriate weight to the judgment
of counsel, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of the
settlement.

It is established that the absence of a large number of
objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong
presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement are
favorable to the class members.  Here, only two class members
have opted out of the class and no objections to the settlement
have been received.

Accordingly, the Court finds this weighs in favor of settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4x9y9v from Leagle.com.

Todd Schueneman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer.

William Sutliff & Jean Sutliff, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
J. Mogin -- dmogin@moginrubin.com -- The Mogin Law Firm.
Arena Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M.
Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Anthony Caravella, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin --
ams@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Carl Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold --
manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz &
Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jack Lief, Dominic P. Behan, William
R. Shanahan & Christy Anderson, Defendants, represented by John
C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley, LLP, Koji F. Fukumura -
- kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn
Kelley -- mkkelley@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael
A. Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish,
Peter M. Adams -- padams@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish,
Ryan E. Blair -rblair@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish &
Craig Edward TenBroeck -- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Chris Georgakopoulos & Larry Sprowl, Movants, represented by
Blake M. Harper, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Sarah Weber, Hulett
Harper Stewart LLP, Maxat Amankossov & David Prince, Movants,
represented by Daniel J. Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm.


ARKANSAS: Darrough's Suit vs. Sheriff Can't Proceed as Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAUL DARROUGH, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARK GOBER,
individually and in his official capacity; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge J. Leon Holmes entered an order denying motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "In response to the motion for class
certification, Gober has submitted the uncontested affidavit of
Susan Potts, along with records of Darrough's arrest and first
appearance. Pursuant to a bench warrant, Darrough was arrested on
May 10, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. He appeared before a judge for his
first appearance on May 12, 2017. Thus, he was provided a timely
first appearance. Cf. Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark., 388 F.3d
669 (8th Cir. 2004), and Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1. Based upon the
facts in the Potts' affidavit, Darrough is not a member of the
class that he seeks to represent and his claims are, therefore,
not typical of the class. In Re Milk Products Litigation, 195
F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir. 1998).

A copy of the Order dated June 1, 2018, is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jvowaJnA


ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action on Merger with Eli Lilly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
shareholders claim in a federal class action that the $1.6
billion merger of Armo Biosciences and Eli Lilly, for $50 a
share, is insufficient.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: (424) 256-2884
     Fax: (424) 256.2885
     Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

        -- and --

     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     685 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Brana Gutman, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03236
(E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks;
and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ATLANTA, GA: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled A. Thomas Jones, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
City of Atlanta, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CV304044, was
removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on May
23, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
02472-LMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Leigh Martin May.

Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia. It played an
important part in both the Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights
Movement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Esq.
          James W. Hurt, Jr. , Esq.
          HURT STOLZ, P.C.
          1551 Jennings Mill Road, Suite 3100-B
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 395 2750
          Facsimile: (706) 354 1785
          E-mail: istolz@hurtstolz.com
                  jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          John Floyd Woodham, Esq.
          WOODHAM LAW, LLC
          2625 Piedmont Road, Suite 56-295
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Telephone: (404) 862 2480
          E-mail: jfwoodham@gmail.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Feagin, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. FEAGIN III, LLC
          3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 909 8100
          Facsimile: (404) 909 8120
          E-mail: rfeagin@martensonlaw.com

Attorneys for City of Atlanta:

          Jeffrey Allen Zachman, Esq.
          Dentons US, LLP - ATL, Suite 5300
          303 Peachtree St., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 527 4671
          E-mail: jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com

               - and -

          Joshua Benjamin Portnoy, Esq.
          Mark Gerald Trigg, Esq.
          Peter J. Andrews, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP - ATL
          Terminus 200, Suite 2500
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553 7381
          Facsimile: (678) 553 7382
          E-mail: portnoyj@gtlaw.com
                  mark.trigg@dentons.com
                  andrewsp@gtlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Shine Lawyers Optimistic on Wodonga Council Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Boyd, writing for Border Mail, reports that lawyers
investigating a class action against Wodonga Council say they
will be moving quickly to determine whether the legal suit will
go forward, after more than 120 people attended a town hall
meeting.

Shine Lawyers were unable to reveal the number of people who had
signed up for the class action but before the meeting, Jan
Saddler said she was confident the case would go ahead.

"I think it's a fairly strong possibility that even with modest
numbers we would proceed," she said.

Before and during the meeting, Ms Saddler defended Shine Lawyers
against accusations they, not ratepayers, were the ones who
benefit from the class action.

"We're here to support people who want to have an opportunity to
recover this money, we are not here as just a money grab from
us," she said.

"It's not the council's right to take money and decide it's for
the benefit of ratepayers.

"That money should be returned to people for them to use in the
way they want to use it, not how council thinks they should use
it on their behalf."

The sentiment was welcomed by Michael James, who believes the
issue of the waste service levy is just the tip of the iceberg.

"It's not rocket science, it's a matter of standing up for what
is right," he said.

"I'm not here for money, I'm here to get something wrong fixed or
else where is it going to stop -- the government had ripped us
off something fierce."

However other attendees disagreed with the proposed class action,
one saying he was proud of the city and council.

Others expressed the view the amount of money on offer after
lawyers and funders took commission, was not worth the effort.

Ms Saddler said under the law, clients must receive at least 50
per cent of the settlement, and she estimated each ratepayer was
overcharged $150 per year.

Wodonga Ratepayers' Association secretary Bob Cousins said even
if the insurance did cover the claim, council's premium would
increase.

However, Ms Saddler said they had been contacted by many people
in the city who not only wanted a refund, but 'justice'.

"What is important for most people is that those people who are
charged with responsibility under legislation for raising tax and
levies and government charges do so in a way that is consistent
with the legislation, if they don't do it they should be held to
account," Ms Saddler said.

"It may not be the sentiment of the ratepayers' association but
that is the sentiment I am hearing from others.

"At the moment they don't seem to think those laws and those
rules and those obligations apply to them because next year they
are going to raise the same levy again in excess of the waste
cost."

Lawyer John Suta was pleased with the turn out, saying from here
they would get advice from a Queen's Counsel and present that to
the class action members.

"There were some differing views, but I think the consensus was
they want to make a stand on this," he said.

Mr Suta said they were keen to move quickly as it was obvious
Wodonga Council had not learnt its lesson, citing the continuing
waste management levy overcharge in the draft 2018-19 budget.

"They don't appear to have learnt their lesson from the
Ombudsman's report 00 I'd invite them to read it properly rather
than just placing it in the recycling bin," he said.

Ms Saddler also questioned why the condemned overcharge was
slated to occur again.  "It does make you question really what
the intentions are of the council, what do they want to achieve
out of this," she said.

"Do they want to continue to raise revenue in a way that's
clearly contrary to the terms of the legislation and certainly
contrary to the intentions of the legislation and what do they
treat the people of Wodonga as -- fools?"

Ms Saddler said in her experience class action, not community
negotiation, is often the only successful way to make an
organisation change or repay funds.

"In 28 years of being a solicitor I don't think I've ever seen
anyone who is a defendant come to the table and be prepared to
take action unless you actually take proceedings against them,"
she said.

"It never occurs." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Waste Levy Class Action Mulled Against Wodonga Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Body, writing for The Border Mail, reports that Wodonga
Council would not be sending representatives to a town hall
meeting discussing potential legal action against them for their
use of the waste services levy.

Shine Lawyers and Wangaratta lawyer John Suta teamed up to
propose the action, which has gained initial funding from a
backer, after Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass found Wodonga
Council was 'wrong' to collect $18 million in extra revenue from
its waste management levy, to fund other services.

A council spokeswoman said whether the mayor, senior staff, legal
or council representatives attend the May 23 meeting, was a
decision for each individual.

She would not answer questions on whether council had insurance
to cover the potential class action.

Shine Lawyers were unable to provide details on how many people
had registered to, or were predicted to, attend Albury
Entertainment Centre, only saying registrations were increasing.

Senior lawyer Tristan Gaven said there would be both formal and
informal parts of the meeting to allow residents to share their
stories publicly and also speak directly to lawyers.

"The purpose of the information session is to provide ratepayers
with information about their legal rights in relation to the
overcharging by council," he said.

"As we are in the preliminary stages of our investigation we
would like to gauge community interest in the action as well as
to hear ratepayers' stories."

Mr Suta said representatives from ratepayers associations from as
far away as Melbourne and Mildura were trekking to the Border to
attend the session, because they believe they might have been
subjected to similar overcharges.

Mr Suta said in Wodonga there was little ambiguity, as the
Ombudsman found council was wrong to use the waste levy charge on
things beyond its intended scope and the practice in-part avoided
increases to general rates.

He said the scope of the proposed legal action is from 2007 to
2018, with Shine stating about 40,000 were overcharged by council
and could seek reimbursement through the class action. [GN]


AVIAGEN TURKEYS: "Myers" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ronald D. Myers, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Aviagen Turkeys, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-C-30, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(Beckley) on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:18-cv-00967 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553 7227
          E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com

Attorneys for Aviagen Turkeys, Inc.:

          Chip E. Williams, Esq.
          Jared C. Underwood, Esq.
          PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE
          600 Neville Street, Suite 201
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (304) 254 9300
          Facsimile: (304) 255 5519
          E-mail: cwilliams@pffwv.com
                  junderwood@pffwv.com


B.B.W. HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Drivers, Tatum Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL TATUM, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. B.B.W. HOLDINGS, INC. and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
11661-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked for Defendants as drivers delivering
items purchased from Amazon to customers who purchased the items.
During their employment, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in individual
workweeks.

During his employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked between 50
and 60 hours in individual workweeks, and sometimes even in
excess of 60 hours in an individual workweek. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees a flat rate, per
day. They did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees any overtime premium for their hours worked over 40 in
individual workweeks.

BBWH is a Michigan Corporation that operates a carrier and
logistics business and, among other activities, provides trucks
and/or drivers to deliver goods for its client companies'
customers in Michigan, including customers of Amazon in
Michigan.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214 7900
          Facsimile: (312) 253 1443
          E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  lreasons@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          7556 Mentor Ave.
          Mentor, Ohio 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953 8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953 9138
          E-mail: kabbarno@dlcfirm.com
                  mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Sues over Robocalls
----------------------------------------
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., May 25, 2018),
seeks redress for the Defendant's collection practices that
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, each call to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone from Barclays was placed via an "automatic telephone
dialing system and/or used "an artificial or prerecorded voice"
as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Neither
Plaintiff, nor her mother, nor any other person known to
Plaintiff ever provided Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 3583 to Barclays or Barnes & Noble or any agent or
employee of either at any time.  Defendant's telephone calls to
Plaintiff's cellular phone were not "for emergency purposes".
Defendant's telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone
utilizing an "artificial or prerecorded voice" or placed by an
"automatic telephone dialing system" for non-emergency purposes
and in the absence of Plaintiff's prior express consent violated
47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). As a result of Defendant's
knowing and/or willful violations, the Plaintiff and each member
of the Class are entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00
for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to
47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3).

Barclays Bank is a state-chartered, commercial bank with its
principal offices located at 125 South West Street, Wilmington,
DE 19801.[BN]

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


BAS OF FLORIDA: "Kott" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Kott and Michael Kott, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAS of Florida, LLC and Bryson
Raver, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00900 (M.D. Fla.,
April 13, 2018), seeks to recover overtime, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BAS operates a window washing company where Plaintiffs worked as
window washers. They claim to be denied payment of time and one-
half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
forty within a work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


BAY RIDGE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Ridge Medical
Imaging, P.C. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Ridge
Medical Imaging, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04870 (S.D.
N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C. provides diagnostic imaging
services in the New York region.[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


C&F FINANCE: "Miller" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Denise Miller and Donald Miller
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C&F Finance Company, the Defendant,
Case No. CAL18-12432, was removed from the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for
District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on June 1, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01594-CCB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Catherine C.
Blake.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory L Zajdel, Esq.
          Z Law LLC
          2345 York Road, Suite B-13
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213 1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

Attorneys for C&F Finance Company:

          Brian L Moffet, Esq.
          Michael Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 385 3656
          E-mail: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com
                  mbbrown@milesstockbridge.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarado & Garland Sue over Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR ALVARADO, and JAMES GARLAND, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CAESARS
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 31, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of Defendant in capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent, in direct violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The case is about a casino capturing, collecting, storing, and
using Plaintiffs and other patrons' biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete
privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects.
Defendant accomplishes this in the form of facial recognition
scans which capture on its premises an image of a person's face
and uses that to identify such person in the future.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the
sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the
highest bidder, the Illinois legislature passed detailed
regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of
biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant.
Choosing to shun more traditional security methods, Defendant has
instead implemented an invasive program that relies on the
capture, collection, storage, and use of individuals' facial
scans, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the
privacy interests it protects.

Caesars Entertainment is an American gaming corporation based in
Paradise, Nevada that owns and operates over 50 casinos and
hotels, and seven golf courses under several brands.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          William P .N. Kingston, Esq.
          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail1: wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  mmcguire@mcgpc.com


CALIFORNIA: Caron Files Suits v. Herold
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Herold,
inclusively. The case is styled as Craya C. Caron, individually;
and All California Licensed Pharmacists similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Virginia Herold, inclusively and Does 1 - 20
inclusively, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01194-R-KK (C.D. Cal.,
June 1, 2018).

Virginia Herold is the executive officer of the California State
Board of Pharmacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAPITAL GROWTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Fox Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON FOX, Individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
employees of Defendants in the State of California, the
Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-
00026734-CU-0E-CTL (Cal Super. Ct., May 31, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and regular wages and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants decreased their employment-
related costs in order to increase their level of productivity
and profits by systematically violating both state wage and hour
laws and IWC Wage Orders including, but not limited to: failing
to pay for minimum, regular and overtime wages for all hours
worked; failing to provide compliant meal and rest breaks;
failing to provide and maintain accurate records and itemized
wage statements; unlawfully deducting wages and/or rent in
amounts exceeding that permitted by law; and failing to timely
pay wages due during and upon termination of employment.

Capital Growth is a full service property management and real
estate brokerage firm, specializing in the management, sale and
leasing of income.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Short, Esq.
          Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
          350 10th Ave., Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 272 0720
          Facsimile: 619 839 3129
          E-mail: Brian@ShortLegal.com
                  Kristina@shortlcgal.com


CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Baole Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
BAOLE, as an individual and on behalf of Case all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPTEK SOFTGEL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC707675 (Cal. Super. Ct.) seeks to recover
damages and penalties caused by the Defendant's illegal and
unfair retention of compensation pursuant to the California Labor
Code.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Captek Softgel manufactures custom dietary supplement
formulations. It offers vitamins and minerals, carotenoids,
herbals and botanicals, oil softgel capsules, specialty softgel
products, and vegetarian capsules.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq. SBN 228175
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitvlaw.com

               - and -

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


CASSANO'S INC: Lee Asks Court to Approve Notice to Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Zachery Lee, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cassano's Inc., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order allowing him to send notice
of this action to these similarly situated employees:

     "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for
     Defendants at any of their Cassano's Pizza locations from
     March 20, 2015 to present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7bmkfKK6

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          www.msdlegal.com
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com


CHRYSLER-DODGE: Certification of Two Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-md-
02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an
order on September 17, 2018:

   1. granting certification of a Nationwide Class and State
      Classes:

      Nationwide Class:

      "all persons or entities in the United States (including
      its territories and the District of Columbia) that
      purchased or leased a Class Vehicle"; and

      State Class:

      "all persons or entities that purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle within [the state or jurisdiction] or that
      purchased or leased a Class Vehicle and reside in [the
      state or jurisdiction"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
      appointing Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as class
      counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vS3tIo5Q

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, 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: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839 2320
          Facsimile: (818) 986 9698
          E-mail: trellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 445 4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445 4020
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216 9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216 9450
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel ("Dee") Miles, III
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-1486
          Telephone: (619) 238 1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544 9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 98101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349 8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339 4181
          E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com


CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC., YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM
HOLTZBERG, ZALMAN - LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and
Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
June 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing them with appropriate overtime compensation required by
State and Federal law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

          Perer Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, New York 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445 1300


CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vasiliki Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Craftworks Restaurants
& Breweries, Inc. (d/b/a Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant),
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00879 (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Washington D.C. Minimum Wage
Revision Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately November
2016 through June 2017 as an assistant manager at Defendant's
Gordon Biersch restaurant located at 100 M St., SE, Washington,
DC 20003. Mitchell regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, without receiving overtime compensation, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H St. NE, Suite 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Tel: (202) 470-3520
     Fax: (202) 800-2730
     Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
            nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

            - and -

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Telephone: (914) 934-9200
     Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
     Email: fran@klafterolsen.com
            seth@klafterolsen.com
            christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

            - and -

     C. Andrew Head, Esq.
     Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
     HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
     4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
     Chicago, IL 60640
     Tel: (404) 924-4151
     Fax: (404) 796-7338
     Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com


CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Sept. 5 Fairness Hearing of "Vallejo" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
VENANCIO TORRES VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREATIVEXTERIORS, INC.,
and JEFFREY MILLER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-2832-WJM-
CBS (D. Colo.).

In this action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colorado Revised Statutes
Sections 8-6-101 et seq., and also raising related contract
claims, the Court entered an Order on November 23, 2016
certifying both a collective action under FLSA and a Rule 23
class for claims brought by lead Plaintiff, Venancio Torres
Vallejo, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated landscape
laborers who are Mexican nationals and who worked seasonally for
Defendants under terms of the H-2B visa program between 2010 and
2015.

The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair and
reasonable.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, September 5, 2018
at 9:30 a.m., at the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, located at 901 19th St., Denver, CO 80294,
in Courtroom A801, on the 8th floor, to determine whether the
Court will give final approval to the Settlement Agreement. The
Parties' motion seeking final approval of the settlement,
including counsel's final request for attorneys' fees and costs,
and any incorporated responses to objections received, shall by
filed with the Court and served on any timely objectors no later
than August 15, 2018. Any written responses to this motion shall
be filed with the Court no later than August, 29, 2018. These
deadlines for Court filings do not alter the obligation to comply
with the 100-day period for submitting any written objections.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7o97fen from Leagle.com.

Venancio Torres-Vallejo, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Hess
Turner, Kelman Buescher Firm, Edward John Tuddenham, Edward
Tuddenham Law Office & Chris G. Hoffman -- choffman@hsshlaw.com -
- Hoffman Sheffield Sauseda and Hoffman, PLLC.

CreativExteriors, Inc. & Jeffrey Miller, Defendants, represented
by Christopher J.W. Forrest, Hamilton Faatz, PC, Gregory Alan
Eurich, Miller & Steiert, P.C. & Mollie B. Hawes, Miller &
Steiert, P.C.


