CAR_Public/180618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, June 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 121



                            Headlines


1800 TAX: "Ferguson" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Sued by Gurto for Violating TCPA and FDCPA
ADVANCED HEALTH: Accused by "Genovese" Suit of FDCPA Violations
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Detainees Class in "Barnhart"
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Misonzhnik" Suit

AMCOL SYSTEMS: Veis Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kniss" Suit Alleges Discrimination Under ADA
AUSTRALIA: Barnes' Ex-Employers to Give Evidence in Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Beyrouti Appeals Order in "Doland" Suit to 9th Cir.
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Court OKs Settlement for SMSF Class Action

BLUE CROSS: "Bilek" Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA
BRAVO BRIO: "Dagenbach" Suit Challenges Merger With Spice Private
CARTER'S PAINTING: "Sears" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CBOE EXCHANGE: Sued by Haldeman for Manipulating Volatility Index
CENTRAL MAINE: Ratepayers to Launch Suit for Alleged Overbilling

CITIZENS INC: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Class Certification Sought in "Fradella" Suit
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Was Sold for Too Little, "Ftikas" Suit Claims
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in Norfolk Suit
CR ENGLAND: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit

CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Compensation Lawsuit
CREDIT ONE: Accused by "Kafatos" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
DAIRY FARMERS: Faces SUIT on Conspiracy to Reduce Milk Output
DALLAS, TX: Settles Police, Firefighters' Pay Suit for $173.3MM
DELL: Settles Class Action Over Sales Taxes for $3 Million

EARLY WARNING: Muir Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
EPIC SYSTEMS: Bullard Law Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
EPIC SYSTEMS: Nexsen Pruet Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Request to Postpone Face Tagging Case Trial OK'd

FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: "Jennings" Suit Seeks to Stop Unimin Merger
FIVE STAR HOME: De Rodriguez Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
FIVE STAR QUALITY: Files Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
FLEX LTD: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
FLUOR CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Texas

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Goodroad" Suit Over Reduced Emissions Trucks
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Schneider"
FORTRESS REAL: Condo Buyers File Class Action to Recover Deposit
FOX RESTAURANT: Watt Moves to Certify Class of ASMs Under FLSA
FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Operators

GILBERT ROZON: Judge Authorizes Sexual Harassment Class Action
GROUPME INC: Sent Unsolicited Texts, "Holliday" Suit Claims
GUAM: Ordered Attorneys to Send H-2B Class Action Notices
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Ruzhinskaya"
HUDSON'S BAY CO: Harris Sues Over Breach of 5-Mil. Customers Data

IBEW PACIFIC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Lehman" Suit
IC SYSTEM: Wood Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
INTEL CORP: "Dean" Processor Defect Row Transferred to D. Or.
JORDAN SCHOOL: SG Moves to Cert. Female Athletes Class, Subclass

KAISER FOUNDATION: "Smith" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Bahamas Surgery Appeals Ruling to 9th Cir.
LA PETITE: Former Hudson Dentist Sued, Class Action Likely
LAD CORPORATION: Accused by "Beever" Suit of Underpaying Overtime
LDWB LLC: Hoff Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA

LEPRINO FOODS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Howell Says
LOS CORBATICAS: "Soto" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Riviera Beach Securities Suit
MDL 2591: Venue Fight in Syngenta Fees Highlights Policing Power
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Steffens" Suit

MICRO FOCUS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
MID-BEACH MANAGEMENT: "Islas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MOSES H CONE: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jenkins" Class Suit
NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Abriq's Bid to Certify Class Nixed
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: CBS Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Crocker" Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Crocker"
NEVADA, USA: Walden Appeals D. Nevada Decision to Ninth Circuit
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nguyen" Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Rodz" Suit

PCPG LLC: "Villegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
PET VALU: Wins Costs for Failed Class Action
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Jaimes Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
PHH CORPORATION: "Lei" Suit Alleges SEC Violation
PRECISION PRODUCTS: "Wise" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

PROTHENA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
QUINTIS: Class Action Alleges Improper Accounting
RECRO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
REN MEDIA: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
RH: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action