CYS INVESTMENTS: Stone Balks at Merger Deal with Two Harbors
------------------------------------------------------------
FRAN STONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYS INVESTMENTS, INC., KEVIN E.
GRANT, TANYA S. BEDER, KAREN HAMMOND, RAYMOND A. REDLINGSHAFER,
JR., DALE A. REISS, JAMES A. STERN, EIGER MERGER SUBSIDIARY LLC,
and TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-11156 (D. Mass., June 1, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction
unless and until the material information is included in an
amendment to the S-4 or otherwise disseminated to CYS's
stockholders.  In the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated without the material omissions being remedied,
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of CYS Investments, Inc. against CYS's Board of
Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's
attempt to sell the Company to Two Harbors Investment Corp.
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Eiger Merger Subsidiary LLC.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
registration statement to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 25, 2018. The S-4 recommends that CYS
stockholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby CYS
is acquired by Two Harbors. The Proposed Transaction was first
disclosed on April 26, 2018, when CYS and Two Harbors announced
that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant
to which Two Harbors will acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of CYS for approximately $7.79 per share in a mix
of cash and Two Harbors stock. The Proposed Transaction is the
product of an opportune decline in the Company's stock price.
Circumstances outside of the control of the Company depressed its
stock price, and almost immediately other companies began their
attempts to acquire CYS. A quick sales process led to the Merger
Agreement, with a Merger Consideration that undervalues the
Company. Indeed, the Company's own financial advisors conducted
analyses that found implied per share equity values of the
Company as high as $8.98. Furthermore, the S-4 is materially
incomplete and contains misleading representations and
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

CYS Investments, incorporated on January 3, 2006, is a specialty
finance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN
          MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431 2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431 8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514


DACM INC: Mejia Sues over Motor Vehicle Financing Terms
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DACM INC dba DEL AMO AUTOMOBILE SALES
FINANCE MOTORSPORTS OF ORANGE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC705674 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the
Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act and the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, DEL AMO has violated and continues to
violate the Rees-Levering Act in connection with the sale and
financing of motor vehicles to California consumers. The Rees-
Levering Act governs the sale and financing of motor vehicles in
California. A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle required to
be registered under the Vehicle Code, and thus includes street
legal motorcycles. The Rees-Levering Act imposes specific
disclosure requirements in conditional sale contracts between
motor vehicle sellers and their customers. These requirements are
intended to enable consumers to make informed decisions with
respect to the cost of credit. Specifically, the Rees-Levering
Act requires that all agreements between the seller and buyer of
a motor vehicle be contained within a single document, signed by
both parties, and delivered to the buyer at or prior to delivery
of the vehicle. The Rees-Levering Act also mandates that this
single document contain statutorily mandated disclosures relating
to the purchase and financing of any motor vehicle. DEL AMO has
and is continuing to systematically violate these requirements by
failing to provide buyers with a single document setting forth
terms of closed-end financing for retail installment sales of
motorcycles.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Mejia and the Proposed Class:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Adam J. Mcneile, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632 1900
          Facsimile: (415) 632 1901


DCH CALABASAS-A: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Karapetian Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDIS KARAPETIAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DCH CALABASAS-A, LLC, a
California limited liability company; DCH SIMI VALLEY, INC., a
California corporation; LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon
corporation; DCH AUTO GROUP (USA) INC., a Delaware corporation;
DCH DEL NORTE, INC., a California corporation; DCH (OXNARD) INC.,
a California corporation; DCH OXNARD 1521 IMPORTS, INC., a
California corporation; DCH CALIFORNIA MOTORS, INC., a California
corporation; DCH INVESTMENTS LLC, a California limited liability
company; DCH TORRANCE IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation;
TUSTIN MOTORS; INC., a California corporation; DCH THOUSAND OAKS-
F, INC., a California corporation; DCH RIVERSIDE-S, INC., a
California corporation; DCH TEMECULA IMPORTS LLC, a California
limited liability company; DCH CA LLC, a California limited
liability company; DCH KOREAN IMPORTS LLC, a California limited
liability company; DCH MISSION VALLEY LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC706923 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory minimum wage for all hours worked
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay all minimum wages and meal and rest period premium wages,
Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued
inaccurate wage statements to Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees. As a further result of Defendants' failure to pay all
minimum wages and meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants
failed to pay all wages owed to Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees upon their separation of employment with
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N, Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


DEALERS' CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Morin Says
------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS A MORIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEALERS' CHOICE TRUCKAWAY
SYSTEM, INC. dba TRUCKMOVERS, a Kansas corporation, and DOES
1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC706918 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have retained the
right to exercise ail necessary control over Plaintiff and other
Class Members; such that the Truck Drivers are in fact
Defendants' employees under California Jaw. Plaintiff challenges
Defendants' policy of willfully and unlawfully misclassifying
their Truck Drivers as "independent contractors" and thereby
failing to indemnify them for employment-related expenses and
losses; taking unlawful deductions from their wages; failing to
provide off-duty meal periods; failing to permit and authorize
paid, off-duty rest periods; failing to provide pay minimum wage;
unlawfully charging a fee for each transaction/debit made from
wages paid by Defendants using Comdata cards; failing to provide
a negotiable paycheck; Failing to provide accurate wage
statements; and failing to pay all wages due upon termination of
employment, all in violation of California Labor Code and
California's Industrial-Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Dealer's Choice Truckaway System, Inc. provides transportation
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          Sam Kin, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010
          E-mail: yhan@gmail.com
                  skim@verumlg.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Reitans Claim Pinnacle Device Not Safe
----------------------------------------------------------
JEAN M. REITAN AND FREDRICK A. REITAN, the Plaintiff, v. DEPUY
ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY INTERNATIONAL,
LIMITED; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01415-K (N.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to
recover compensation for both economic and non-economic losses,
including but not limited to medical expenses, loss of earnings,
disfigurement, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional
distress, in such amounts as may be proven at trial, for their
use of the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System.

The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System
and launched it in 2001. The Pinnacle Device was designed,
developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due
to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular
necrosis. The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened to human
bone with surgical screws. The Pinnacle Device was designed and
sold to provide pain relief and consistent and smooth range of
motion. Defendants marketed and described the Pinnacle Device as
"[u]niquely designed to meet the demands of active patients like
you -- and reduce pain" and advertised it with pictures of a
young woman trying on sneakers in an athletic shoe store.
Defendants advertised the Pinnacle Device as a superior device
featuring TrueGlide technology, allowing the body to create a
thin film of lubrication between surfaces, which enables "a more
fluid range of natural motion."

The Defendants also advertised and sold the Pinnacle Device as
the best surgical option that "[r]ecreates the natural ball-and-
socket joint of your hip, increasing stability and range of
motion."

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sold approximately 150,000
Pinnacle Devices. Defendants have stated in promotional materials
that "99.9% of Pinnacle Hip components are still in use today."
The Plaintiffs allege that over 1,300 adverse reports have been
submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regarding failures or complications of the Pinnacle Device. The
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are aware that the use of the
Pinnacle Device may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity, and
a high failure rate. The Plaintiffs further allege that use of
the Pinnacle Device results in unsafe release of toxic metal ions
into hip implant recipients' tissue and bloodstream. Plaintiffs
further allege that Defendants are aware that metal particles
from the Pinnacle Device results in metallosis, tissue death,
bone erosion, and development of tumors.

DePuy Synthes is a franchise of orthopaedic and neurosurgery
companies. Acquired by Johnson & Johnson in 1998, its companies
form part of the Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices group.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE LLP
          698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
          Tucson, AZ 85705
          Telephone: (520) 620 3975
          Facsimile: (520) 620 3991
          E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages & OT to Nurses, Allison Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE ALLISON, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly, the Plaintiff, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a
California corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case No.
CGC-18-566922 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Registered
Nurse at Defendant's hospital in Oxnard, California. As part of
her job, Plaintiff was required to participate in online
continuing education training to maintain her certification. The
Plaintiff would log 26 in to a computer program during her shift
and participate in the online training. Although the time spent
participating in continuing education courses is considered time
worked, and Plaintiff was owed wages for all such training time,
Defendant only agreed to compensate Plaintiff and class members
for a portion of the CET. Thus, as a result of Defendant's policy
of failing to pay wages for all time spent participating in
continuing education courses, Plaintiff and class members were
forced to work off the clock. In addition, the Plaintiff was
forced by Defendant not to record more work hours than 12 in a
day, to avoid paying Plaintiff and class members double time
wages. Thus, Plaintiff and class members were required to clock
out, but had to continue working. The Plaintiff and class members
were not paid for such off-the-clock work.

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-
benefit corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care
facilities in three states. As such, it is exempt from federal
and state income taxes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Michael Morphew, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 399 3995
          Facsimile: 619 615 2067
          E-mail: drnarkham@rnarkham-law.com
                  mrealin@rnarkharn-law.com
                  mmorphew@markharn-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: 888 474 7242
          Facsimile: 562 256 1006
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


DNATA AVIATION: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dnata Aviation USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Davion Bennett, an individual on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dnata Aviation USA, Inc. a corporation,
Ground Services International Incorporated a corporation,
Defendants, Case No. CGC18566911 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018).

Dnata Aviation USA, Inc. is a holding company, through its
subsidiary, provides aviation ground handling services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
   Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: norm@bamlawca.com



DR PEPPER: Drivers File Lawsuit Over COBRA Health Care Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Eleven Dr Pepper Snapple drivers filed a class action against
their employer on May 29 claiming the company illegally forces
workers into expensive COBRA health care coverage to break
strikes.

Jeremey Yancey and 10 other plaintiffs are among 165 workers
represented by Teamster Local Union 727 who began a strike at The
American Bottling Co. facilities in Northlake and Harvey, Ill.,
on May 22.  Among other grievances, the drivers say that the Dr
Pepper Snapple subsidiary does not pay them as much as drivers
for its competitors, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

According to their class action filed on May 29 in Chicago
federal court, while it is legitimate for employers to terminate
health care plans during a strike, Dr Pepper Snapple is not
permitted to automatically enroll workers in coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, for the
duration of a strike.

The workers say that Dr Pepper Snapple, through The American
Bottling Co., sent a letter on the day the strike began informing
them that it would suspend their medical benefits until they
return to work and that it had automatically enrolled the drivers
in COBRA coverage.  Family coverage is more than $350 a week,
according to the letter cited in the lawsuit.

The workers and their families have 65 days to decide whether to
elect COBRA coverage and another 45 days to make their first
payment.  Dr Pepper, however, allegedly ignored that grace period
and "unilaterally usurped" plaintiffs' rights by electing
coverage for them in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, or ERISA.

Federal law "allows an employer to terminate health coverage
during a strike, but it does not permit the employer to use COBRA
as a cudgel to win the strike," according to the 16-page
complaint filed by attorney Linda Martin in Philadelphia.

Teamsters Local 727 said in a news release on May 29 that The
American Bottling Co. had filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction against the union to
stop members from picketing and handbilling.  A judge was set to
hear the motion on May 29 but the company has asked the court to
reassign the case to a different judge, according to the union.

"Instead of spending time and money working to bargain in good
faith, and coming back to the bargaining table, this multi-
billion dollar corporate bully is choosing to spend money on
expensive lawyers, unnecessary security, and baseless legal
actions," union executive John Coli Jr. said in a prepared
statement.

On May 20, the drivers declined the company's final contract
offer which would have raised wages but would have fallen short
of the hourly rate offered by competitors, according to the
Chicago Tribune.  The workers have been driving without contracts
since May 1, the paper reported.

The 150 drivers in the proposed class each seek statutory
penalties of $110 per day and a court order that prevents Dr
Pepper Snapple from using a "defective" COBRA notice against
striking workers.

Neither Dr Pepper Snapple nor Martin immediately responded on
May 29 to requests for comment.


DR SMOOD: Brown Alleges Skimming of Credit Card Tips
----------------------------------------------------
EQUAN BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DR SMOOD 1151 BROADWAY LLC, DR SMOOD
285 MADISON LLC, DR SMOOD 485 LEX LLC, DR SMOOD SOHO LLC, DR
SMOOD ORCHARD LLC, DR SMOOD NEW YORK PRODUCTION LLC, RENE
SINDLEV, individually, and PATRICIA MANICI SINDLEZ, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 155146/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1,
2018), contends that the Class are entitled to the full amount of
tips paid through credit cards. However, Defendants did not
distribute the full measure of credit card tips to employees who
had earned them, and instead unlawfully retained those tips. As
of October 11, 2018, the Defendant's Broadway Location alone had
unlawfully retainer $22,655 in credit card tips from the previous
six months.  The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been
widespread, repeated, and consistent among all locations.

The Defendants are employers in the hospitality industry.  They
operate restaurants that prepare and offer food and beverage for
customer consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


DUNBAR ARMORED: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Paul Hernandez, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00010780-CLI-0E-CTL, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of California (San Diego) on May 25, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01046-JLS-JMA to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L.
Sammartino.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William D. Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 573 4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573 4901
          E-mail: guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com


EDWARD JONES: Faces Class Action from Black Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
black employees of Edward D. Jones Co. claim in a federal class
action that the investment firm discriminates against them in
pay, opportunities and promotion.

Plaintiff's counsel:

     Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
     Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
     George S. Robot, Esq.
     STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
     303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 431-0888
     Email: lfriedman@sfltd.com
            sbish@sfltd.com
            grobot@sfltd.com


ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Go-Live Support Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY PIERCE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18906387 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 25, 2018), contends that despite the fact that the Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated Go-Live Support Consultants did not
meet any test for exemption, Encore failed to pay them the
requisite overtime rate of 1.5 times or 2 times their regular
rate for all hour worked more than 8 hours in a day, more than 12
hours in a day, more than 40 hours per week, 8 hours worked on
the seventh consecutive day in a workweek, and more than 8 hours
on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

Encore, a healthcare information technology firm, provides
training and support to medical facilities in connection with the
implementation and administration of integrated health computer
systems, specifically, new electronic recordkeeping systems.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, the general public, and all others
similarly situated:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287
          Lakeside Drive Reno, NE 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284 1500
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205
          North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: RStephan@stephanzouras.com
                  AFiczko@stephanzouras.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge May Toss Quality Assurance Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
another class-action lawsuit brought against Verona health care
software maker Epic Systems is on the ropes after a federal judge
said on May 22 that unless convinced otherwise, he would dismiss
the suit in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on May 21 that
compels a different group of Epic workers to arbitration to
resolve wage disputes.

The lawsuit was brought in December 2016 on behalf of Epic
quality assurance workers who say they were illegally denied
overtime pay.  In January 2017, the case was put on hold while
the Supreme Court decided a similar case involving Epic technical
writers, which also involved a wage dispute.

Epic's lawyers had also filed a motion to dismiss the case on
essentially the same grounds as in the case involving the
technical writers -- that quality assurance workers are bound by
arbitration agreements under which they have waived their right
to pursue wage disputes in court.

On May 21, a split Supreme Court sided 5-4 with Epic, ruling that
because of the arbitration agreements, the technical writers
cannot pursue a class action lawsuit.

On May 22, U.S. District Judge William Conley noted the ruling,
and in an order, he lifted the hold on the lawsuit brought by the
quality assurance workers.  He also said that lawyers for the
quality assurance workers, who are the same lawyers who represent
the technical writers, have until June 12 to explain why he
shouldn't grant Epic's motion to dismiss the case and compel
individual arbitration.

Judge Conley also wrote that if the quality assurance workers in
their response continue to oppose arbitration, Epic would have
two weeks to respond.

Caitlin Madden, one of the lawyers who represent both the quality
assurance workers and the technical writers at Epic, said on
May 22 that she could not comment on the pending case.

In their lawsuit, the quality assurance workers claim that they
were misclassified by Epic as being exempt from overtime pay
rules, despite performing low-level computer work that requires
little training or education in computer programming or
engineering.

Analysts, programmers and software engineers, for example, are
exempt by law from overtime pay rules.  While the case hasn't
progressed far enough to gain class certification, the lawsuit
states that as many as 1,000 people were potential class members.

In 2014, Epic settled a class action lawsuit over wages brought
by past quality assurance workers for $5.4 million.  Another
lawsuit brought by former technical writers was settled in
January 2017 for an undisclosed sum. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Grants Petition to Stay $30-Bil. Privacy Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit on May 29 granted Facebook's emergency
petition to stay a $30 billion privacy suit pending appeal just
hours after a lower court refused to delay an upcoming trial.

Two Ninth Circuit judges issued their ruling just after 3:00 p.m.
on May 29, mere hours after U.S. District Judge James Donato
denied Facebook's motion to stay the case.

In an emergency petition filed on May 25, Facebook argued it was
being forced to spend money and risk reputational harm notifying
users about an upcoming trial, which could become moot if the
Ninth Circuit overturns a prior ruling in the case.

"The reputational and economic costs to Facebook will be
irreparable, particularly because the court has ordered Facebook
to use its own service to notify people about a lawsuit against
it," Facebook wrote in its emergency petition.

Judge Donato ordered Facebook to use emails, newsfeed posts and
jewel notices, or Facebook alerts, to notify millions of Illinois
Facebook users about the lawsuit by May 31.  Facebook is accused
of harvesting users' facial data for its "Photo Tag Suggest"
function without consent and in violation of a 2008 Illinois
privacy law.  A jury trial was set for July 9.

The social network claims Judge Donato erroneously interpreted
Illinois law when he granted class certification in April and
denied Facebook's motion for summary judgment in May.

Facebook also argued that Judge Donato was "prioritizing the
July 9 trial date above the due process rights of Facebook and
millions of absent class members."

In his May 28 ruling, Judge Donato said Facebook "goes too far"
in claiming that alerting users about the suit through its own
network would cause "untoward embarrassment."

"Many cases have held that a defendant's online channels
constitute the best practicable notice to individual class
members," Judge Donato wrote.

Judge Donato also disagreed with Facebook's argument that the
case should be postponed pending the outcome of its appeal
challenging his decision to certify the class.

"Facebook has not proffered any evidence indicating that class
members would be left in a state of disarray and befuddlement, as
it suggests, if developments during trial or post-trial appellate
review resulted in a change to or decertification of the class,"
Judge Donato wrote.

Judge Donato noted in his conclusion that this case, which
started in 2015, has already been heavily litigated with major
pre-trial disputes resolved and discovery closed.

"The case is ripe for trial, and Facebook's last-minute request
to derail that is denied," Judge Donato wrote.

But the Ninth Circuit later granted Facebook's petition to stay
the case.  That means the company no longer has to use its own
network to alert millions of users about the lawsuit by May 31,
and the trial is delayed indefinitely.

Ninth Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Consuelo Callahan
issued the one-page ruling granting Facebook's emergency petition
to stay the case.

The two judges also granted an unopposed motion by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce to file an amicus brief in the case.

Earlier on May 29, class attorney Paul Geller, of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down in Boca Raton, Florida criticized Facebook for its
"wasteful, repetitive efforts to stay the case or delay the
trial."

After the Ninth Circuit handed down its order, Geller said in an
email: "We remain confident that our clients will get their day
in court.  This is just one more hurdle we have to clear."

Facebook did not immediately return follow-up emails seeking
comment on the Ninth Circuit's decision on May 29.


FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Bautista Says
----------------------------------------------------------
SAUL G. BAUTISTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR, INC., a
California corporation; ANWAR GAJIANI, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707891 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages,
including overtime wages and minimum wages, to Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees in the State of California in
violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked and
failing to pay overtime to employees who worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Fantasy Activewear, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes
apparel for adults, juniors, and youth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOURLAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Farzin Hatanian, Esq.
          HATAN LAW, INC.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 853 0147
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1582


FANTASY DYEING: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------
APOLINAR LUZ GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FANTASY DYEING & FINISHING,
INC., a California corporation; ANWAR GAJIANI, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC 707890
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages,
including overtime wages and minimum wages, to Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees in the State of California in
violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked and
failing to pay overtime to employees who worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Fantasy Dyeing was founded in 2003. The Company's line of
business includes knitting outerwear from yarn or in
manufacturing outerwear from knit fabrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOURLAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Farzin Hatanian, Esq.
          HATAN LAW, INC.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 853 0147
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1582


FGNY 296: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Shomo Claims
--------------------------------------------------
KENNETH SHOMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FGNY 296 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a FIVE
GUYS, and FGNY W48 LLC d/b/a FIVE GUYS, the Defendants, Case No.
511341/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), contends that the
Plaintiff was throughout his entire employment with Defendants, a
covered, nonexempt employee, and as such, Plaintiff was, and is,
entitled to be paid in full for all hours worked.  The Defendants
employed Plaintiff at their restaurants in New York City, and
maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff in
regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment
practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


FINANCIAL CREDIT: Rigo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRO RIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CREDIT SERVICE, INC. D/B/A/
ARA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22198-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
June 1, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful conduct
in dispatching thousands of unlawful collection letters to
Florida consumers in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the original creditor of the Consumer
Debt was American General Finance. The current creditor of the
Consumer Debt is ARA, Inc. The Consumer Debt is a "debt" governed
by the FDCPA and FCCPA.

On or about May 15, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The
Collection Letter does not advise Plaintiff that Consumer Debt is
in fact time-barred or that making a payment towards the Consumer
Debt will revive the statute of limitations. The Collection
Letter does not advise Plaintiff that if Plaintiff were to agree
to any "payment arrangements" or enter any repayment agreement as
Defendant urges, the current-creditor could then sue Plaintiff
for the full amount of the Consumer Debt that was previously
time-barred. Defendant's false, misleading and abusive tactics to
collect on time-barred debts violate several provisions of the
FDCPA and FCCPA.

Financial Credit is a debt buyer and debt collector and purchases
outstanding debt from major banks and credit card companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FIVE WEST HUBBARD CORP: "Nesbitt" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Nesbitt and Roy Ballesteros on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs, v. 5 West Hubbard Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02644 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2018), seeks to recover all
back wages owed, prejudgment interest on the back wages owed,
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred
in the filing and prosecution of this action and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Five West Hubbard Corporation --
http://www.motherhubbardschicago.com/-- operates as "Mother
Hubbard's Sports Pub" located at Chicago, Illinois where
Plaintiffs are current/former employees. They claim to have
worked more than forty hours per work week without being paid
overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: "Loiseau" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daphne Loiseau, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Forster & Garbus, LLP and Midland Funding, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 600162/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court, Nassau
County, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New
York (Central Islip) on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03232-JMA-AKT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack.

Forster & Garbus is a debt collection law firm that engages in
very high volume debt collection, particularly, the filing of
lawsuits against alleged debtors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 629 7709
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

Attorneys for Midland Funding, LLC:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471 6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935 1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
                  esilverman@hinshawlaw.com


FOUR M: Underpays Waiters and Bartenders, Dawkins et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
TIARA DAWKINS, SHARIVIA ALFORD, ZEENATH RASHID, and YINEIRY
GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FOUR M FOOD SERVICE OF GATEWAY LLC
d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, the Defendant, Case No. 708531/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other
legal and equitable relief against the Defendant for violations
of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules, and
Regulations, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendant employed Plaintiffs as waiters and bartenders at
their restaurant in Brooklyn, New York, and maintained control,
oversight, and direction over Plaintiffs in regard to
timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices, and
functioned as employers pursuant to the NYLL.

Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and
sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, India, Mexico,
Oman, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates &
Vietnam, specialising in Buffalo wings & sauces.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


FOUR SEASONS: "Nova" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luz Edith Roque Nova, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Four Seasons Packaging Corp.
(d/b/a Four Seasons Packaging), Michael Marcarian, John Chen,
Jimmy Doe, Jenny Doe and Ling Wang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02171 (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a distribution center,
located at 70 Onderdonk Avenue, Ridgewood, New York 11385 under
the name "Four Seasons Packaging" where Roque was employed as a
supply packer. She worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRESENIUS USA: "Cota" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Cota, individually; and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Fresenius USA, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Fresenius USA
Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00021158-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
California (San Diego) on June 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01163-LAB-AGS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns.

Fresenius manufactures and distributes equipment and disposable
products for the treatment of kidney failure by hemodialysis and
by peritoneal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Stern, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          633 W 5th Street, Suite 4900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2032
          Telephone: (213) 808 5736
          Facsimile: (213) 808 5760
          E-mail: david.stern@dechert.com


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces "Ridgell" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Airlines,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Ridgell, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontier Airlines,
Inc., a Colorado corporation, Airbus S.A.S., a foreign
corporation doing business in the State of California, Airbus
Group HQ, Inc., a corporation doing business in the State of
California, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04916 (C.D. Cal.,
June 1, 2018).

Frontier Airlines is an American ultra low cost carrier
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The 8th largest commercial
airline in the US, Frontier Airlines operates flights to over 80
destinations throughout the United States and 6 international
destinations, with ambitious expansion plans. The carrier is a
subsidiary and operating brand of Indigo Partners, LLC, and
maintains a hub at Denver International Airport with numerous
focus cities across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
   Bradley Grombacher LLP
   2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: (805) 270-7100
   Fax: (805) 270-7589
   Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Certification Bid Dismissed as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EMILY MALET-JOWETT, On behalf of herself
and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
FULFILLMENT LAB, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00064-
ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order dated June 5,
2018:

   1. dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
      premature, to be reurged no later than December 1, 2018;
      and

   2. granting reurged joint motion to continue/stay submission
      date for class certification

The Court said, "The parties shall have six months to conduct
discovery on the question of whether entities that are not
currently parties to the instant lawsuit should be named as
additional defendants. The deadline for a plaintiff to move for
class certification can be continued for good cause."

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


GAME INFORMER: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Michigan man filed a
federal class action claiming Game Informer magazine, without
permission, shared demographic and lifestyle information about
thousands of its subscribers with third parties.

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     Wedad Ibrahim, Esq.
     LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
     24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Tel: (248) 208-8864
     Email: WedadI@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

        -- and --

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     David W. Hall, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 357-2107
     Fax: (305) 200-8801
     Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
            dhall@hedinhall.com


GAME SHOW: Faces Class Action Over Social-Casino Online Games
-------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for Flush Draw, reports that Washington
State-based class-action law firm Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC has
filed another complaint targeting the providers of "free play"
social-casino online games available to residents of Washington.
This time, the firm has filed a claim for unspecified damages
against California's Game Show Network (GSN) and its online "GSN
Casino" offerings.

The complaint lists a Washington State resident, Elise Bell, as
the official plaintiff and as the initial member of a class that
may include "tens of thousands" of potential litigants.  The
action alleges that the games served up within the GSN Casino are
in violation of Washington gambling laws, because they offer the
sale of coin packages that allow for additional play on GSN
Casino games (mostly free-play slots), if and when a player's
free allotments of chips are used up.

Attorneys for Tousley Brain Stephens allege that the sale of the
coin packages represent a "thing of value" under Washington law,
even though the coins cannot be redeemed for anything else, once
purchased.  It's the same argument the class-action firm has
employed in five other recent cases filed against social-casino
providers.

The lawsuit against California-based GSN was filed in Tacoma, WA,
in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.
As with the previous lawsuits filed by Tousley Brain Stephens, it
includes a nominal presentation of facts associated with the case
while including a demand for a jury trial.

Per the complaint, Bell signed up to play at GSN Casino and
eventually purchased numerous coin bundles for extra play.
"Starting in September 2016, Plaintiff Bell wagered and lost (and
Defendant therefore won) over $700 at Defendant's games of
chance." Despite the language used, whether the defendant "won"
in a gambling sense or whether the sale of the coins represents a
usage or entertainment fee is one of the key factors this and the
other Washington state cases will have to examine.

About five weeks ago, Tousley Brain Stephens filed actions
against four providers of free-to-play online casino games that
were available to Washington State residents.  The companies
named as defendants in those earlier actions are Huuuge Games,
High 5 Games, DoubleDown Interactive and Playtika.

All of the class-action filings came in the wake of an early-
April appellate court decision in Washington that went against a
different social-casino operator, Churchill Downs, the parent
company of the Big Fish Casino family of online games.  Though
the Churchill Downs ruling included other aspects that may make
it inapplicable to other games, such as Big Fish charging a
transaction fee allowing players to transfer chips to one
another, Tousley Brain Stephens may have taken the ruling as
green light to go after social-casino operators in general.

It's also not the first such delving into online-gaming matters
for the firm.  Back in 2016, Tousley Brain Stephens was one of
several legal firms involved in class actions brought against
esports provider Valve Corp. (the parent company of
CounterStrike: Global Offensive), and numerous third parties
involved in the sale of skins, a medium through which illicit
gambling on CS:GO and other esports occurred.  Valve Corp.
successfully defended itself in that matter, though the recent
spate of social-gaming targets suggest the firm has simply looked
for another family of corporate targets in the same general
online-business sphere.

In this latest action, Bell's "losses" (if not truly a cost of
entertainment) are listed at about $700, yet the action claims
the federal court has jurisdiction because the expected claim is
over $5 million.  Since discovery has yet to occur, that figure
appears derived from GSN's purchase of UK social-games developer
Bash Gaming back in 2014, in a deal valued at more than $160
million.

The action lists three separate claims against GSN:

   -- Violations of Washington gambling codes;
   -- Violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act;
   -- Unjust enrichment.

The action seeks trebled damages on the actual purchase amounts
by Bell and other, later members of the class, plus interest,
court costs, and what appears to be the real moneymaker in the
action, attorneys' fees. [GN]


GEORGE WASH. UNIV.: Stanley Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Stanley, individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of The George Washington
University Retirement Plan for Faculty and Staff and The George
Washington University Supplemental Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, v.
The George Washington University, The George Washington
University Board Of Trustees and The George Washington University
Plan Administration Committee, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00878
(D.C., April 13, 2018) seeks to recover plan losses, removal of
fiduciaries who have breached their fiduciary duties, surcharges
on all amounts involved in any transactions which such accounting
reveals were improper or excessive, attorney's fees and costs,
payment of interest and equitable or remedial relief pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The George Washington University is a private university located
at 2121 Eye Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052. The George
Washington University Retirement Plan for Faculty and Staff is a
defined contribution, individual account, money purchase employee
benefit pension plan. Stanley is a participant in the said plans
and has a vested account balance.

Plaintiff alleges that the Plans' funds were placed into
duplicative, expensive and underperforming proprietary annuity
products. Defendants continuously retained share classes of Plans
investment options that charged higher fees than other less
expensive share classes that were available for the same funds.
Plan member pay an asset-based fee for administrative services
that continued to increase with the increase in the value of a
participant's account even though no additional services were
being provided. Defendants also failed to regularly monitor the
investment choices in the Plans to determine whether the Plans
provided an appropriate range of investment choices into which
participants could direct the investment of their retirement
dollars, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Tel: (202) 470-3520
      Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

            - and -

      Steve Schwartz, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 656-2500
      Fax: (302) 656-9053
      Email: rjk@chimicles.com

             - and -

      Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
      Paul R. Wood, Esq.
      Keith R. Scranton, Esq.
      FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      14426 E. Evans Ave.
      Aurora, CO 80014
      Tel: (303) 757-3300
      Fax: (303) 757-3206
      Email: azarf@fdazar.com
             woodp@fdzar.com
             scrantonk@fdazar.com


GETSWIFT: Federal Court Approves Shareholders' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hall, writing for Business News Australia, reports that the
filing of a class action law suit against logistics software
company GetSwift has been approved by the Federal Court with the
aggrieved shareholders now ordered to file a statement of claim
against the company.

The Federal Court considered three separate class actions against
GetSwift and ruled that the claim by law firm Phi Finney McDonald
should proceed while the two other class actions should be
permanently stayed.

GetSwift, which is run by CEO Bane Hunter and former AFL player
and entrepreneur Joel McDonald, was facing up to three separate
class action law suits over allegations it has engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct relating to continuous
disclosure breaches to the market.

The successful class action from Phi Finney McDonald does not
disclose an amount of compensation being sought, but in an
announcement to the ASX, GetSwift says the other claims were for
approximately $75 to $100 million and $120 to $140 million.

GetSwift says this is a reduction of between 50 to 75 per cent on
the previously reported claim size.

"The company strongly disputes the allegations made, including
any alleged loss, and will vigorously defend the proceedings,"
the ASX statement says.

In February, law firm Squire Patton Boggs applied to commence the
class action against GetSwift in the Federal Court, while
litigation funder Vannin Capital together with law firm Corrs
Chambers Westgarth along with MC Lawyers indicated they were also
investigating the possibility of launching a class action.

It's been alleged GetSwift breached its obligations to the market
in announcing deals with The Fruitbox Company, the Commonwealth
Bank and Fantastic Furniture, with those deals subsequently
either cancelled or subject to ongoing review.

The company confirmed in February it received notice from the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that it
is "under investigation" as the company revealed a blowout in
losses of nearly 1,000 per cent.

In its half yearly update released to the market shortly after
the ASIC investigation was announced, the company revealed its
net loss after tax had blown out by 964 per cent to $5.5 million
from $516,000 in the prior corresponding period.

Ahead of the ASIC investigation and the class action being
lodged, GetSwift spent nearly a month in a trading halt as it
worked through its disclosure issues with the ASX.

In April, the company announced a board shakeup which included
Bane Hunter taking over as CEO from Joel McDonald along with a
promise to address its governance practices.

In December, GSW shares were trading at $4.30 and on May 23 they
were $0.44. [GN]


GETSWIFT: Phi Finney McDonald to Lead Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bailey, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that boutique Melbourne law firm Phi Finney McDonald will lead
the sole class action on behalf of aggrieved investors in
logistics business GetSwift, after a Federal Court judge on
May 23 permanently stayed two other competing class actions.

The class actions and an Australian Securities and Investments
Commission investigation of GetSwift were triggered by an
investigation in The Australian Financial Review into the
company's market announcements and failure to disclose contract
losses, which saw its share price plummet.  The stock has lost 90
per cent from its high in December 2017 to trade at 43รต on May
23.

Phi Finney McDonald's victory is understood to be the first time
that an Australian court has responded to multiple class actions
by allowing only one to proceed.  Previously, courts have
preferred to consolidate multiple claims into a single action, or
to allow multiple claims to go forward after having eliminated
overlaps in group membership.

In a judgment that could set a precedent for the five law firms
currently fighting over which will run a class action against
AMP, Justice Michael Lee found that Phi Finney McDonald -- run by
three former Slater & Gordon lawyers and partnered in this class
action by funder Therium Australia -- had a "clearly preferable"
funding model over actions brought by Squire Patton Boggs and
Corrs Chambers Westgarth.

"It has the advantage of producing a more direct correlation
between the amount ventured and the likely return," Justice Lee
wrote in his 139-page judgment.

Instead of the simple percentage commission payable to funders in
most class actions, Phi Finney McDonald's proposal entitled its
funder to the lesser of a multiple of expenses it had paid in the
proceeding (2.2 times for a settlement with GetSwift before April
12, 2019, 2.8 times for a successful resolution after that) or 20
per cent of the litigation proceeds less fees and disbursements.

"Our model has a number of advantages, including tying the
funder's return to the risk that they have taken in a proceeding
and preventing windfalls to the funder", Phi Finney McDonald
partner Ben Phi told The Australian Financial Review.

Justice Lee noted its proposal also included a "novel suggestion"
for a court-appointed referee to periodically review the
reasonableness of legal costs being incurred.

Not wavering in his declaration in April that only one of the
competing class actions should go ahead, as the case was likely
to be settled and multiple actions would reduce the amount
payable to GetSwift investors, the judge noted there was little
difference in the competence and state of preparation of the
three class actions.

However, he commended Phi Finney McDonald's openness to the
appointment of court-appointed experts in relation to questions
of liability and loss causation as a means of "significantly"
reducing costs, and avoiding selection bias.

"At the very least, [Phi Finney McDonald's] non-opposition to
such a course will potentially reduce the scope for disputation
about whether or not such a course is appropriate," Justice Lee
wrote.

The judgment potentially contained a warning for class action
applicants who spend time on "bookbuilds" -- signing up members
and creating funding agreements with them -- before they know
whether a "common fund order" will be made.

Since the Federal Court's first making of a "common fund order"
in Australian legal history in 2016, they have become an
increasingly prominent part of the class action landscape.  They
provide the funder of a class action with certainty that all of
the claimants in a class -- in this case, all of the investors
who bought GetSwift shares before its continuous disclosure
breaches were revealed -- will be liable to pay the funder a
commission out of any proceeds from litigation or settlement,
rather than only those who signed up to funding arrangements with
the funder.

So while Corrs Chambers Westgarth made much in earlier hearings
of the 208 investors it had signed with funder Vannin Capital,
and Squire Patton Boggs its 103 with International Litigation
Partners, Justice Lee said this had proved a "waste of costs" as
a common fund order was agreed relatively early in proceedings.

Not even the GetSwift investor named as the applicant in Phi
Finney McDonald's action, Raffaele Webb, had actually signed a
funding agreement with its funder Therium Australia.

Mr Phi said he would not comment on the potential size of the
claim against GetSwift.  His competitor applicants had earlier
tendered estimates between $75 million and $140 million.

Phi Finney McDonald has been ordered to serve a statement of
claim by May 28, 2018, and GetSwift to serve a defence by June 6,
2018. [GN]


GILBERT ROZON: Sexual Harassment Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a
class-action lawsuit against former Just For Laughs head Gilbert
Rozon for the alleged harassment and sexual assault of several
women.

The women sought permission last fall to file the suit against
the co-founder of the popular Montreal comedy festival, seeking
$10 million in punitive damages as well as additional
compensation.

They created a group called "Les Courageuses" ("The Courageous
Ones") and alleged Rozon abused at least 20 women between 1982
and 2016.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson ruled in their favour
on May 22, saying they have the right to have their case heard.

The judge noted that class-actions have proven an effective way
to ensure victims have access to justice in sexual assault cases.

"If the plaintiff was not authorized to bring this class action,
it is highly likely that many victims would be deprived of the
ability to exercise their rights in court," Judge Bisson wrote.

The case is unusual, the judge noted, because most other class
actions related to sexual assault are directed at religious or
educational institutions.

"The peculiarity of this case is that the claim does not concern
an institution in which the abuser was working, but only the
alleged perpetrator alone," he wrote.

Mr. Rozon can appeal, but only with the permission of a judge.

His lawyers had challenged the authorization, arguing a lawsuit
was not the appropriate vehicle and that each woman should have
pursued her own case.

Mr. Rozon also argued the lead plaintiff, actress Patricia
Tulasne, who alleged an assault took place in 1994, did not file
within the prescribed time limit and didn't demonstrate she
couldn't do so before last year.

His legal team said Tulasne, the only identified member of the
group, contradicted herself while recounting the alleged assault.

The judge noted Rozon didn't try to deny the events but only
questioned their interpretation.

Mr. Rozon's lawyers said being "charming while using his power
was not a fault in itself."

The judge said, however, that Tulasne's allegations "do not
correspond to the crude and distorted trivialization put forth by
Mr. Rozon."

Mr. Rozon was previously unsuccessful in having the words "rape"
and "sexual predator" removed from the women's court filing in a
separate motion.

He stepped down as president of Just For Laughs last year and an
investor group including Canadian-born entertainer Howie Mandel
and U.S. talent agency ICM Partners bought the company in March.
[GN]


GLOBE-CON FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA N. ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public of California, the
Plaintiff, v. GLOBE-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., a California
corporation; KENNETH R. DEVINE; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC707654 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaints, the Defendants made unlawful
deductions from Plaintiff and the class members' remuneration and
failed to reimburse them for business expenses including, but not
limited to, liability insurance, using the truck, fuel, mileage,
travel, parking, plates, permits, registration, repairs and
maintenance; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class
compensation for rest periods separate from their piece rate
compensation; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class
at least the minimum wage.

GlobeCon has been providing port logistics, trucking, drayage and
warehousing services at the Ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles.[BN]

Attorney for Rosa N. Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and the general public of California:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


GREATER HUME: Class Action Over 2009 Fire Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
The Border Mail reports that a class action following a major
fire that destroyed homes and livestock at Walla and Gerogery in
2009 has been dismissed.

Greater Hume Shire was sued following the blaze, which started at
the Walla tip on December 17, 2009, and spread through an
abandoned golf course and farmland.

Five houses were destroyed, four damaged and 17 outbuildings
burnt down, along with stock and crop losses.

About 5200 acres were burnt out and 57 people affected by the
fire joined the class action.

Both sides are reviewing their positions after the claim was
recently dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court.

Gerogery woman Sharon Patricia Weber led the legal action after
losing her home, which was in the direct path of the fire.

It had been argued that the shire breached a duty of care to the
residents.

The group had been seeking costs, damages and interest from the
shire.

The blaze reached Gerogery about an hour after escaping the tip,
with about 40 fire brigades and four aircraft used to extinguish
the blaze.

It was argued the shire should have had a fire management plan,
fire breaks, waste separated into appropriate areas and
firefighting equipment on site.