RIPPLE LABS: Faces Suit Alleging Sale of Unregistered Securities
RSP PERMIAN: Being Sold to Concho for Too Little, "Robinson" Says
SC LOTTERY: Won't Pay $34MM for Glitchy Winning Christmas Tickets
SECOND ROUND: "Kempler" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Bodie" Says

SOCIETE NATIONALE: Scalin Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Investors Compete for Lead Plaintiff Role
SPEEDYPC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Software Problem
SUNLIGHT SUPPLY: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Layoffs
TAURANGA CITY: Faces Class Action Over Failed Homes Development

TD AMERITRADE: Paul Hasting Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TIPS INC: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
TIPTON COUNTY, TN: Smith Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Circuit
TORONTO-DOMINION: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Prepayment Charges
TOWN SPORTS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pisarri" Class Suit

UBER: Women Still Fighting for Right to Bring Class Action
UMH PROPERTIES: Sued by Morgan for Violating FLSA, Min. Wage Act
VALLEY CREDIT: Lost Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart" Suit
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Cert. of Class Sought in "Cassell" Suit
WAKEMED: Southern Appeals E.D.N.C. Decision to Fourth Circuit

WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Nikmanesh" FLSA Suit
WELLS FARGO: Judge OKs $142MM Accounts Scandal Settlement
WILLBROS GROUP: "Graulich" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Primoris
WYN REAL ESTATE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Heaver" Suit Claims
XEROX CORP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in OK Firefighters Suit

YAMBO INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
* Commission Wants Ban on Class Action Contingency Fees Lifted






                            *********


1800 TAX: "Ferguson" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSAN FERGUSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. 1800 TAX TEAM PROS, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, 1800 TAX PRO, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation,
MELANIE SANTIAGO, individually, and LOANY M. CENTENO, JR.
individually, Case No. 0:18-cv-60922-BB (S.D. Fla., April 24,
2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
minimum wages, overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and obtain declaratory relief and other
relief.

The Corporate Defendants are Florida Profit Corporations, engaged
in business in Florida and nationwide, with their principal place
of business in Broward County, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants operate the Corporate Defendants.

1800 Tax Team Pros is an income tax firm and finance company that
creates loans and prepares taxes for individuals and small
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
                  richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Sued by Gurto for Violating TCPA and FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gurto, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Access Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00488-
CMH-JFA (E.D. Va., April 26, 2018), alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Ms. Gurto contends that the Defendant routinely violates the
FDCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place
non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular
telephone service after being told by call recipients to stop
future calls.  She adds that the Defendant routinely engages in
conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress,
or abuse consumers in connection with the collection of debts.

Access Receivables is a company located in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
The Defendant's purpose is "to collect from delinquent
customers."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Erlich, Esq.
          THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 791-9087
          Facsimile: (703) 722-8114
          E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com

               - and -

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


ADVANCED HEALTH: Accused by "Genovese" Suit of FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Genovese, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Advanced Health Partners, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-02458-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Advanced Health Partners, Inc., is a New York Corporation with a
principal place of business in Orange County, New York.  The
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Detainees Class in "Barnhart"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Theresa L. Springmann grants the Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit titled DEMETRIUS BUROFF
and IAN BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00124-TLS (N.D. Ind.)

The class consists of:

     All individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8,
     2016, who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of
     Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not
     serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had
     not previously voted in the 2016 general election, were
     provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a
     voting center, and were registered to vote or had been
     denied the opportunity to vote while held in the Allen
     County Jail.

The Court appoints Christopher C. Myers & Associates as Class
Counsel.

According to the Court's opinion and order, the Plaintiff filed
this action individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Defendant systematically
disenfranchised hundreds of eligible voters, who were being
confined in the Allen County Jail during the 2016 general
election.  The Plaintiff was held in the Allen County Jail as a
pretrial detainee on misdemeanor criminal charges from on or
about October 31, 2016, to on or about December 15, 2016.

David Gladieux is sued in his official capacity as Allen County
Sheriff.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lGd1MahH


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Misonzhnik" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Naomi Misonzhnik filed an appeal from a District Court
memorandum decision and order entered on March 13, 2018, in the
lawsuit styled Misonzhnik v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 17-
cv-6683, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on November 15, 2017.