It had also been argued that the shire should have removed fuel
such as leaves, grass and trees, and monitored the facility
during periods of extreme bushfire risk.

Ms Weber and her legal team alleged the fire was started by
management failures at the tip, leading to "substantial loss and
damage".

The shire, it was argued, should have foreseen that the tip waste
could ignite, with risk it would spread.

Six possible causes of the fire had been identified, including
spontaneous combustion, the materials dumped at the tip, or
deliberate ignition, but experts said the cause could not be
determined.

Justice Michael Walton said that meant " [Ms Weber] cannot,
therefore, prove that the fire was caused in breach of any duty
owed by the [the shire] to her (or the other group members)."

"I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove, on the balance of
probabilities, causation namely, that any negligence of the
defendant caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff," he said.

An appeal against the decision would need to be lodged by June
11. [GN]


HIPO MANAGEMENT: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES ESTEBAN SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HIPO MANAGEMENT INC. (D/B/A
HIPO MANAGEMENT) and STELLA TAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff Suarez appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff
Suarez to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Suarez
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the overtime compensation required by federal
and state law and regulations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control seven buildings, located
at 64-86 Wetherole Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-63
Austin Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-73 Austin
Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-75 Austin Street, Rego
Park, New York, 11374, at 94-11 65th Road, Rego Park, New York,
11374, at 95-08 65th Road, Rego Park, NY 11374, and at 97-40 64th
Ave, Rego Park, New York, 11374., under the name "Hipo
Management".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOLLYWOOD BEAUTY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Doe Corp.
doing business as: Hollywood Beauty Salon. The case is styled as
Yohandry Reyes and Carolina Sierra, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. John Doe Corp. doing
business as: Hollywood Beauty Salon, Raymond Salcedo, Hormedo
Pena, Carmen Salcedo and Carolina Pena Salcedo, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03210 (E.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018).

Hollywood Beauty Salon is engaged in the salon business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


HOME DEPOT: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, "Pizarro" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Jaime H. Pizarro and Craig Smith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
The Administrative Committee of The Home Depot Futurebuilder
401(K) Plan, The Investment Committee of The Home Depot
Futurebuilder 401(K) Plan, Financial Engines Advisors, LLC,
Alight Financial Advisors, LLC, and Does 1-30, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01566 (N.D. Ga., April 12, 2018), seeks to reform the
Plan to include only prudent investments, order the Plan to
obtain bids for investment advisors and to pay only reasonable
investment advisory fees, attorney's fees and costs, and payment
of interest, other equitable or remedial relief pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs represent participants and beneficiaries of The Home
Depot FutureBuilder 401(k) Plan. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, is a home retailer
and is the Employees' Plan sponsor and one of the Plan's
fiduciaries. Defendants allegedly paid unreasonable fees to
Financial Engines Advisors, LLC and Alight Financial Advisors,
LLC to manage the said plan that contained too many layers of
fees suspect to a kickback scheme between Financial Engines and
the Plan record-keeper Aon Hewitt. Home Depot also retained too
many poor-performing investment advisory options on the Plan,
notes the complaint.

Financial Engines Advisors, LLC was an investment advisor to the
Plan from the beginning of the class period until June 30, 2017.
As of July 1, 2017, Financial Engines continued providing sub-
advisory services to Plan Participants through its relationship
with Aon Hewitt Financial Advisors, LLC and its successor Company
Alight Financial Advisors, LLC.

Alight Financial Advisors, LLC operating under the name Aon
Hewitt Financial Advisors, LLC, began providing investment
advisory services to the Plan beginning July 1, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Jay Pontrelli, Esq.
     BYRNE, DAVIS AND HICKS, PC
     3565 Piedmont Road, Suite 380
     Four Piedmont Center
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     Telephone: (404) 266-7284
     Facsimile: (404)266-7272
     Email: pjp1460@gmail.com

            - and -

      Charles H. Field, Esq.
      Edward Chapin, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 577-4253
      Fax: (619) 577-4250
      Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
      Leigh Anne St, Charles, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 434-7000
      Fax: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com
             lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      David Hahn Tracey, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 402-5667
      Fax: (646) 402-5651
      Email: dtracey@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      Nicho1as De Blouw, Esq.
      Molly DeSario, Esq.
      Jeffrey Herman, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      San Diego, CA 92037
      Phone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      Email: norm@bamlawca.eom
             aj@bamlawca.com
             nick@bamlawca.com
             molly@bamlawca.com
             jeff@bamlawca.com


HOUSTON TEXANS: Former Cheerleader Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Barshop, writing for ESPN, reports that a former Texans
cheerleader has filed a class-action lawsuit against the team as
well as director of cheerleader programs and coach Altovise Gary.
In the lawsuit, the woman alleges that she was not compensated
fairly for her time and was subject to harassment from fans and
from Gary.

Only one cheerleader, who is identified by the initials PGG, is a
named plaintiff on the case.  The plaintiff worked for the Texans
as a cheerleader from April 12, 2017, to April 13, 2018.

According to the lawsuit, PGG seeks to "recover compensation for
hours worked but not recorded or paid ('off-the-clock work'),
failure to pay minimum wage and failure to pay overtime
compensation."

The lawsuit alleges that PGG was paid for some of her work for
the Texans but was not compensated for being "on call 24/7," for
requirements the team had for social media, for her time spent in
the gym and getting spray tans, for signing Texans calendars or
for other events that were unpaid.  According to the lawsuit,
when the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a week, she was
not compensated with overtime pay, as required by law.

According to the lawsuit, several cheerleaders reported being
physically assaulted by fans during the 2017 season, but even
after they reported the assaults to Mr. Gary, she "to their
knowledge" did not take "steps to report the assaults or take
steps to insure the cheerleaders' safety."

The lawsuit also claims that Mr. Gary made comments about the
weight and bodies of several cheerleaders.  Last season,
according the lawsuit, Mr. Gary told a cheerleader that "she had
"belly jelly" and she was a "chunky cheek."

"Before one game during the 2017 football season, Coach Alto took
a cheerleader to a secluded area of the stadium and duct taped
her stomach skin underneath her shorts," the lawsuit alleges.
"Coach Alto then brought that cheerleader in front of the rest of
the squad and showed them how much 'better it looks.' At the next
practice, Coach Alto pulled out a roll of duct tape and asked
said cheerleader if she needed it."

The Texans released a statement about the lawsuit to The
Washington Post saying, "We are proud of the cheerleader program
and have had hundreds of women participate and enjoy their
experience while making a positive impact in the local community.
We are constantly evaluating our procedures and will continue to
make adjustments as needed to make the program enjoyable for
everyone."

The Texans are not the first NFL team to have a lawsuit filed
against them for their cheerleading practices.  Earlier in May,
The New York Times reported that in 2013, Washington Redskins
cheerleaders were required to pose topless in a photo shoot in
front of people who had been invited to the event by the team.

In March, a former New Orleans Saints cheerleader filed a
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging that she was fired over "blatantly discriminatory"
social media and fraternization policies that are different for
cheerleaders and players. [GN]


HOUSTON TEXANS: Faces 2nd Suit from Former Cheerleaders
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Jukam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
five former Houston Texans cheerleaders claim in a lawsuit filed
on June 1 that they were subjected to a hostile workplace and not
protected from mental and physical abuses perpetrated by fans and
their own coach.

The women reiterated many of the claims made in a federal class
action brought against the National Football League team last
week, alleging they were not fairly compensated or paid overtime.

On June 1 press conference in Houston to announce the lawsuit,
the cheerleaders said the team did nothing to protect them from
being exploited and discriminated against.

"We were harassed, we were bullied and we were body-shamed for
$7.25 an hour," former Texans cheerleader Ainsley Parish said.

Parish and the other plaintiffs -- Hannah Turnbow, Morgan
Wiederhold, Ashley Rodriguez, and Kelly Neuner -- are represented
by Houston-based attorney Kimberley Spurlock, Esq., and high-
profile women's rights lawyer Gloria Allred, Esq., who is based
in Los Angeles. Allred recently represented 33 women who accused
Bill Cosby of sexual assault and other misconduct.

"When each hour of the practices, games, appearances, travel
time, preparation, and required social media marketing is
accounted, the Houston Texans cheerleaders earn pennies for each
hour worked," according to the 20-page lawsuit filed in Houston
federal court.

Apart from the Texans' alleged failure to fairly compensate
cheerleaders for the hours they worked -- or for the use of their
pictures on promotional materials -- the lawsuit also claims that
the team did not provide the cheerleaders with adequate security
despite the fact that they were subjected to physical assaults by
fans on an ongoing basis.

According to the suit, the cheerleaders who are paraded through
the stadium during games have a "safe word."

"'Toro' means more than the Texans mascot," the complaint states.
"It means a woman does not feel safe."

After one plaintiff was physically assaulted at a game, the suit
claims, her coach told her to "deal with it and move on," even
though she had visible physical injuries and was deeply shaken by
the experience.

As in last week's class action, the plaintiffs June 1 complaint
claim that their cheerleading coach, Altovise Gary, cyberbullied
and body-shamed the women, and assaulted one woman by duct-taping
down the sides of her stomach under her uniform.

"Plaintiffs were in a constant state of fear around [Gary],
anxiously anticipating whether they would be the next one
subjected to her physical assaults," the cheerleaders said in the
complaint.

Gary is not named as a defendant on June 1 lawsuit, but was named
in the class action.

The cheerleaders allege they were often reminded that they were
"replaceable" and were reprimanded for speaking up.

"The Houston Texans should not have given us a uniform if they
did not want us to become an army," Parish said at the press
conference.

The former cheerleaders are asking a federal judge to declare
that the Texans violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and order
the team to pay the plaintiffs for unpaid overtime hours and
other damages.

"Their main goal is to seek change for the women that will come
after them so that the Houston Texans will treat all their
employees fairly and with respect," Allred said.

The proposed class in the May 22 complaint is represented by
Bruse Loyd, Esq. -- bruse@jgl-law.com -- with Jones, Gillaspia
and Loyd.


INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Court Won't Declare Offer Ineffective
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion to Declare
Ineffective Defendant's Offer of Judgment in the case captioned
JOHN NORTHRUP, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS GROUP, INC.,
DAVID E. LINDSEY, INNOVATIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PARTNERS, LLC and
CYBERX GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-1890-T-36JSS
(M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff John Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants sent him text
messages marketing trucking services in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  There are three
approaches taken by district courts:

   (1) strike the offer of judgment to prevent an improper
conflict of interest between a putative class representative and
the putative class;

   (2) prohibit the application of Rule 68(d) but decline to
strike the offer of judgment because there is no procedural
mechanism to support striking it; or

   (3) decline to strike the offer of judgment for lack of a
supporting procedural mechanism and decline to declare the offer
ineffective because such a determination would be advisory until
the defendant moves for relief under Rule 68.

Here, the Offer is not included in the record before the Court
and, thus, there is nothing to strike. Also, because CyberX has
not moved for relief under Rule 68, the Court's determination of
the effectiveness of the Offer would constitute an improper
advisory decision. Accordingly, because there is no binding
precedent supporting the Plaintiff's request and the Defendant's
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, it is ordered that
Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Ineffective Defendant's Offer of
Judgment Dated March 1, 2018 is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y88mgmqt from Leagle.com.

John Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cory S. Fein --
cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory Fein Law Firm, pro hac vice & Seth
Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL.

Independent Truckers Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
J. De Piano, Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, PA, & William
S. Richmond, Platt Cheema Richmond LLC, pro hac vice.

David E Lindsey, Defendant, represented by David J. De Piano,
Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, PA & William S. Richmond,
Platt Cheema Richmond LLC.

Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC & CyberX Group, LLC,
Defendants, represented byWilliam S. Richmond, Platt Cheema
Richmond LLC.


J. CREW: Posts Bogus "Sale Prices", Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
J. Crew Group posts bogus "sale prices," and has for six years, a
class claims in Ventura County Court.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

     Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
     Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
     STONEBARGER LAW
     A Professional Corporation
     75 Iron Point Circle, St. 145
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Tel: (916) 235-7140
     Fax: (916) 235-7141
     Email: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
            rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com


JEFFREY W. FELDMAN: Seeks to Claw Back Legal Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled "Amy", et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Jeffrey
W. Feldman, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-00721-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), the Defendant asks the Court for certification of a class
action clawback counterclaim.

Feldman asserts a counterclaim due to attorney's fees and cost
associated with Amy et al.'s excessive litigation. Feldman has
spent $35,861 in attorney fees plus additional costs defending
himself from this lawsuit.

According to Feldman, it is likely that Amy et al. have been
overcompensated.  As of April 1, 2017, Amy had been rewarded
$13,025,165 in restitution.  Discovery should reveal how much Amy
et al. have been compensated, Feldman asserts.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James Marsh, Esq.
          Robert Lewis, Esq.
          Carol Hepburn, Esq.
          MARSH LAW FIRM PLLC
          PO Box 4668
          New York, NY 10163

The Defendant appears pro se.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Talcum Powder Class Action OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Compton, writing for Drugwatch, reports that a Canadian
class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson &
Johnson has been given the go ahead to proceed.  Meanwhile,
talcum powder lawsuits continue in the U.S.

The class action in Canada involves patients who say they were
injured by Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Valeant's Shower to
Shower products.  The Quebec Superior Court authorized the class
action in early May 2018.

The collective litigation is titled the Baby Powder Ovarian
Cancer class action.  Plaintiffs claim regular use of the common
household powder products can lead to a higher risk of ovarian
cancer.  The lawsuits allege this link is medically confirmed.

People involved in the class action used these products in their
genital area and were later diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

Women most often use these talc-based retail products as part of
their normal feminine hygiene routine.

The lawsuit is intended to recover compensation for those injured
by the products.

U.S. Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits
Johnson & Johnson faces talcum powder lawsuits from nearly 7,000
U.S. women and their families.

These lawsuits only pertain to talc-based baby powder products
and not those that use cornstarch as the main ingredient.

Many lawsuits ask for a warning label to be added to the product.

Other companies that manufacture talcum powder products have
already taken this step.  J&J has not.  Instead, the company
maintains its product is safe.

Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women.  It also
accounts for more deaths than any other cancer of the female
reproductive system, according to the American Cancer Society.

It mainly affects older women.  It is often difficult to detect
in its early stages.

"I don't wish this on anyone else," Deborah Giannecchini, 62,
told CNN.  She is one of the thousands of women diagnosed with a
terminal form of the cancer after using J&J's product for many
years.

Can Talcum Powder Cause Ovarian Cancer?
The legal and scientific communities have come head-to-head in
the ongoing talcum-powder debate.

Some studies show an increased risk of ovarian cancer when these
talc products are used in the genital area.  Others do not.

Most argue more research is needed before coming to a conclusion
one way or the other.

What U.S. Courts Say About J&J's Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer
Despite J&J's cry for non-liability, juries more often than not
have sided with women who developed ovarian cancer.

Jurors have ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $600
million to women and their families.  Two of the verdicts were
overturned.  Those decisions are on appeal.

The largest talcum powder ovarian cancer verdict to date involved
Eva Echeverria of California.

In August 2017, a Los Angeles jury ordered J&J to pay a whopping
$417 million to Ms. Echeverria.

Her lawsuit alleged she developed ovarian cancer after using the
company's baby powder product.

Ms. Echeverria died after a long-term battle with the cancer.

A superior court judge reversed the verdict in October 2017.  The
judge decided Ms. Echeverria did not establish a strong enough
link between the talc powder and her subsequent development of
cancer.

U.S. women who used J&J talcum powder products and later
developed ovarian cancer continue to file lawsuits.

Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Lawsuits
Other talcum powder lawsuits claim exposure to J&J's talc
products may also cause mesothelioma.

This is another rare but aggressive cancer that affects the
lining of the heart, lungs and abdomen.

In April 2018, a New Jersey court ordered J&J to pay a portion of
a $117 million award to a man who developed this deadly injury.

An appeal was still pending in May 2018. [GN]


JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" Suit Remains in Calif. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District
California, Southern Division, denied Plaintiffs' renewed motion
to remand the case captioned DANIEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff, v.
JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. SACV
17-02270-CJC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.) to Orange County Superior Court.

The Plaintiff Daniel Evangelista filed this action in Orange
County Superior Court alleging various violations of California
labor law and asserting seven claims on behalf of a putative
class against Defendants Just Energy Marketing Corp. (JEMC), Just
Energy Solutions Inc. (JES), Just Energy Limited (JEL), Just
Energy Group Inc. (JEG), and various Doe defendants.

Just Energy hired the Plaintiff to sell natural gas and
electricity to residential customers as a door-to-door salesman.
The Plaintiff was required to sign documents acknowledging his
agreement to abide by JEG's policies as part of his application
and hire process. The Plaintiff alleges various violations of the
California Labor Code occurred during his employment, such as
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, and failure to reimburse employees for necessary
expenditures.

The Defendants removed the action to this Court. The Plaintiff
moved to remand this action to Orange County Superior Court,
arguing that the local controversy exception to the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) applied.

The Court held that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently pled that
the conduct of the one local defendant, JES, formed a significant
basis for the claims asserted, but granted Plaintiff fourteen
days' leave to amend to clarify issues pertaining to the Court's
jurisdiction under CAFA.

The Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled these theories of
liability merely by stating, in a conclusory fashion, the
elements of these theories of liability.  Additionally, the mere
fact that the Plaintiff seeks relief from all the Defendants
jointly and severally, without any factual allegations specific
to JES, is insufficient to meet the Plaintiff's burden to prove
the narrow local controversy exception applies.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7p2dog from Leagle.com.

Daniel Evangelista, Plaintiff, represented by Asha Dhillon --
adhillon@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming and
Fitzgerald LLP, Francisco Cabada -- cisco@cabadahameed.com --
Cabada and Hameed LLP, Sayema Javed Hameed --
sayema@cabadahameed.com -- Cabada and Hameed LLP & William M.
Turner -- wmturner@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming &
Fitzgerald.

Just Energy Marketing Corp., a Delaware corporation, Just Energy
Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, Just Energy Limited, a
Delaware corporation & Just Energy Group Inc., a Canadian
corporation, Defendants, represented by Edward H. Chyun --
echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Timothy
S. Anderson -- tanderson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro
hac vice & Rachael Sarah Lavi -- rlavi@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


KARP SCARSDALE: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KARP Scarsdale LLC.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARP Scarsdale LLC,
doing business as: The Ambassador at Scarsdale, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04860 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

The Ambassador of Scarsdale provides senior living solutions in
White Plains, NY.

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


KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls Department
Stores Inc. The case is styled as LaCresha Andrews, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kohls
Department Stores Inc, Kory Korp, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2018-00234007-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018).

Kohl's Department Stores Inc. retails merchandise. The Company
focuses on apparel, shoes, accessories, decorations, electronic,
pet accessories, and house wares targeting middle income
customers. The Company operates primarily in the Midwest and the
Mid-Atlantic areas of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   GARY R. BASHAM, Esq.
   Basham Law Group
   8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 177
   Sacramento, CA 95826
   Tel: (916) 282-0841
   Fax: (916) 266-7478
   Email: gary@bashamlawgroup.com


LA ABUNDANCIA: "Mogollan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Mogollan, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and Class members, Plaintiff, v. La Abundancia Bakery &
Restaurant Inc., 63-12 La Abundancia Inc., 75-02 La Abundancia
Bakery And Restaurant Corp. 81-16 La Abundancia Inc., 37-01 La
Abundancia Inc., 88-26 La Abundancia Inc., Monica Ferrerosa and
Ruben Rojas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03202, (S.D. N.Y., April
12, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the name "La
Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant" where Mongollan worked as a cook.
Plaintiff was discharged in or around October 2017 because he
asked for a raise. Mogollan never received any paystubs and
worked a total of 47-57 hours per week without overtime
compensation, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


LAS VEGAS: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned POMPANO BEACH POLICE &
FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION
FUND, Lead Plaintiffs, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS
CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-15216 (9th
Cir.).

The Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System and
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund (Plaintiffs) appeal an adverse
summary judgment in their securities fraud class action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against
Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS), Sheldon Adelson, LVS's
majority stockholder and controller, and William Weidner, the
Chief Operating Officer.

In the securities suit, the Plaintiffs challenge sets of
statements, inter alia: (1) Senior VP Henry's reassurances to
investors that LVS had sufficient liquidity and access to credit
markets; (2) Adelson's statements during the July 30, 2008,
conference call.  The Plaintiffs allege an August 2008 report in
the South China Post, other statements in September, October, and
November, and the Bank of America Equity Research Report were
corrective disclosures. While these may provide some evidence
that the financing options may not have been as ample as Henry
had made it seem, the South China Post article blames LVS's
problems on the global credit crunch and banks' reluctance to
lend in the current credit market climate, not on Henry's
previous statement. When looking at the disclosures identified by
the Plaintiffs, there is no evidence to establish a "causal
connection between the fraud and the loss."

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit finds, the Plaintiffs cannot
establish a genuine issue of material fact as to loss causation
resulting from Henry's April 30 statements.  Further, the
Plaintiffs cannot establish a triable issue regarding Adelson's
July, 30, 2008, earnings call statements. Adelson's statements
that the company would not seek equity financing, was considering
various financing alternatives, had flexibility in financing, the
fundamentals of LVS had not changed, and the pipeline was still
continuing were not misleading. In fact, they were true.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8uvdpbd from Leagle.com.


LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS: Faces "Gregory" Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of
Thomas E. Nelson, P.C. The case is styled as Tunga Gregory,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Law Offices of Thomas E. Nelson, P.C., Westhill
Exchange, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00403-A (N.D. Texas, May 31, 2018).

Law Offices of Thomas E. Nelson, P.C. is a Law firm in Salt Lake
City, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (469) 677-7863
   Fax: (972) 380-8118
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


LAZ PARKING: Barone Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY BARONE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAZ PARKING LTD,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01545-VLB (D. Conn.), Mr.
Barone, together with Opt-In Benjamin Lhota, moves the Court for
an order granting notice and conditional certification of the
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of:

   "all current and former employees working at Laz Parking Ltd.,
   LLC in similar, though differently titled, salary-paid,
   assistant manager positions (including but not limited to
   Assistant Manager, Assistant Garage Manager, Assistant
   Facility Manager, Assistant Property Manager, Assistant
   Project Manager, etc.)."

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934 9220
          E-mail: Seth@klafterolsen.com
                  Fran@klafterolsen.com
                  alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Donna L. Johnson, Esq.
          Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          White Provision, Suite 305
          1170 Howell Mill Road NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 924 4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796 7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  djohnson@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com


LIGHTHOUSE FISHMARKET: Faces "Basurto" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse
Fishmarket Inc. The case is styled as Gonzalo Cornelio Basurto,
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lighthouse
Fishmarket Inc., doing business as: Lighthouse Fish Market &
Restaurant and Michael Clopton, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04889 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Lighthouse Fishmarket Inc. is a restaurant serving fresh seafood,
fried fish & homestyle Southern fare.[BN]

Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


LOGITECH INC: Faces "Porath" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against Logitech Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned as James Porath, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Logitech
Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
03091-WHA (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018).

Logitech is a Swiss provider of personal computer and mobile
accessories, with its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland and
administrative headquarters in Newark, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212 9300
          Facsimile: (415) 3739435
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


MACONE INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANABEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. MACONE INVESTMENTS USA LLC
d/b/a SPOTLESS CLEAN USA, a Florida corporation; JEAN PHILLIPE
MACONE, an individual; and STEPHANIE MACONE, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61186-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

This case is brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b). It is believed that Defendants have employed
other similarly-situated persons like Plaintiff that have not
been properly compensated for their minimum and overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week from the filing
of this Complaint back three years. The Plaintiff has retained
the undersigned counsel to represent her in this action, and
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff and the opt-
in similarly-situated persons are entitled to recover all
reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated
persons:

          Ena T. Diaz, Esq.
          ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.
          999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 377 8828
          Facsimile: (305) 356 1311
          E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com


MAGIC HOME: "Teshabaeva" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Maktumma Teshabaeva, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by MAGIC HOME CARE LLC, ALO, Plaintiff v. Magic Home
Care LLC and and/or any other related entities, Defendant, Case
No. 510320/2018 was brought before the New York Supreme Court on
May 31, 2018.

Magic Home Care LLC is a Home health care service in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
   40 Broad St, New York, NY 10004, USA
   Tel: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

   HODGSON RUSS, LLP
   140 PEARL STREET STE 100
   BUFFALO, NY 14202
   Tel: (716) 856-4000


MANDARIN GLEN: Wang Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
YONG YUAN WANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MANDARIN GLEN COVE, INC.
d/b/a Sweet Mandarin; and MANDARIN SAYVILLE, INC. d/b/a Sweet
Mandarin and; SHING LING YEUNG, SHU PING LIN,"ANDY" DOE, and JOHN
DOE, the  Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03266-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.,
June 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and attorney's
fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including
Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


MANHATTAN WINES: Faces "Maldonado" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Wines and
Spirits Merchants, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Maldonado,
Trinidad Maldonado and Edgar Gonzales, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Manhattan Wines and Spirits
Merchants, Inc. Jointly and Severally, Navin Patel Jointly and
Severally and Parita Patel Jointly and Severally, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04838 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018).

Manhattan Wines and Spirits Merchants, Inc. is a liquor
store.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


MAPLEWOOD, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Immunity in "Webb"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned Cecelia Roberts Webb; Darron Yates; Robert
Eutz; Anthony Lemicy; Krystal Banks; Frank Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. City of Maplewood, Defendant-Appellant, No. 17-
2381. (8TH Cir.).

Cecelia Webb and five other motorists have filed a putative class
action against the City of Maplewood, Missouri, under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, claiming its policy or custom violates their
constitutional rights. They assert the City automatically issues
an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its
traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court.
The City moved the district court1 to dismiss the complaint on
several grounds, including that the City is immune from suit and
that the complaint fails to state a claim against the City. The
district court dismissed a single count from the complaint on the
consent of both parties but otherwise denied the motion, ruling
that the City is not immune from suit and that the complaint
sufficiently states a claim of municipal liability.

The City appeals from the order denying it immunity.

The Eighth Circuit holds that whether the challenged acts
occurred, whether they were unlawful, and whether the City is
liable for them under Monell v. Department of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658 (1978), would still be open questions. The Eighth
Circuit has long held for that reason that a municipality may be
held liable for its unconstitutional policy or custom even when
no official has been found personally liable for his conduct
under the policy or custom.

At oral argument, the City raised for the first time its concern
that if the City is not granted immunity, the plaintiffs may use
this suit to obtain discovery from the State of Missouri and its
officials. The circuit said that it normally does not consider
issues raised for the first time at oral argument, but will
observe that any State official or entity the plaintiffs subpoena
for discovery may raise a claim of sovereign immunity at that
time. The district court may address in the first instance
whether the subpoena can be quashed on that ground.

The City maintains finally that the circuit court may exercise
pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order
declining to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the
insufficiency of its allegations of municipal liability. Unlike
the district court's denial of the City's defense of immunity,
the question of whether the complaint states a claim of municipal
liability cannot normally be reviewed on interlocutory appeal.
The Court may review that issue only if it is coterminous with,
or subsumed in, the issue of the City's immunity from suit.

The issues are not inextricably intertwined here, however, since
the Eighth Circuit has determined that the district court
correctly denied the City immunity without having found it
necessary to decide whether the complaint sufficiently pleads the
City's Monell liability. Since the issues are separate, the
circuit court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the
complaint states a claim of municipal liability, and we express
no view on that question.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbtvk8j from Leagle.com.

Gary Phillip Paul -- gpaul@got.net -- for Defendant-Appellant.

Thomas B. Harvey, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey Joseph Brinker  -- jbrinker@brinkerfinancial.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Nathaniel R. Carroll, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John M. Reeves -- jreeves@brinkerdoyen.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Jonathan E. Taylor -- jon@guptawessler.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Blake A. Strode, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Michael-John Voss, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Sues over Minimum Wages & Tip Skimming
------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH GONZALEZ and JUSTINE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASGAD CORP.;
ALBION VENUE, LLC; MIKHAIL ZAVOLUNOV; ILYA ZAVOLUNOV; and any
other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 607031/2018 (New
York Sup. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover compensation,
including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid tips and gratuities
under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing
to distribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of the
mandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
and instead retained the money for their own benefit. Moreover,
throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of unlawfully compensating its service
employees an hourly rate lower than the applicable minimum
wage.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs & Putative Class:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Faces "Gerstenhaber" Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matherne Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Sharone Gerstenhaber, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matherne
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-
cv-61213-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2018).

Matherne Holdings, Inc. operates as a provider of business
formation services. The Company offers services such as domestic
and international business filings, certificate of good standing,
name change, and changing of resident agent, and provides stock
amendments, foreign qualification, and mail forwarding
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
   14 NE First Ave
   10th Floor
   Miami, FL 33132
   Tel: (786) 351-8709
   Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

      - and -

   Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
   Hiraldo P.A.
   401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
   Tel: (954) 400-4713
   Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


MAX EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Drivers, Escobar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMELIO ESCOBAR, on behalf of himself and the general public of
California, the Plaintiff, v. MARCUS MO; CATHERINE MO; DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707878 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Max Express, Inc. employed Plaintiff
and the rest of the class as employee truck drivers compensated
on a piece-rate basis. At all times relevant to this complaint,
Max Express, Inc. made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the
rest of the class members' remuneration and failed to reimburse
them for business expenses including, but not limited to,
liability insurance, using the truck, fuel, mileage, travel,
parking, plates, pennits, registration, repairs, maintenance,
etc; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class
compensation for rest periods separate from their piece rate
compensation; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class
at least the minimum wage for all hours they were employed.

The Defendants are the owner, director, officer, managing agent
and/or person acting on behalf of Max Express, Inc.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public of California:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


MDL 2047: MDL Court Won't Enjoin State Court Proceeding
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied Defendant Livers Construction's Motion for
Reconsideration of the February 9, 2018 opinion, denying its
request to enjoin a state court proceeding in the case captioned
IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, SECTION L (5). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: WINSTON
BURNS, JR. AND WENDY BURNS, Civil Action MDL No. 09-2047 (E.D.
La.).

From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and
rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina
led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall.
As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the
United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in
coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East
Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall,
homeowners began to complain of emissions of smelly gasses, the
corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects,
and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in
their homes.

The Knauf Defendant

The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers
of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese
subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (KPT),
advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. The
Knauf Entities are named defendants in numerous cases
consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state
courts.

Interior Exterior Building Supply

As a result of its role in purchasing and supplying allegedly
defective Chinese drywall, InEx is among the defendants in the
Knauf Entities' chain-of-commerce litigation. Following Hurricane
Katrina, InEx, a major supplier of construction materials in the
Gulf Coast area, distributed Chinese drywall manufactured both by
various Knauf entities and by certain Taishan entities.

InEx sold drywall to suppliers, developers, homebuilders, and
installers in a number of states, predominantly Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The InEx-related Chinese
drywall eventually ended up in the homes of numerous individuals
who filed claims against InEx, seeking relief for the property
damage and personal injuries they have sustained as a result of
the presence of drywall in their homes. Additionally,
homebuilders who repaired these homes at their own cost have
filed claims against InEx.

Knauf and InEx Settlement Agreements

InEx was one of the named Settling Defendants in the Order and
Judgment, and Livers was named as one of the downstream
releasees. InEx entered into a settlement agreement that provided
for the tendering of all of InEx's primary insurance proceeds in
the amount of $8,000,000 for the benefit of a national class with
claims against InEx involving Chinese drywall (InEx Settlement
Class). The InEx Settlement Class consists of all persons or
entities with claims, known and unknown, against the Settling
Defendants arising from, or otherwise related in any way to
Chinese Drywall sold, marketed, distributed, and/or supplied by
InEx.

The Knauf and InEx Settlement Class and Subclasses were certified
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3) & (e).

Livers' Res Judicata and Pre-emption Arguments

Under the InEx Settlement, Installers are Downstream InEx
Releasees, who are considered Settling Defendants released from
all future claims pertaining to Chinese drywall in affected
properties, to the extent that such property contains Chinese
drywall supplied by InEx. Thus, Livers is expressly named as a
Downstream InEx Releasee in the Settlement Agreement and is also
a Released Party. Livers further argued that because Burns failed
to opt out of the InEx Settlement, they qualified as InEx Class
Members, and thus their pending state court claims for damages
had already been addressed and adjudicated in this Court in MDL
2047.

State Court Decisions

On October 28, 2016, the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans heard Livers' res judicata arguments. Subsequently, on
November 7, 2016, the state court denied Livers' motion to
dismiss. Livers appealed the decision to the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal, which denied Livers' writ on December
12, 2016. Undeterred, Livers, once again, appealed to the
Louisiana Supreme Court, which, to Livers' dismay, also denied
the writ on February 17, 2017. The state courts did not issue
written opinions detailing their reasons for denial.

Third-Party Demand Against InEx

After exhausting its peremptory argument in state court, on June
26, 2017, Livers filed a third-party demand against InEx,
claiming that InEx sold Livers allegedly defective Chinese
drywall responsible for the Burns' damages, and for failing to
provide notice to Livers of any potential issues regarding the
drywall. Additionally, Livers alleged that InEx failed to provide
Livers or its counsel with notice of the InEx Settlement.

This Court's February 9, 2018 Order and Reasons

In response to the state court action, InEx filed a motion for
injunctive relief pursuant to the All Writs Act, asking this
Court to enjoin the state court action against it.  InEx argued
that exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act applied: the
injunction is (1) necessary in aid of" this Court's jurisdiction,
and (2) necessary to protect and effectuate this Court's
Settlement Judgment. InEx asserted that the claims in state court
are precluded from litigation as a result of this Court's Order
and Judgment related to the InEx Settlement because Livers and
the Burns are members of the settlement class.

In this case, based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the
parties only intended to resolve claims related to the sale,
supply, marketing, distribution, or use of Chinese Drywall.
Indeed, those claims could and does include fraud, but that only
pertains to fraudulent sale, fraudulent supply, fraudulent
marketing, fraudulent distribution, and fraudulent use, inter
alia. At the time of defining the settlement, fraudulent activity
in preventing a party to realize the benefits of the InEx or
Knauf settlements, purposefully concealing the Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall MDL -- was not an existing claim; the
settlement had not even been perfected.

Therefore, even if the Court accepts Livers' forced, expansive
interpretation of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot, in
equity and good conscious, bar the Burns from pursuing an action
against Livers for allegedly preventing them from filing a claim
in the settlement program.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Livers has not satisfied
its burden under Rule 59(e) to grant reconsideration.

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

Lynn C. Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.
Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittman@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J. Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.


MDL 2828: "Nathan" Suit over Intel CPU Defects Moved to Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Nathan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02754, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
in Portland on June 1, 2018. The Oregon District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00965-SI to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon.

The Nathan case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel
Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In
its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization
in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and
the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support
centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations
there, including its employees who evaluated the security
vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well
as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor
to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that
relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district.
The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon, located in Portland, is an
experienced transferee judge who can steer this litigation on a
prudent course. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433 4500
          E-mail: jeff@Qulegal.com


METROPOLE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Speck Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
COREY SPECK, an individual, and MOES 1 through 1000, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
METROPOLE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; ARAM
SUK1ASYAN, an individual; DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC708530 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to
recover all earned hourly and minimum wages and overtime wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the similarly-situated employees
include, without limitation, all current and former non-exempt
employees of Defendants who were employed and worked as security
guards within the County of Los Angeles and who, within the four
years prior to the commencement of this action, were: (1) not
paid all earned straight time and minimum wages; (2) not paid all
earned overtime wages; (3) not permitted timely and uninterrupted
paid or unpaid 30 consecutive minute meal periods in compliance
with the California Labor Code and the provisions of the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (4) not permitted
timely and uninterrupted 10 consecutive minute rest periods in
compliance with the provisions of the California Labor Code and
the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (5) not timely
paid all owed straight time wages, minimum wages, and overtime
wages, and/or California Labor Code section 226.7 compensation
earned as of the time of the cessation of employment with
Defendants; and (6) not provided accurate and lawful wage
statements in compliance with California Labor Code section 226.
All such persons are referred to herein collectively as the
"Putative Class."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Jones, Esq.
          Alex V. Vo, Esq.
          SANTIAGO & JONES
          21300 Victory Blvd., Suite 810
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 657 5600
          Facsimile: (818) 657 5605
          E-mail: Djones@santiagojoneslaw.com
                  Avo@santiagoioneslaw.com


MICRO FOCUS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $8.8-Bil. Tech Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Micro Focus International shareholders claim in a federal class
action that the software company filed a misleading registration
statement before its $8.8 billion merger with a spinoff of
Hewlett-Packard, after which its share price dropped by more than
half. HP is not a party to the complaint.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 950-0509
     Fax: (212) 905-0508
     Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
            mfarmer@gardylaw.com

          -- and --

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     Email: jeff@blockesq.com
            jake@blockesq.com


MIDDLE GEORGIA: Bid to Certify Questions to Ga. High Ct. Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, Dublin Division, denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Issues to the Supreme Court of Georgia in the case captioned
RANDY EUGENE COLEMAN, STAR LATOSHA YOUNG, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDDLE GEORGIA PROBATION, LLC,
Defendant, No. CV 315-035 (S.D. Ga.).

The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that
the Private Probation Agreement and O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(g) violated
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Georgia
law.  The Plaintiffs contend that these violations void the
Private Probation Agreement and that the Plaintiffs are therefore
entitled to recover all probation supervision fees paid to the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the following questions
to the Georgia Supreme Court, inter alia:

   1. Under the Constitution of the State of Georgia, is the
establishment of the amount of fees a misdemeanor probationer can
be sentenced to pay for probation supervision a matter for
legislative action by the Georgia legislature?

   2. Does the application of the Georgia Private Probation
Statute, O.C.G.A. Section 42-8-100, et sag., under the
Defendant's contracts offend the due process clause of the
Georgia Constitution?

   3. Is imprisonment of misdemeanor probationers for failure to
pay debts allegedly owed to a private, for-profit corporation
imprisonment for debt forbidden by Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par 23 of the
Constitution of the State of Georgia?

   4. Is a contract with a private company to provide probation
supervision services to a court void under Georgia law if it has
not been approved by the current local government and the current
chief judge of that court?

   5. Is a contract with a private company to provide probation
supervision services to a Georgia court void if it has not been
filed with the County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council of
Georgia in accord with the requirements of Rule 503-1-.22 of the
Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia?

   6. Does the Georgia Private Probation Statute, codified at
O.C.G.A. Sec 42-8-100, et seg., authorize courts to enter into
contracts with a private company under which the private company
is compensated solely by fees paid by probationers?

   7. Does it offend the due process clause of the Georgia
Constitution for officers of a Georgia court, including probation
officers, to have systemic conflicts of interest, including
conflicting financial interests?

Federal courts may certify novel, unsettled questions of state
law to a state's highest court for resolution. Indeed, a federal
court should certify the question to the state supreme court to
avoid making unnecessary Erie guesses and to offer the state
court the opportunity to interpret or change existing law.

The Court, however, finds that the Plaintiffs' briefing contains
a bare assertion that the questions they propose address
unresolved issues of state law that implicate important state
interests. Nevertheless, many of the Plaintiffs' questions are
broad and are unsupported by facts in the record. For example,
Plaintiffs' third question is presumably an as-applied challenge
addressing the possibility that the Private Probation Agreement
may lead to the imprisonment of offenders who fail to pay
probation supervision fees. An as-applied challenge is, of
course, a fact-intensive inquiry.

Yet the Plaintiffs fail to identify the circumstances under which
their failure to pay supervision fees resulted in their
incarceration. Because the Georgia Supreme Court would refuse to
consider such a question, certification would needlessly waste
the parties' resources.