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.

The appellate case is captioned as Misonzhnik v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Case No. 18-1067, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Naomi Misonzhnik, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          E-mail: mmaximov@mmaximov.com

Defendant-Appellee Alltran Financial, LP, is represented by:

          Thomas Joseph Slattery, Esq.
          SALVO LAW FIRM PC
          185 Fairfield Avenue
          West Caldwell, NJ 07006
          Telephone: (973) 226-2220


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Veis Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loranda Veis moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled LORANDA VEIS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMCOL SYSTEMS,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00781-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and
to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify
and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GcmOsGT6

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kniss" Suit Alleges Discrimination Under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kniss, Ted Raburn, and Randy Swartwood, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00212 (N.D. Okla., April 17,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for discrimination in
violation with the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant unlawfully sought
genetic information about them, and other employees, by asking
these employees to submit to purportedly mandatory blood testing
as a condition of continued employment.  The blood testing at
issue was an unwarranted medical inquiry as a test
on Plaintiff's blood is not related to his job or consistent with
business necessity, says the complaint.

The Named Plaintiffs are each long-time employees of American
Airlines who were, at the relevant time, working in Shop 205-1 at
Defendant's maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

American Airlines, Inc. is a major United States airline
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas-Fort Worth
metroplex. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles C. Vaught, Esq.
      Jessica N. Bailey, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG & VAUGHT, PLC
      2727 East 21st Street, Suite 505
      Tulsa, OK 74114
      Tel: (918) 582-2500
      Fax: (918) 583-1755
      E-mail: jbailey@a-vlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Barnes' Ex-Employers to Give Evidence in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban, writing for The Australian, reports that former
employers of two men who were killed doing home insulation work
spurred on by the Rudd government's ill-fated insulation scheme
are to be called as witnesses in a multi-million-dollar class
action.

The government, which is defending a $150 million case brought by
business owners and tradespeople, has signalled it will call to
give evidence Christopher John McKay and his son Christopher
William McKay, whose company QHI Installations was fined $100,000
following the death of installer Matthew Fuller.  It will also
call Chris Jackson, the director of Arrow Property Maintenance,
which was implicated in the electrocution of Rockhampton teenager
Reuben Barnes, a first-year carpentry apprentice.

Each of the employers came under heavy scrutiny during a coronial
inquest into the 2009 and 2010 deaths, with Queensland Coroner
Michael Barnes finding that the workers had not been given
adequate training or supervision.  Mr. Barnes was also critical
of the commonwealth for rushing the implementation of the scheme
in 2009, which was rolled out in a bid to stimulate the economy,
resulting in failures of process and inadequate safeguards. It
was scrapped the following year, following the deaths of Fuller
and Barnes and two others.

The commonwealth's decision to call former ALP minister Lindsay
Tanner and former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, has also raised
eyebrows.  The pair face a potential showdown with former prime
minister Kevin Rudd, who has been subpoenaed to give evidence
from New York by the plaintiffs in the matter.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, led by Roo Roofing, have yet to be
provided with evidence briefs for Mr. Tanner, Mr. Henry or the
employer witnesses.  Mr. Rudd's evidence, however, is expected to
boost their case, given he has previously accepted ultimate
responsibility for the disastrous program. [GN]


AUTOZONE INC: Beyrouti Appeals Order in "Doland" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movants and Proposed Intervenors Marcus Beyrouti and Felipe
Montellano filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc., et al., Case No. 8:09-
cv-01138-AG-MLG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Marsha Doland v. Autozone
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55536, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 3, 2018,
Plaintiff Marsha Doland filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit.  That appellate case is styled as Marsha Doland v.
Autozone Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55273, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 21, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on June 19, 2018;

   -- Appellants Marcus Beyrouti and Felipe Montellano's opening
      brief is due on July 30, 2018;

   -- Appellees Autozone Inc., Does and Marsha Doland's answering
      brief is due on August 30, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to
William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee AUTOZONE INC. is represented by:

          Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com
                  giskander@littler.com

Movants-Appellants MARCUS BEYROUTI, Proposed Intervenor, and
FELIPE MONTELLANO, Proposed Intervenor, are represented by:

          Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Matthew.Theriault@capstonelawyers.com

Movant-Appellant FELIPE MONTELLANO, Proposed Intervenor, is
represented by:

          Liana Carter, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Court OKs Settlement for SMSF Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miranda Brownleem, writing for SMSF Adviser, reports that The
Federal Court of Australia has approved a settlement for a class
action initiated by an SMSF against a financial institution,
following advice they received from Sherwin Financial Planners.

On 14 March 2016, Bank of Queensland Limited (BOQ) announced that
proceedings had been filed in the Federal Court of Australia
against BOQ and DDH Graham Limited (DDHG).

The proceedings were initiated by Petersen Superannuation Fund
Pty Ltd on its own behalf and on behalf of certain customers who
received advice from Sherwin Financial Planners Pty Ltd, now in
liquidation, and who held and deposited funds into BOQ Money
Market Deposit Account (MMDA) administered by DDHG as a result of
this advice, according to a BOQ statement dated 26 February 2018
on the ASX.

An amended notice of proposed settlement issued to group members
involved in the proceedings states that the Petersen
Superannuation Fund, together with other persons in the class,
were advised by Sherwin Financial Planners Pty Ltd (SFP) or other
persons and companies associated with SFP to deposit funds into a
BOQ MMDA for the purpose of investment.

The document states that Petersen alleges that "Sherwin acted
without authority and fraudulently in respect of the funds
invested in Petersen's BOQ MMDA".

"Petersen contends that BOQ and DDH, as operators and
administrators of the Petersen MMDA, ought to have been on notice
of any suspicious activity taking place, including any indicia of
fraud, on the Petersen MMDA by Sherwin, pursuant to the
obligations owed by BOQ and DDH to Petersen under the terms of
the MMDA."

The document stated that BOQ and DDH deny Petersen's allegations.

On 26 February 2018, BOQ announced on the ASX that a settlement
had been reached in relation to the class action with the
applicant. BOQ and DDH agreed to terms for the settlement of the
proceeding without any admission of liability, which was subject
to approval by the Federal Court.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the settlement sum
is to be kept confidential.

The settlement was approved by the Federal Court on 30 May 2018.
[GN]


BLUE CROSS: "Bilek" Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY BILEK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-02888 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2018), seeks to secure
redress for alleged unsolicited robocalls made for purposes of
selling Blue Cross goods and services, and for noncompliance with
the "Internal Do Not Call" provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association is a national provider of primarily insurance-related
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRAVO BRIO: "Dagenbach" Suit Challenges Merger With Spice Private
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON DAGENBACH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BRAVO BRIO RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ALTON DOODY, BRIAN
O'MALLEY, THOMAS BALDWIN, JAMES GULMI, DAVID PITTAWAY, HAROLD
ROSSER, FORTUNATO VELENTI, Case No. 2:18-cv-00375-ALM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, April 23, 2018), arises from the proposed merger between
Bravo Brio, and affiliates of Spice Private Equity (Bermuda) Ltd.
and GP Investments, Ltd.

On March 7, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with the Consortium,
pursuant to which, Bravo Brio shareholders will receive $4.05 in
cash for each share of common stock they own, according to the
complaint.  The Plaintiff contends that the $4.05 Merger
Consideration is inadequate in light of Bravo Brio's recent
financial performance and outlook.