The Plaintiffs have failed to provide narrow, well-defined
questions of state law that could be certified to the Georgia
Supreme Court. Certifying the Plaintiffs' questions before
developing the record in this case would further delay an already
protracted lawsuit.

Accordingly, under the current record, the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Issues to the Supreme Court of Georgia is denied.

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

Randy Eugene Coleman & Star LaTosha Young, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John C. Bell, Jr.
-- John@bellbrigham.com -- Bell & Brigham, John J. Czura, John J.
Czura, PC, John B. Long -- jlong@tuckerlong.com -- Tucker, Long,
PC & John Ryd Bush Long, John R.B. Long, PC.

Middle Georgia Probation LLC, Defendant, represented by J.
Stanley Smith, Jr., Smith, Garner & Rowland, LLC & James C.
Garner, Smith, Garner & Rowland, LLC.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Killmeiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE KILLMEIER and LINDA KILLMEIER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00801 (E.D.
Mo., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE NELSON and ARLENE NELSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00794-HEA (E.D. Mo., May
25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Brien Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
AIDA O'BRIEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00795-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 25, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Adams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ADAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00139-JM (E.D. Ark., May 31,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products that contain the active ingredient glyphosate,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Monsanto Company was a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Sean T. Keith, Esq.
          Mason L. Boling, Esq.
          KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER &
          224 S. 2nd Street
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: (479) 621 0006
          Facsimile: (479) 631 6890
          E-mail: skeith@arkattorneys.com
                  mboling@arkattorneys.com


MORNING STAR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lawrence Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by MORNING STAR HOME
HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, along with
other entities affiliated or controlled by MORNING STAR HOME
HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. MORNING STAR HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING
STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, and/or any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 155093/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in May 2012 and, continuing
through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, including failing to pay the
lawful minimum wage rate, overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, "spread of hours"
compensation, and uniform maintenance allowances.

Morning Star is a home care provider that services Nesconset, New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


MOVE INC: "Wilson" Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HERKENRATH and TINA WILSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MOVE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; MOVE SALES, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-04438-MWF-KS, has been removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the putative
classes, recovery of damages for agreements allegedly breached in
connection with their purchase of leads from Move, full
restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained from plaintiffs and
the putative classes during the applicable statutory periods, and
attorneys' fees.

Move, Inc. is a real estate listing company based in Santa Clara,
California. The company operates the Move Network of real estate
websites, the largest of which is Realtor.com.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Richard L. Stone, Esq.
          David R. Singer, Esq.
          Amy M. Gallegos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239 5199
          E-mail: rstone@jenner.com
                  dsinger@jenner.com
                  agallegos@jenner.com


MYLIFE.COM: Violates Right of Publicity Act, Deyerler Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Maribel Deyerler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MyLife.com
Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07030 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., June 4, 2018), arises from MyLife's business
practice of acquiring identifying information about Illinois
residents with the specific intent of selling that information to
its customers.

According to the complaint, the problem with MyLife's service,
and the essence of this lawsuit, is that the reckless display of
people's identities in the advertisements for Defendant's
services violates Illinois law. Neither Plaintiff nor class
members provided Defendant with written consent to use their
identities in Defendant's advertisements. Thus, Defendant
violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. It would be
extremely easy for MyLife to maintain their business model while
still complying with state law. For example, My Life could merely
display the names of the searched individuals -- without more
identifying information -- in their advertisements for their
services.

The Defendant -- http://www.mylife.com/-- is in the internet
business of selling "reputation reports" about American citizens
to the general public. Defendant sells its reports on its
website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COST ALES LLC
          3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTMORELAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC,
DAVID R. ANDELMAN, ROBERT N. KLIEGER AND SHARI REDSTONE, the
Defendant, Case No. 62081366 (Del. Ch., May 31, 2018), contends
that the Defendants are in breach of their fiduciary duties to
the Class B stockholders by putting NAI's and Shari Redstone's
interests ahead of the Class B stockholders.

The Defendants breached and continue to breach contractual,
implied obligations, and fiduciary duties that they owe to CBS's
Class B stockholders. Plaintiff's allegations are based upon
knowledge as to itself, the investigation of counsel, and sworn
pleadings of each member of a special committee of CBS's Board of
Directors, CBS and Viacom Inc. are companies controlled by NAI,
which is dominated by Ms. Redstone.

In January 2018, Ms. Redstone proposed a combination of CBS and
Viacom. The CBS Board established a special committee consisting
of independent directors to consider the Proposed Transaction.
The Special Committee determined that the Proposed Transaction
was not in CBS's best interests and that Ms. Redstone posed a
"significant threat" to CBS and its stockholders. The Special
Committee also recommended that the Board convene a May 17, 2018
special meeting to consider a pro rata dividend of 0.5687 shares
of Class A Common Stock for each outstanding share of Class A and
Class B Common Stock.

On May 14, 2018, the CBS Board noticed the Special Meeting for
May 17 and CBS, with the Special Committee, moved for a temporary
restraining order against Ms. Redstone, NAI and related parties
to bar them from taking any action to interfere with the
composition of the Board or the Special Dividend. On May 17,
2018, the Board then proceeded with the Special Meeting, and,
with a unanimous vote of directors not affiliated with NAI,
declared the Special Dividend.

The Special Dividend complies with the unambiguous terms of
Article IV, Section (2)(b) of CBS's Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, which specifies that "[t]he Board
of Directors may, at its discretion, declare a dividend of any
securities of the corporation to the holders of shares of Class A
and Class B Common Stock". The Class B stockholders are,
therefore, contractually entitled to share in the Special
Dividend.

Adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article IV, Section
(2)(b), Ms. Redstone and NAI claimed in their opposition to the
TRO and, more recently, in a separate action filed against CBS
and directors unaffiliated with NAI, that the Special Dividend
does not comply with the Certificate because holders of Class A
Common Stock must receive Class A shares and holders of Class B
Common Stock must receive Class B shares in any dividend. NAI's
own conduct contradicts its flawed reading of the Certificate.

National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately owned theater
company and mass media holding company based in Dedham,
Massachusetts and incorporated in Maryland.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Eric J. Juray, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888 6500


NAVY FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Overdraft Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
JENNA LLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1280-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.).

The debit cards allow Navy Federal's customers to have electronic
access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments,
withdrawals, and other electronic debit transactions. Plaintiffs
Lloyd and Plemons are citizens of California who have accounts
and debit cards with Navy Federal and patronized its banking
centers located in southern California. They seek to represent a
national class of Navy Federal customers charged overdraft fees
on transactions authorized into a positive account balance and a
sub-class of Navy Federal customers in California.

The Court finds that, here both parties agree that Virginia law
applies to the Plaintiffs' common law claims.  The Court agrees
because it is evident that the legal relationship between the
parties emanates from the Account Agreements, the interpretation
of which is central to this case.  The Court similarly concludes
that California has a stronger interest in the adjudication of
the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and the California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").  Here, the fact that both the Plaintiffs
are California citizens who seek to represent a sub-class of
California residents with respect to their CLRA and UCL claims
certainly increases California's interest in the litigation.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that at all relevant times, they
patronized Navy Federal banking centers located in California.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Account Agreements' choice
of Virginia law is unenforceable as to the Plaintiffs' CLRA and
UCL claims.

Based on a review of the Account Agreements, the Court finds that
the term "to cover" is ambiguous.  The Account Agreements do not
clearly identify how funds sequestered for a transaction
authorized with positive funds are to be used when the
transaction is paid.  If the term "to cover" means that funds
sequestered from a positive account balance will be used to pay
for the transaction when it settles, then it cannot be said that
Navy Federal actually pays for the transaction and, under the
Account Agreements, no overdraft fee could be charged. However,
if the term "to cover" does not mean that sequestered funds are
to be used to pay for the transaction when it settles, then Navy
Federal presumably does pay for the transaction, which triggers
its contractual authority to assess an overdraft fee on the
transaction. The Court cannot say that the Account Agreements
clearly foreclose either interpretation.

Navy Federal argues that dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim is warranted based on the decision in Roberts v.
Capital One, N.A., 16 Civ. 4841 (LGS), 2017 WL 1750445 (S.D.N.Y.
May 4, 2017).  In Roberts, the plaintiffs alleged that their
account agreements with the defendant bank foreclosed the
defendant from charging overdraft fees if a customer's balance
was positive at the time a merchant requested purchase
authorization, but negative when the merchant was paid.

The Court is persuaded that the ambiguities in the Account
Agreements prevent dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claims at this stage of the litigation. At this juncture,
Plaintiffs have alleged a reasonable interpretation of that
Account Agreements and conduct that would violate that
interpretation. The meaning of the Account Agreements is best
ascertained through the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court
denies Navy Federal's motion to dismiss the breach of contract
claim.

The FAC alleges a claim under the UCL on behalf of a California
sub-class on the ground that Navy Federal falsely indicated in
account documents that overdraft fees will not be charged when
sufficient funds exist to cover transactions. The UCL prohibits
any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Any
of these prongs may support a UCL cause of action.  Navy Federal
seeks dismissal of the UCL claim on the ground that Plaintiffs
fail to identify a single alleged misrepresentation in any
Account Agreements.

The Court says it cannot conclude as a matter of law, that no
reasonable consumer would be likely to be misled or deceived by
the defendants' representations in the Account Agreements. The
FAC specifically alleges that a reasonable consumer would believe
that funds immediately debited for a transaction would be applied
to the transaction for which they are debited, that overdraft
fees would not be assessed a transaction authorized into
sufficient funds, and that debit transactions reduce an available
balance based on the order transactions are initiated.

Considering the Account Agreements and the facts alleged, the
Court is persuaded that a reasonable consumer could have
interpreted Navy Federal's Account Agreements to mean that a
debit card transaction that was authorized and approved by Navy
Federal into positive funds, with corresponding funds held until
the transaction posted, would not incur an overdraft fee when the
transaction settled. Accordingly, the Court denies Navy Federal's
motion to dismiss the UCL fraudulent claim on the ground that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege any misrepresentations.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Navy
Federal's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint  as
follows:

   -- The Court denies the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach
of contract claim (claim 1) and conversion claim (claim 3).

   -- The Court grants with prejudice the motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (claim 4) and CLRA claim
(claim 6).

   -- The Court grants without prejudice the motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing claim (claim 2) and UCL claim (claim 5).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4x9y9v from Leagle.com.

Jenna Lloyd, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Jamie Plemons, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea Gold, Tycko
& Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Silver --
asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice,
Hassan Ali Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel
PLLC, Chiharu Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & James C. Shah -- shah@sfmslaw.com
-- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP.

Navy Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Jason J. Kim
-- kimj@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Neil K. Gilman
-- ngilman@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice.


NETGEAR INC: Fischer Sues over WiFi Range Extenders
---------------------------------------------------
ROB FISCHER, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NETGEAR, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-07034 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, June 4, 2018),
contends that Netgear falsely represents that its wireless
network range extenders extend WiFi networks by close to 200%.

According to the lawsuit, Range Extenders do not, and cannot,
extend the range of a WiFi network by 100%. Typically, Range
Extenders, including the Defendant's, extend the range of an
existing WiFi network by less than 50%. As a leading manufacturer
and seller of Range Extenders, no one knows the limitations of
Range Extenders better than Netgear. Despite this knowledge,
Netgear prominently represents its Range Extenders as extending
WiFi networks by close to 200%. These prominent representations
are conspicuously located on the packaging of all Netgear's Range
Extenders, as well as in various forms of internet advertising.
These representations constitute knowingly false promises by
Netgear, made for the purpose of selling more of its Range
Extenders. These false promises are made at the expense of
consumers, because consumers purchase Range Extenders expecting
them to conform to Netgear's representations. Additionally,
because each Range Extender fails to conform to the
representations made on its packaging, Defendant's Range
Extenders violate the terms of the express warranty that Netgear
makes to consumers.

Netgear is a manufacturer and seller of wireless internet
connectivity devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831 8000
          E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMELYNE MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT, a California Corporation and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC70694
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least 4 years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all
final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after
separation to all employees in California, and failing to provide
employees with accurately itemized wage statements. Defendant
further failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with the wage
statements in compliance with Labor Code.

New School for Child Development provides elementary and
secondary education services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM. A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Iiills, CA, 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Nidah@OLFLA.com


NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NIU of Florida,
Inc. The case is styled as Richard Wuest, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
NIU of Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-at-00980 (E.D.
Cal., May 31, 2018).

NIU of Florida, Inc. is an insurance business in Boca Raton,
FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric A Grover, Esq.
   Keller Grover Llp
   1965 Market Street
   San Francisco, CA 94103
   Tel: (415) 543-1305
   Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   John T. Madden, Esq.
   Klinedinst P.C.
   801 K Street, Suite 2100
   Sacramento, CA 95814
   Tel: (916) 444-7573
   Fax: (916) 444-7544
   Email: jmadden@klinedinstlaw.com

      - and -

   Natalie P. Vance, Esq.
   Klinedinst PC
   801 K Street, Suite 2100
   Sacramento, CA 95814
   Tel: (916) 444-7573
   Fax: (916) 444-7544
   Email: nvance@klinedinstlaw.com


NOIR TRADING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rivas Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RIVAS, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOIR TRADING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES I through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC708831 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.  The Defendants require Plaintiffs and
members of the Plaintiff Class to work off the clock on a daily
basis. Further, Defendants have established a rounding policy
which does not compensate said employees for the time they
actually worked and as a result Defendants have failed to pay all
wages due including overtime wages for all hours worked and
failed to pay the required minimum wage for all hours worked.

Noir Trading Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes distributing furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (323) 857-5900


NU IMAGE: Rivero Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------
MARIO RIVERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NU IMAGE BODYSCULPTING LLC d/b/a NU
IMAGE MEDSPA, a New Jersey corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-10144 (D.N.J., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently and/or willfully using an automatic telephone dialing
system to call Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
without Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Defendant owns and operates a medical spa in Bergen County, New
Jersey. To remain competitive and increase sales of its goods and
services, Defendant has resorted to unlawful telemarketing
campaigns to the detriment of unsuspecting consumers like
Plaintiff. Specifically, on May 2 and 16, 2018, Defendant or its
agents, used an automated text messaging platform to transmit the
following marketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone ending in 7663 ("7663 Number"): Plaintiff is the
subscriber and sole user of the 7663 Number.  At no point in time
did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be
contacted by text message on his cellular phone using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

Nu Image operates medical spas that offer rejuvenating skin care
procedures for women and men. It offers procedures, such as laser
hair removal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

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


NVR INC: Court Narrows Class Claims in Smith et al. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Paul Smith, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
NVR, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss class
certification.

According to the Docket Entry made by the Clerk on June 6, 2018,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part. The Plaintiffs may proceed with their contract claim as it
pertains to the 25-year shingles and the wood veneer cabinets.
The remainder of the contract claim is dismissed without
prejudice, as is the ICFA claim. The Plaintiffs have until
June 27, 2018 to file an amended complaint; if they fail to do
so, the dismissal of those claims will convert automatically to a
dismissal with prejudice. Because (as Plaintiffs stated at
the May 2, 2018 hearing) Plaintiffs' class certification motion
seeks certification only as to the ICFA claim, that motion is
denied as moot, without prejudice to renewal if Plaintiffs file
an amended complaint with an ICFA claim or if Plaintiffs decide
to seek class certification of the contract claim.

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


OCLARO INC: Faces Class Action Over $1.8-Bil. Tech Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in
a federal class action, shareholders say Oclaro, Inc.'s proposed
$1.8 billion sale to Lumentum, for $5.60 a share plus 0.06 shares
of Lumentum for each Oclaro share, is insufficient.  Both are
optical-tech companies, according to Courthouse News Service.

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
     Tel: (877) 534-2590
     Fax: (610) 667-9029
     Email: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: $12.5MM Fund Distribution OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order regarding the
distribution of the net settlement fund in the case captioned In
re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: ALL ACTIONS. Case No. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW. (N.D. Cal.).

The parties agreed to a full and complete settlement of all class
claims in exchange for the payment of $12,500,000.00 in cash
(Settlement).

The Court approves the decisions and activities of the
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Heffler in connection with the
administration of the Settlement and all decisions described in
the Sincavage Affidavit relating to claims being payable or non-
payable are approved.

The Court directs that payment, if necessary, be made from the
Settlement Fund to the Internal Revenue Service for the proper
amount of taxes due and owing on the interest earned on the
Settlement Fund while in escrow.

The Court also directs payment in the amount of $261,972.27 to be
made to Heffler for its final invoice for services rendered and
expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the
Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycx2c3eo from Leagle.com.

Woburn Retirement System, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Sutuated, Plaintiff, represented by Carol C.
Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro
hac vice, James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com --
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jonathan Gardner --
jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
S. Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny,
P.C., pro hac vice, Nancy Tompkins -- tompkins@kerrwagstaffe.com
-- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Walter Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Rachel A. Avan  -- ravan@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel M. Ward -- SWard@barrack.com -
- Barrack Rodos & Bacine & Stephen R. Basser --
sbasser@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.

Omnivision Technologies, Inc., Shaw Hong, Anson Chan & Aurelio
"Ray" Cisneros, Defendants, represented by Cynthia A. Dy --
cdy@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional
Corporation, Douglas John Clark -- DClark@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation, Kelley Moohr
Kinney -- kkinney@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A
Professional Corporation & Nicholas R. Miller -- nmiller@wsgr.com
-- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati.


OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "Butler" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton Security
Services Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as William Butler on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Does 1-100 and Overton Security Services Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 34-2018-00233546-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23,
2018).

Overton Security Services, Inc. provides security services. The
Company offers patrol, building maintenance, guards, and
executive protection security services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam M Rose, Esq.
          STARR LAW
          23901 Calabasas Rd No. 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 225 9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225 9042
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


PAY CAR: Court Certifies Full-time Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DOUGIE LESTER, the Plaintiff, v. PAY CAR
MINING, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D
W.Va.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting a motion to certify class of:

      "all full-time employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc.
      ("Bluestone") who were terminated from employment, or
      Subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke Mountain Mine
      Complex, including at the Pay Car Mine, from September 2,
      2012 through December 1, 2012";

   2. appointing Dougie Lester as Class Representative;

   3. appointing jointly as Class counsel: Bren L. Pomponio and
      Samuel B. Petsonk of Mountain State Justice, Inc.

   4. permitting discovery as to possible modification of the
      class definition as well as to the merits of the case, and
      allowing future motions for modification of the class
      definition.

   5. directing Plaintiff to submit to the Court a proposed Class
      notice document after conferring with opposing counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KcC0CNmI


PRISTINE DENTAL: Ryoo Dental Sues Over Illegal Fax Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryoo Dental, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pristine Dental Supplies, Inc., Pristine
Dental Supply, Mosammat Parvin Akhter and Mohamed Salahuddin,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00606 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2018)
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited
telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants operate as "Pristine Dental Supply."  They placed
unsolicited fax advertisements, including that of Plaintiff's,
without obtaining their prior express consent, notes the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: 954-524-2820
      Facsimile: 954-524-2822
      E-mail: seth@epllc.com


PROENZA SCHOULER: Kiler Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Proenza Schouler,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02205 (E.D. N.Y., April 13,
2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Proenza Schouler stores sell womenswear, shoes, handbags and
accessories. Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online
purchase of a dress on Proenzaschouler.com. Kiler is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Chiropractors' Suit Remains in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division,
issued a Report and Recommendation denying Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand the case captioned HANDS ON CHIROPRACTIC PL, Plaintiff, v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-
cv-192-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla.).

On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida.  Therein, the
Plaintiff asserted a class action claim against the Defendant for
declaratory relief and damages.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
seeks, in part, a declaration that Florida law and the
Defendant's Policy require the Defendant to pay the class members
the full amount of charges submitted or 80% of the "Schedule of
Maximum Charges" when the charges submitted to the Defendant by
the class members are for less than the amounts allowed pursuant
to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(5)(a)1.  The Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant paid the class members 80% of the
amount submitted regardless of whether the amount submitted was
for less than the amount allowed pursuant to Florida Statutes
Section 627.736(5)(a)1.

On February 7, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of removal seeking
to remove the case to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441, 1446, 1453. Doc. 1.

On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for remand. There,
the Plaintiff conceded that "there are over 100 persons in the
class and that diversity exists among the parties."  But the
Plaintiff objected to the Defendant's "conclusory allegation"
that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00.  The
Plaintiff argued that the affidavit that the Defendant attached
to the Notice is insufficient to carry the Defendant's burden of
establishing the amount-in-controversy by a preponderance of the
evidence.  Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that "there is no
explanation of the number of 'Bills' referenced or a calculation
of how these estimates were made."

Upon review, the Magistrate finds that the Defendant carried its
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount-in-controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. The
Defendant, with the assistance of a data analyst, identified the
putative class members, identified the bills at issue, identified
the face value of those bills, and demonstrated to the Court that
20% of the face value of the Bills exceeds the jurisdictional
amount by more than double. And the Plaintiff provided no
evidence to rebut the Supplemental Affidavit or the Defendant's
calculations. Under these facts, the Defendant carried its
burden.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaswmt28
from Leagle.com.

Hands On Chiropractic PL, A/A/O Samantha Schurr, Plaintiff,
represented by Alyson M. Laderman --
aladerman@theorlandolawgroup.com -- The Orlando Law Group &
Lawrence M. Kopelman, Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.

Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Allison Paige Gallagher -- allison.gallagher@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP & Megan Costa DeVault -- megan.devault@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP.


RALPH LAUREN: Sends Spam Text Messages, Hudson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HUDSON, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., and VIBES MEDIA, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2018-CH-06906 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 31, 2018),
seeks statutory damages, including treble, available under the
law under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in the month of January 2018, the
Defendant sent a total of 10 text messages to Plaintiffs "0928"
cellular number. The Plaintiff never expressly consented, in
writing or otherwise, to receive more than 6 messages per month
from Defendants. Although the May 17, 2015 text message included
opt-out instructions, none of the text messages Defendants sent
to Plaintiff in the months alleged included instructions on how
to stop receiving text messages. In fact, the clear majority of
text messages Defendants sent to Plaintiff failed to include such
instructions.

Ralph Lauren is an American corporation. They are known for the
clothing, marketing and distribution of products in four
categories: apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          315 l W. 26111 Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831 8000
          Facsimile: (504) 272 2956
          E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com


RCW INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCW, Inc. The case
is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCW, Inc.
doing business as: M.Gemi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03247
(E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

RCW, Inc., doing business as M. Gemi, manufactures and sells
women's footwear. The company offers shoes, flats, pumps,
moccasins, and boots. It sells its products directly to clients,
as well as online. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with an additional office
in Florence, Italy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


ROCK SOLID: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Reyes Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rock Solid Countertops and More, Inc. and
Hugo Vargas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00244, (M.D. Fla., April
12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as an hourly-paid installer,
for Defendant's residential and commercial countertop business.
Hernandez claims to have worked in excess of forty hours within a
workweek, without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd.
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 967-5377
      Fax: (954) 327-3016
      Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com


ROSEWOOD ON THE SOUND: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosewood On The
Sound LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosewood
On The Sound LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04855-VEC (S.D.
N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Rosewood On The Sound is a Retirement & Assisted Living Facility
in Bayville, 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


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: No Ascertainable Class in "Romero"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District
California denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH
ELLIOT, Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 16cv1283 JM (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Juan Romero and Frank Tiscareno, two former inmates in
the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff, and Kenneth Elliot,
a criminal defense attorney, allege that Securus surreptitiously
recorded privileged attorney/client telephonic communications.
Securus is an alleged corporation incorporated in Delaware with
its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.

The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) alleges six causes of action:
(1) invasion of privacy, violation of Cal. Penal Code Section
636; (2) unfair competition, violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200, et seq.; (3) concealment; (4) fraud; (5),
negligence; and (6) unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d); and seek to
bring these claims on behalf of the following class:

     Every person who was a party to any portion of a
conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of
a law enforcement officer or other public officer in California,
and that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or
requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was
eavesdropped on or recorded by means of an electronic device
during the period from July 10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out
date, inclusive (the Class Period).

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to present
sufficient evidence to show that there is an administratively
feasible manner to determine whether a class action is the
superior method for prosecuting the Plaintiffs' claims. For the
County of San Diego, the Plaintiffs identify examples of 128
Private Attorney Calls involving 123 Class Members which should
not have been recorded. The Plaintiffs also submit a summary list
of recorded telephone calls potentially identifying 116 telephone
calls between attorneys, or public defender entities, and
detainees. Other evidence submitted by Plaintiffs appear to show
that 22 telephone calls were recorded.

The Plaintiffs have actively engaged in class and merits
discovery, but fail to set forth a cogent method for determining
who is a Class Member. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs
shows that there may be about 22 to 123 Class Members in San
Diego County.   However, it is unknown how many Class Members
exist state-wide. The Plaintiffs represent that Securus operates
in 20 California counties, thus suggesting that there are
hundreds, if not potentially thousands of additional Class
Members. Thus, it is unclear whether the class consists of
perhaps 22 class members, at the low end, or potentially
thousands, at the upper limit.  Without an ascertainable class,
this action cannot proceed as a class action.

In sum, the court denies the motion for class certification
without prejudice because the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently
identify an ascertainable and manageable class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y84mnpju from Leagle.com.

Juan Romero, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Houchin --
mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
Robert L. Teel -- lawoffice@rlteel.com -- Law Office of Robert L.
Teel, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office
of Ronald Marron & Adam Belsey -- adam@consumersadvocates.com --
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Frank Tiscareno, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated & Kenneth Elliott, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Robert L. Teel, Law
Office of Robert L. Teel & Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald
Marron.

Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam R.
Fox, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


SISYPHIAN LLC: Unlawfully Misclassifies Dancers, Nutt Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVIE NUTT, an individual, for herself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SISYPHIAN, LLC, a California limited
liability company; BRAD BARNES, an individual; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707888, (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 31, 2018), seeks to enforce Plaintiff's and Putative
Class' privileges and rights under the California Labor Code and
to hold Defendants liable for the results of their unlawful
misclassification of Plaintiff and the Putative Class as
independent contractors.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
are (or were within the last four years) dancers at the club
known as Xposed Gentlemen's Club (Xposed) in Canoga Park,
California. Defendants -- as owners, operators, and managing
agents of Xposed -- treated Plaintiff and the Putative Class as
independent contractors, failing to comply with a host of
California labor laws, including without limitation the failure
to pay minimum wage, the failure to reimburse for all job-related
expenses, and the failure to provide paycheck stubs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 North Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641 6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641 6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  andrew@strausslawyers.com


SITEONE LANDSCAPE: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Alvarez and Enrique
Herrera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00016452-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego) on May 31, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01116-DMS-NLS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

SiteOne Landscape provides landscape architectural services. The
Company offers irrigation, outdoor lighting, nursery, and
landscape supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

Attorneys for SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC:

          Hardy Ray Murphy, III, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & SMART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239 9045
          E-mail: hardy.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com


SNC-LAVALIN: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $110-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Marowits, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. has moved further from its troubled past
by settling two class action lawsuits worth a total of $110
million over allegations of misleading investors about its
activities in Libya.

The company said it will contribute $88 million to the settlement
of the cases in Ontario and Quebec.  The rest will come from its
insurance, said Michael Robb, Esq. -- michael.robb@siskinds.com -
- of Siskinds LLP, the lead lawyer of the claim.  The agreement
is subject to court approval.

SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. says it has agreed to settle two class
action lawsuits filed by investors in 2012.  The company says it
has contributed $88 million to a settlement of both class
actions.

The settlement amount is far from the $1.25 billion initially
claimed by investors who bought SNC-Lavalin shares before they
plunged in 2012 after the company announced an investigation into
millions in undocumented payments and said its 2011 earnings
would be less than expected.

"The reason $110 [million] is the number in the settlement is
that having gone through litigating the case vigorously for six
years and gone through a lot of evidence and procedure, that's
the amount the parties negotiated as a fair and reasonable
compromise of this case," Mr. Robb said in an interview from
London, Ont.

The net amount to be distributed will be calculated after legal
fees are deducted, which Robb said would be "significantly less
than half" the total settlement.

The court will determine the appropriate amount and set up a
distribution procedure at hearings expected to take place this
fall in Ontario and Quebec.

The proceeds will be distributed to investors from anywhere in
the world who provide proof that they purchased SNC-Lavalin
shares between November 2009 and February 2012.

The lawsuits were among the consequences of alleged payments made
by SNC-Lavalin to members, associates and agents of the regime of
late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to secure contracts for
infrastructure projects in Libya.

The company said it has since initiated a series of significant
changes and enhancements to reinforce its ethics and compliance
procedures.

"The class-action lawsuit settlement is another step in resolving
our legacy issues and de-risking the future of SNC-Lavalin," the
Montreal-based firm said in a news release. [GN]


SOLVERE LLC: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solvere LLC. The
case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solvere LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04868 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Solvere, L.L.C. provides engineering, software, fabrication, and
integration services. The Company offers initial design and
consultation, custom programming, system development,
commissioning, and ongoing support services.[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


STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Disableds' Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned TIMOTHY VONDERSAAR,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated; ORLANDIS HARDY, Jr., individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated;
JAAROME WILSON, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated; BERNARD TARUC,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No.
16-56555 (9th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs are California residents who allege that beverage
handoff counters in Starbucks coffee shops exceed 36 inches in
height in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility Guidelines.  Starbucks had already lowered all its
beverage handoff counters in California to be within the 36 inch
maximum.  The district court denied class certification on the
Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction
over that claim, and dismissed it without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and must therefore show, inter alia,
that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members.  Here,
however, class-wide issues do not predominate over the numerous
individual questions posed by the Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claims,
including whether a class member is disabled, which Starbucks
store or stores he visited, how many visits he made, how high the
handoff counter was at the time he visited, whether he presented
himself with the intent of purchasing a product, what that
product was and whether it would normally have been served via
the handoff counter, and whether the class member was actually
denied full and equal access.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dgymdr from Leagle.com.


STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Baker" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The State of
California. The case is styled as Alexander Baker, an individual;
on behalf of himself, those similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff v. The State of California in their official
capacities, Xavier Becerra in their official capacities, Hon.
Michael J. Convey in their official capacities, Hon. Alicia Y.
Blanco in their official capacities, Hon. Brian M. Hoffstadt, in
their official capacities, Hon. Alan J. Goodman in their official
capacities and Hon. Victoria M. Chavez in their official
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04886-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal.,
June 1, 2018).

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican
border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain
includes cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


STONEBRIDGE LIFE: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dubuisson"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned MANETTE DUBUISSON, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, ALICE LACKS, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and GEORGE GONZALES,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FKA
J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A MEMBER OF THE
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-
3526 (2nd Cir.).

At issue in this suit is the validity of a group policy that the
defendants, a collection of insurance providers and marketing
companies, advertised and sold to the plaintiffs, allegedly in
violation of New York Insurance Laws.

Under a group insurance program, a central entity, the group,
enters into a contract with an insurance provider and acts as the
policyholder. Members of the group are the third-party
beneficiaries of that contract. Typically, state law defines what
entities may issue group insurance policies, and group members
are almost always employees of a company or members of an
organization formed for purposes other than obtaining insurance
coverage.

The HealthExtras Program

In 1997, HealthExtras, Inc., created a group insurance program
that offered $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 accidental permanent and
total disability coverage, plus $2500 emergency accident and
sickness medical expense coverage (HealthExtras Program).
HealthExtras advertised and sold policies to consumers through
marketing agreements with banks and companies that issued credit
cards, including American Express, Citibank, Capital One, J.C.
Penney, Sears, and Conoco Phillips.

The Defendants issued the policies to HealthExtras, the
policyholder, as group and blanket accident disability and
medical expense insurance, and the enrolled card holders became
group members.

The Complaint and Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges quasi-contract claims based on
violations of New York Insurance Law, claims based on violations
of New York consumer protection laws, and common-law fraud
claims.
First, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants sold them
insurance coverage that was void ab initio because the policies
(1) were not issued to eligible entities as that term is defined
in New York Insurance Law Sections 4235 and 4237; (2) were not
filed with and approved by the Superintendent of New York's
Department of Insurance, violating N.Y. Ins. Law Section
3201(b)(1); and (3) did not contain certain provisions required
by Section 3221 of New York Insurance Law.

Second, the plaintiffs allege violations of New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit unfair or
deceptive trade practices and false advertising, respectively.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants sent
marketing materials discussing the nature and benefits of the
HealthExtras Program and written certificates of insurance that
falsely represented that the Policies were legal under New York
law and provided real and valuable insurance coverage.

Third, the plaintiffs allege that defendants committed common-law
fraud, fraud in the inducement, or aiding and abetting fraud. The
complaint alleges that the defendants knew statements in their
marketing materials were false because defendants in general are
charged with knowing the terms of New York Insurance Law and
these defendants knew that the subject policies did not comply.

The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for
lack of standing; it did not reach any other grounds for
dismissal.

The court noted that each of the plaintiffs' claims is premised
on their allegation that the policies were illegal, but under New
York Insurance Law, New York courts enforce the policy as if it
did include the required provision. Section 3103, the court
concluded, plainly and unambiguously makes illegal policies valid
and binding upon the insured, and plaintiffs were therefore not
entitled to recover any premiums or fees.

The Second Circuit finds that it is axiomatic that the
irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three
elements: the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact (1)
that is concrete and particularized, (2) that is causally linked
to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable decision.

To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff need only show that he
or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that
is concrete and particularized.

The Plaintiffs have standing. First, with respect to their quasi-
contract claims, they argue they paid premiums for disability and
medical expense insurance policies that are illegal under New
York law and are therefore void ab initio or, in the alternative,
voidable.

The Plaintiffs, however, have met that burden by alleging harm in
the form of premium payments on illegal policies, and they have
standing to pursue their quasi-contract claims irrespective of
the fact that the defendants propose a reading of a statute that
would, if accepted, undermine the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims.

Second, the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their statutory
and common-law fraud claims. Both categories of claims allege
that defendants misrepresented the nature of the HealthExtras
policies by failing to disclose that they were not issued in
compliance with New York law and in so doing, induced plaintiffs
to purchase the policies at an inflated price.

The Second Circuit rules that the District Court erred when it
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. For these
reasons, the opinion and order of the District Court granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing is vacated and
the case is remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 12, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8t38u6f from Leagle.com.

ROGER L. MANDEL -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- Lackey Hershman, L.L.P,
Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

H. CHRISTOPHER BOEHNING ( Shane Avidan -- savidan@paulweiss.com -
- Jessica S. Carey -- jcarey@paulweiss.com -- on the brief),
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Federal Insurance Company.

STEPHEN R. CLARK -- sclarke@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, Dallas,
TX (J. David Brown -- dbrown@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, Dallas,
TX; Steven B. Getzoff, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, on the
brief), for Defendant-Appellee Stonebridge Life Insurance
Company, FKA J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company.


STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN QUINONES, on behalf of himself: all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STUART WEITZMAN, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; STUART WEITZMAN RETAIL STORES, LLC,
Delaware limited liability company; STUART WEITZMAN HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES l through l0,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18907349 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 4, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to
Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from credit and background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREHLAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly HiHs, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarchlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


SUPERDRY RETAIL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superdry Retail
LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superdry Retail
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04865 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Superdry Retail LLC is a privately held company in New York,
categorized under Clothing Stores. It was established in 2015 and
incorporated in 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


SUTTON GARDENS: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutton Gardens LLC.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sutton Gardens LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04856 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Sutton Gardens, a memory care facility in Flushing, New York that
cares for seniors with Alzheimer's and dementia.[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


SUUNTO OY: Huntzinger and Bush Sue over Defective Dive Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH A. HUNTZINGER and ERIC BUSH, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUUNTO OY and
AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-
00027159-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), contends that
the Suunto-branded dive computers -- including the Suunto Cobra,
Suunto Cobra 2, Suunto Cobra 3, Suunto Cobra 3 Black, Suunto
Vyper, Suunto Vyper 2, Suunto Vyper Air, Suunto Hel02, Suunto
Gekko, Suunto Vytec, Suunto Vytec DS, Suunto D9tx, Suunto D9,
Suunto D6, Suunto D6i, Suunto D6i Novo, Suunto D4i, Suunto D4,
Suunto D4i Novo, Suunto Zoop, Suunto Zoop Novo, Suunto DX, and
Suunto Mosquito, that were marketed, distributed, and sold in the
United States from January 1, 2006 through the date notice is
provided to the class -- are defective, resulting in inaccurate
dive-related information, which can cause serious injury and
death.

The Dive Computers are devices used by scuba divers to provide
information critical to the diver's safety, including information
about the depth of the dive, the dive time, water temperature,
safety stops, stop depths and time for required decompression,
air tank pressure, and estimated remaining air time. An
inaccurate display of this information can result in serious
injury or death to the diver. Plaintiffs and other consumers
purchased the Dive Computers expecting them to function properly
as a dive computer and display accurate information. Each of the
Dive Computers designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed
by defendants contains materially the same software and hardware
that operates the Dive Computer's critical functions. However,
the software and/or hardware in the Dive Computers is defective
because it can malfunction, causing the Dive Computers to provide
inaccurate information about a dive.

Suunto Oy is a company that manufactures and markets sports
watches, dive computers, compasses and precision instruments.[BN]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          501 West Broadway. Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com
                  jmacpherson@bholaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Berman, Esq.
          BERMAN & RIEDEL, LLP
          12264 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350 8855
          Facsimile: (858) 350 9855
          E-mail: wberman@bermaniawyers.com

               - and -

          John A. Knox, Esq.
          Douglas A. Hofmann, Esq.
          WILLIAMS. KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
          Two Union Square
          601 Union Street. Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101-238C
          Telephone: (206) 628 6600
          Facsimile: (206) 628 6611
          E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com
                  dhofmann@williamskastner.com


THERANOS INC: Judge Declines to Certify Class of Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on May 31
declined to certify a class of Theranos investors who claim they
were misled by promises of a breakthrough in blood testing,
finding their claims need to be handled individually rather than
as a class action.


TJX COMPANIES: Denied OT Pay, Sick Day Off, "Findlay" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Findlay, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. The TJX Companies, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00481, (M.D. Fla., April 12, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, actual
damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of forty weekly with interest,
double/liquidated damages, costs of this action, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and such additional relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant -- www.tjx.com -- is an off-price retailer of apparel
and home fashion where Findlay worked as an assistant manager at
their Clay County FL location. She claims to have worked between
50-60 hours per week without overtime and worked through her
lunch breaks. She also claims to have accumulated 86 hours of
paid sick time which she intended to use to take care of her
autistic son. She was denied availing of such and was forced to
use personal unpaid time. She was eventually terminated.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com


TRADER JOE: "Jamison" Suit Says Fruit Bar Packaging Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Jamison individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trader Joe's Company and Trader
Joe's East, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02216 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Trader Joe's Company and Trader Joe's East, Inc. sells formed
fruit bar products under the "Trader Joe's" brand. Their
ingredients contain processed derivatives, including fruit purees
and juices, corn syrups, various forms of added sugars, pectins,
artificial colors and flavors, instead of actual fruits as
indicated on their packaging, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
     LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Penn Plaza # 2527
     New York, NY 10119
     Tel: (212) 792-0046
     Fax: (212) 563-7108


TRANS UNION: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RONALD J. MILLER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
TRANS UNION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:12-cv-01715, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on June 1, 2018. The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03280-EDL
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

The case is a consumer class action based upon the Defendant's
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The rights of
consumers to inspect and correct consumer information sold about
them are at the heart of the FCRA. The Defendant deprives
consumers of these rights by willfully failing to provide
consumers with complete and truthful "OFAC alert" information it
sells about them to third parties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP
          4200 California Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94118
          Telephone: (415) 651 1952
          E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com

               - and -

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Trans Union L.L.C.:

          Arsen Kourinian, Esq.
          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          Jeffrey Bell, Esq.
          Stephen J Newman, Esq.
          Jason S Yoo, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556 5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556 5959
          E-mail: akourinian@mcguirewoods.com
                  bfrontino@stroock.com
                  jbell@stroock.com
                  snewman@stroock.com
                  jsyoo@stroock.com

               - and -

          Bruce S. Luckman, Esq.
          SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN
          308 Harper Drive, Suite 200
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 662 0700
          Facsimile: (856) 488 4744
          E-mail: bluckman@shermansilverstein.com

               - and -

          Donna A. Walsh, Esq.
          MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-6100
          E-mail: dwalsh@mbklaw.com


TRULIFE HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies "Aytch" Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Condtional Class Certification in
the case captioned TOI AYTCH et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. TRULIFE HEALTH
SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a TRULIFE HEALTH SERVICES et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. ELH-17-2769 (D. Md.).

The Plaintiffs allege willful refusal by the defendants to pay
their wages, including overtime and travel-time wages. They
characterize the suit as both a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).  The Plaintiffs have also lodged claims under the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law of the Labor & Employment Article
(L.E.) and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The defendants do not argue that the plaintiffs are not similarly
situated. Instead, the defendants oppose conditional
certification on the ground that the Plaintiffs have put forth no
evidence of any intention of other opt-in plaintiffs to join in
this action. The Defendants assert that none of the other
potential class members have expressed any desire to join this
suit, which hardly creates a need for collective action.

The Court finds that the Defendants have offered no authority to
suggest that this Court has ever applied such a burden at the
conditional certification stage. The Defendants' argument is
unavailing.

Because the defendants raise no other arguments in opposition to
the conditional certification of the plaintiffs' putative class,
the Court will grant the Motion as to conditional certification.
The only remaining questions pertain to the form and substance of
the notice to the class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7csmm35
from Leagle.com.

Toi Aytch, Sharnette Morris, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly stuated & Aiesha Beaty, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly stuated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David J. Rodwin, Public Justice Center & Sally
Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc.

Isa Reaves, Plaintiff, pro se.

Trulife Health Services, LLC, doing business as Trulife Health
Services & Ijeaku Ezekwesili, also known as Jane Ijeaku
Ezekwesili, Defendants, represented by Justin M. Reiner --
jmr@awbflaw.com -- Axelson, Williamowsky, Bender & Fishman, PC.


TZ MANOR: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TZ Manor, LLC. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TZ Manor, LLC doing
business as: Tappan Zee Manor, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04858
(S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

Tappan Zee Manor is an assisted living community licensed by the
New York State Department of Health.[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


ULTA SALON: "Zepeda" Suit Transferred to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Julie Zepeda, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02184, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on June 4,
2018. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
00750-DAD-BAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Ulta Beauty is a chain of beauty stores in the United States,
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta Beauty carries
cosmetics and skincare brands, men's and women's fragrances, and
haircare products.[BN]

Attorneys for Julie Zepeda, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Edward W Choi, Esq.
          CHOI AND ASSOCIATES APC
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          William Lucas Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4211
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

Attorneys for Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc.:

          John C. Kloosterman, Esq.
          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          Courtney Marguerite Osborn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 677 3128
          Facsimile: (415) 399 8490
          E-mail: jkloosterman@littler.com
                  kcha@littler.com
                  cosborn@littler.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Schaechter" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Shaindy Schaechter, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03237 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018).

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial
service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in
the United States. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was formerly
known as UCB, Inc. and changed its name to United Collection
Bureau, Inc. in August 1979. The company was founded in 1959 and
is based in Toledo, Ohio.[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


UNITED COMMUNITY: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Chattanoogan.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against United Community Bank, a regional bank
headquartered in Georgia with locations in three additional
states, including Tennessee.

United Community Bank has offices in Cleveland, Tn., and Murphy,
N.C., as well as Blue Ridge, Summerville, Trion and Blairsville,
Ga.

The suit was filed on May 23 in Federal Court in Knoxville.

Plaintiff Dennis A. Jones, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated throughout the U.S., filed the suit "seeking
redress for UCB's alleged routine practice of assessing overdraft
fees on debit card transactions that did not overdraw checking
account available balances, along with multiple insufficient
funds fees on a single transaction."

The lawsuit was filed by Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
(BS&J) of Nashville and Cohen & Malad, LLP (C&M) of Indianapolis.

Gerard Stranch, managing partner of BS&J, said, "United Community
Bank's improper debit card fee practices are costing Dennis
Jones, and many others like him, exorbitant sums and taking away
a substantial percentage of income.  Their practice of conducting
authorized-positive, settled-negative transactions is deceptive
and bears potential impact on all of UCB's clients.  UCB's
customers should be aware of the bank's practices and the
frequency with which they result in significant, unforeseen,
personal cost to customers."

The lawsuit alleges that:

   -- UCB breached the terms of its account documents by charging
overdraft fees on transactions that were authorized into a
sufficient available balance, but whose balances were allegedly
insufficient at the time the transactions were settled;
   -- UCB breached the terms of its account documents by charging
multiple insufficient funds fees on a single transaction;
   -- UCB breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
through its overdraft policies and procedures; and
   -- UCB engaged in deceptive acts or practices relating to the
imposition of overdraft fees on consumers in violation of the
Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.

Lynn Toops, a partner at C&M, said, "It is our hope that Mr.
Jones, representing the class on behalf of which this lawsuit was
filed, can put a stop to UCB's unfair and improper fee practices.
UCB's customers put their trust in the bank to comply with its
own promises.  Those customers who have been victimized by UCB's
improper practices, in direct violation of the bank's promises,
have suffered considerable financial losses. It is our goal to
not only be granted restoration of these improper fees, but to
hold UCB accountable for their wrongful actions."

The plaintiff and fellow class members demand a jury trial and
judgments that include:

   -- Declaring UCB's overdraft fee policies and practices to be
wrongful;
   -- Ordering UCB to cease its conduct regarding overdraft fees;
   -- Restitution of all overdraft fees paid to UCB by the
plaintiff and classes as a result of the alleged wrongful
practices; and
   -- Actual and punitive damages. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Rhode Island Immigration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
WJAR reports that Lilian Calderon, a Rhode Island woman detained
by immigration officials for several weeks, appeared in federal
court in Boston on May 22 as the lead plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf questioned a field director for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement about the protocols and
procedures the agency follows for arresting immigrants who are
complying with government orders to verify their marriages.

ICE arrested Calderon in January at an immigration office in
Johnston where she was trying to verify her marriage to an
American citizen.

The class-action suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties
Union, covers four other men and women were also arrested while
trying to verify their marriages.

Calderon was 3 years old when her family came to the United
States from Guatemala. She has no relatives in that country. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Lashes Out at ICE at Class Action Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rappleye, writing for NBC 10 NEWS, reports that the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of Homeland
Security, or ICE, is under fire in federal court.  The director
of field operations for the region was called a lawbreaker in
court on May 23 by District Court Judge Mark Wolf.

He told Tom Brophy "I have found that you and others acting in
concert with you have also violated the law," while detaining
women who were had gone to a federal office as part of the
process of legalizing their status.

The comments came during a class-action lawsuit filed by the
American civil Liberties Union on behalf of women who were
detained while they were interviewing with agents to verify their
marriages to American citizens.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action is Lilian Calderon, a
Rhode Island woman who was brought to the U.S. from Guatamala
when she was 3 years old.  She is now a mother of two, and her
husband is a naturalized citizen.

Her lawyer, Martin Harris, is not part of the lawsuit, but says
it's an important step.

"I think it's extremely important because you're looking at a
potential, you're looking at this issue where the judge wants to
determine whether there's a pattern or practice being employed by
DHS or ICE, whether they're violating specific rules and
regulations," he tells NBC10.  "She has a clear path to
adjustment of her status and that's what she was pursuing.  Like
all the other individuals that were detained and grabbed by ICE
unexpectedly when they went in for their marriage interview. "

The suit is being heard in Boston, and there's no specific
timetable for the resolution. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Police Investigates 52 Abuse Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
police say they are investigating 52 complaints from former
patients of a University of Southern California gynecologist who
has been accused of inappropriate exams and behavior while
examining female students at a university clinic.

Allegations against Dr. George Tyndall, 71, extend over a 26-year
period, said the Los Angeles Police Department at a May 29 press
conference.  Former patients described conduct that went beyond
the extent of a normal medical examination.

According to a lawsuit filed by four former patients in May,
Dr. Tyndall used "his position of trust and authority to sexually
abuse plaintiffs on multiple occasions, by engaging in acts that
include but are not limited to: forcing plaintiffs to strip
naked; groping plaintiffs' breasts, digitally penetrating
plaintiffs' vaginas, and spread open their anal crevice so he
could leer at the crevice and anus, for no legitimate medical
purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient
sexual desires."

Several former patients are suing USC and Dr. Tyndall in Los
Angeles County, claiming the university ignored the doctor's
"sexually abusive behavior dating back to at least the year 2000"
according to one of the civil complaints.

Police are asking for other former patients to come forward as
they conduct their investigation.

USC President C.L. Max Nikias stepped down, amid an outcry from
students and alumni over the lack of response from the
administration.

The allegations against Dr. Tyndall were first reported by the
Los Angeles Times earlier this month, including complaints dating
back several years that were either ignored or not reported to
the medical board.

Since those allegations were first reported, USC has set up a
hotline for other former patients to contact the school who are
coordinating with police.  Police are also asking former
international students to be notified if they were former
students of Dr. Tyndall.

Police say the number of former patients who have come forward is
likely not accurate of the potential victims, said Capt. Billy
Hayes with the LAPD.

"Dr. Tyndall saw some ten thousand students, probably over the
course of his career that expanded from 1990 to 2016.  We believe
that with only 52 people coming forward at this point in time,
that's probably not an accurate representation of the people who
saw him and the potential individuals that might have been
victims," Capt. Hayes said.

LAPD officials said 39 former patients contacted USC and 13 more
reached out to the LAPD through a hotline setup as part of the
investigation.

While the current allegations date back to 1990 police said they
are still in the process of determining whether the allegations
will result in criminal charges.  Capt. Hayes said some of the
patients could have been minors when they were seen by
Dr.  Tyndall but could not provide an accurate estimate.

Dr. Tyndall retired last year, according to media reports.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: "Lieberman" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Lieberman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Regents of the University of California and Blue Shield of
California, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-564930, was removed
from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland)
on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-03282-DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

The Regents of the University of California is the governing
board of the University of California system. The board has 26
voting members. The California Constitution grants broad
institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the
Regents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald Mitchell de Camara, Esq.
          LAW OFC DONALD M DE CAMARA
          1241 Carlsbad Village Dr. Ste. E
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 730 7404
          Facsimile: (760) 730 7409
          E-mail: decamlaw@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Michael Dario Padilla, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Padilla, Esq.
          O'MARA & PADILLA
          12770 High Bluff Dr No. 200
          San Diego, CA 92130

               - and -

          Thomas David Haklar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Ste 617
          San Diego, Ca 92103
          Telephone: (619) 952 8777
          Facsimile: (619) 232 7317
          E-mail: thaklar@haklarlaw.com

Attorneys for Regents of the University of California:

          Joshua Seth Goodman, Esq.
          Patricia L. Bonheyo, Esq.
          GOODMAN NEUMAN HAMILTON LLP
          417 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 705 0400
          Facsimile: (415) 705 0411
          E-mail: jgoodman@gnhllp.com
                  pbonheyo@gnhllp.com

Attorneys for Blue Shield of California:

          Gregory Neil Pimstone, Esq.
          Sarah E. Gettings, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Laska, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Coulevard
          Los Angels, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312 4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312 4224
          E-mail: gpimstone@manatt.com
                  sgettings@manatt.com
                  JLaska@Manatt.com


VERO BEACH: Hopson Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hopson, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Vero Beach Inn, LLC and Sean
Murphy, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-14134 (S.D.
Fla., April 13, 2018), seeks to recover wages, front pay,
compensatory damages, an additional equal amount in liquidated
damages as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act including redress for violations
of the tip credit provisions and unlawful retaliation.

Vero Beach Inn, LLC is a restaurant in Indian River County,
Florida where Plaintiff was employed as part of the wait staff
from November 23, 2016 until November 11, 2017. Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff for all her credit card tips. Hopson was
terminated for complaining, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth Coke, Esq.
      COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW
      131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204
      Fort Pierce, FL 34950
      Telephone: (772) 252-4230
      Facsimile: (772) 252-4575
      Email: beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com


VILLA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Enterprises
II, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Villa Enterprises II, Inc. doing business as: Greenleafs &
Bananas, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03226 (E.D. N.Y., June 1,
2018).

Villa Restaurant Group, Inc. owns, operates, and franchises
restaurants in the United States, Puerto Rico, and
internationally. The company offers food court business
opportunities to various venues; and franchise opportunities in
malls, airports, casinos, and other venues.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Willoughby Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY, DAMIEN WARD, and DAN
COOPER, the Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, COMMANDER GEORGE
FILENKO, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE DEPUTY SHERIFFS, JOHN
DOE STATE POLICE AGENTS, and JOHN DOE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AGENTS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02800
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order:

   1. granting George Filenko's motion to dismiss third amended
      complaint without prejudice; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A status hearing is set for June 14, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cdAPhG8i


VIP HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ruda Says
------------------------------------------------------
LYUDMYLA RUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 511268/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, by failing to pay
Plaintiffs and the Class Members the New York state mandated
minimum, overtime, and spread of hours wages for work performed
on 24 hour shifts, violated the NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Bine Street 33rd floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509 1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509 8088


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Wyman" Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Joseph Wyman, an individual,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Lisa Wyman, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03236 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2018).

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small
business, and commercial banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


WESTLAKE SERVICES: Iniguez Sues Over Illegal Call Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Iniguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Westlake Services, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 18-cv-02239,
(M.D. Fla., April 13, 2018), seeks general damages, costs of
suit, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such
further relief resulting from invasion of privacy under the
California Penal Code.

In August of 2017, Westlake contacted Iniguez by telephone in an
attempt to collect on an alleged debt for a vehicle they
financed. Their conversation was recorded without her consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILLIAM C. GROSSMAN LAW: Gluck Disputes Vague Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Gluck, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. William C. Grossman Law, PLLC,
Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
03206 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

William C. F Grossman Law, PLLC is a debt collector with address
at 5965 Transit Road, Suite 500, East Amherst, New York 14051.
Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a debt collector located at 500 Summit Lake
Drive, Suite 400, Valhalla, New York 10595. Some time prior to
January 30, 2018, Gluck allegedly incurred an obligation to
Citibank N.A./AAdvantage over a personal credit card and was
transferred the Defendants.  The complaint says Defendants sent
the Plaintiff a collection letter containing contradictory
statements and documents including misleading statements as to
who is currently trying to collect a debt from her. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kohn, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


WIRELESS VISION: Faces "Carrington" Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNI CARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WIRELESS VISION, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 155094/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, and to
recover uniform maintenance allowance compensation under the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately May 2012,
continuing to the present, Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs all
their wages or overtime compensation. Additionally, the Defendant
required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder
them or provide the uniform maintenance pay.

Wireless Vision owns and operates T-Mobile retail stores in
Michigan, Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Florida,
Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Georgia, New York,
Maryland, Virginia, and Ohio. Its stores sells and services
wireless telecommunications solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


WORLDPAY US: Faces Acebedo & Johnson Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldpay US, Inc.
The case is styled as Acebedo & Johnson, LLC, IDL Quad Group, LLC
and Medical Legal Consultants of Greater Atlanta, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Worldpay US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02688-MLB (N.D.
Ga., May 31, 2018).

WorldPay US, Inc. provides local in-store, online, and mobile
payment acceptance solutions for U.S.-based merchants. Its
solutions include card terminals, MOTO/virtual terminal, mobile
payments, and integrated cash register systems; and card payments
over the telephone or by mail order; and mid-market ecommerce and
small business online solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com

      - and -

   Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0998
   Fax: (770) 444-0271
   Email: matt@webbllc.com


XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action from Shareholder
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Xerox stockholder filed a
class action claiming the photocopy giant's directors and former
CEO caved to pressure from top shareholder Carl Icahn when they
reached a settlement essentially ceding control of the board to
him.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Carmen Ribbe:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     Amy Miller, Esq.
     Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
     William J. Fields, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


XTO ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rondale Anderson, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. XTO Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation and Michael
Wayne Marriott, the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-
00642, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
(Albuquerque) on June 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00518-SMV-JHR to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephan M. Vidmar.

XTO Energy Inc. is an American energy company, principally
operating in America, specializing in the drilling and production
of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from
shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FABER
          4620C Jefferson Lane NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Telephone: (505) 830 0405
          Facsimile: (505) 830 3641
          E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com

Attorneys for XTO Energy Inc.:

          Little West, Esq.
          Bradford C. Berge, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          110 North Guadalupe St., Suite 1
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 988 4421
          Facsimile: (505) 983 6043
          E-mail: lvwest@hollandhart.com
                  bberge@hollandhart.com


XUNLEI LIMITED: Court Consolidates "Dookeran," "Li" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the motion to consolidate the cases captioned RUNCIE
DOOKERAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. XUNLEI LIMITED et al., Defendants; and
PENG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. XUNLEI LIMITED et al., Defendants, Nos.
18-cv-467 (RJS), 18-cv-646 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The motion was filed by Tongyan Wang and Yuyan Jia (Wang and
Jia).

The Plaintiffs Runcie Dookeran and Peng Li, respectively, filed
suits under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Securities 78j(b) and 78t(a), on behalf of a
putative class of all individuals or entities that acquired
Xunlei American Depository Shares (Xunlei ADSs).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a district
court may consolidate two or more actions that involve a common
question of law or fact. Accordingly, courts must determine:
whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion
are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common
factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses, and
available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the
length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a
single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the
single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.

After considering these factors, the Court finds consolidation to
be appropriate here. It is obvious, upon review of the operative
complaints, that there are common factual and legal issues in
both cases.

In fact, the complaints are nearly identical. In addition, the
Court fails to discern how any party would be prejudiced by
consolidation. Furthermore, it is clear that consolidation would
prevent waste and duplication in the various cases. Accordingly,
the Court consolidates the cases under the caption In re Xunlei
Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467 (RJS), and closes
the case numbered 18-cv-646 (RJS).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Opinion
and is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc548fwn from Leagle.com.

Peng Li, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Xunlei Limited, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Rosenberg --
jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


* City of Oahu Sues Over Service Members' Abandoned Cars
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Y.K. Pang, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that in an
effort to speed up its ability to dispose of current and future
vehicles abandoned by military service members, the city filed a
class-action lawsuit on May 22 seeking to consolidate required
hearings for the owners into one case.

Abandoned vehicles have been a growing problem on Oahu streets
and those belonging to service members make up a good share of
them.  City officials say the city is now storing more than 200
vehicles whose owners cannot be located.

With the city's lots already at capacity, Oahu is still averaging
one abandoned vehicle a day, the lawsuit said.

City officials say the lawsuit is an attempt to make it easier
for them to dispose of vehicles belonging to military members
that they have been required to store.  An agreement they reached
with the Department of Justice in February still requires the
city to auction or sell a vehicle only if it receives a written
waiver by the owner, or through a court order.

This lawsuit essentially seeks to satisfy that requirement by
holding one hearing against all of them.

The new system, however, benefits military members who've
abandoned their vehicles because a class action will make it
unnecessary to identify them, something that could affect their
insurance premiums, City Corporation Counsel Donna Leong said.

Until the city is successful and obtains a court order, service
members still will be offered the opportunity for a hearing as
stipulated in the agreement. [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  * * *