Bravo Brio is an Ohio Corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Columbus, Ohio.  Bravo Brio owns and operates
Italian restaurants in the United States.  The Company operates
full-service Italian restaurants under the BRAVO! Cucina Italiana
brand name; Italian chophouse restaurants under the BRIO Tuscan
Grille brand name; and full-service American-French bistro
restaurant under the Bon Vie brand name.  The Company's
restaurants primarily offer Italian food and wine.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 West St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonll.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


CARTER'S PAINTING: "Sears" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Sears, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Carter's Painting Services, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00073 (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover
nominal relief, unpaid wages and lost fringe benefits,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney fees and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carter's provides painting services to customers in Gainesville,
Florida where Plaintiff was employed as a painter. He claims to
have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, usually for off-the-
clock work. He was allegedly terminated for complaining.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      Email: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Sued by Haldeman for Manipulating Volatility Index
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Haldeman Realty Co., Inc., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC., CBOE GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, and JOHN DOES, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02915 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2018), alleges violations
of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the Commodity Exchange
Act arising from the Defendants' illegal manipulation of the
Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE") Volatility Index.

The Volatility Index, known under its ticker symbol "VIX," is a
benchmark index created by CBOE.  VIX is a widely-used measure of
the stockmarket's expectations as to volatility, derived from the
market prices of certain Standard & Poor's 500 Index options.
VIX is often called the stock market's "fear index" or "fear
gauge."

CBOE Exchange, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.  CBOE Exchange is
a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Global Markets, Inc., which is
also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chicago.  CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Chicago.

The John Doe Defendants are those financial institutions that
manipulated VIX Instruments through the collusive trading in and
posting of quotes for SPX Options during the times those SPX
Options trades and quotes were used in the settlement calculation
of VIX Futures and VIX Options, and, relatedly, influenced the
price of VIX ETPs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON &MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  blondon@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  klove@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Anna M. Horning Nygre, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  amhorningnygren@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com


CENTRAL MAINE: Ratepayers to Launch Suit for Alleged Overbilling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy O'Brien, writing for The Free Press, reports that a group of
Central Maine Power consumers are launching a class-action
lawsuit against the company for allegedly overbilling customers.
In a press release, Pat Milligan of the group CMP Ratepayers
Unite announced that Sumner H. Lipman, Esq. of the law firm of
Lipman & Katz -- slipman@lipmankatz.com -- and James Belleau,
Esq. of the law firm of Trafton, Matzen, Belleau & Frenette have
retained the New York law firm of Napoli Schkolnik, PLLC to take
the lead in a class action on behalf of the utility customers who
believe they have been overcharged.

"These powerful firms and experienced attorneys can lead our way
to bring justice to the customers who have been overcharged by
our utility company," wrote Milligan. "There will be no fees or
charges attributed to any people who are part of the class.  The
law firms will be taking this strictly on a contingent fee
basis."

CMP Ratepayers Unite formed as a Facebook Group last winter to
share their stories about their skyrocketing electricity bills
and lobby state elected officials to take action. Many customers
in the group have reported bills that have been twice or even
three times higher than usual. Since forming, the group has grown
to over 4,300 members. CMP has denied that it overbilled
customers and instead blamed a cold snap, which it says led to
increased electrical usage. However, CBS 13 reported that CMP had
to give credits to 10 island homes off of Georgetown after the
owners reported having monthly bills showing usage for three of
the five months when the homes had no power due to the October
windstorm. The Maine Public Utilities Commission has recently
commissioned a forensic audit to examine the accuracy of CMP's
meters.  The Portland Press Herald reported that confidential
memos showed CMP knew last winter that its billing system was
faulty.

Customers seeking to join the lawsuit can contact Patrick
Milligan by email at milliganpm@gmail.com or contact Sumner H.
Lipman via email at slipman@lipmankatz.com or telephone (207)
622-3711.[GN]


CITIZENS INC: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. (NYSE: CIA) on May 30 disclosed that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas has dismissed
with prejudice a previously disclosed securities class action
against the company and five current and former officers and
directors, captioned Juan Gamboa v. Citizens, Inc. et al (Case
No. 1:17-cv-00241-RP).  The dismissal affirms Citizens' position
that it fully and accurately disclosed all required information
to its stockholders.

Following an article published by short sellers disparaging
Citizens' business, certain Citizens stockholders filed suit
alleging that certain statements by the company, including
statements involving the voluntary disclosure of an adverse tax
issue in the company's SEC filings, were materially false and
misleading and that the company failed to disclose material
adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects.

The court noted that while it agreed with several of the
arguments set forth by Citizens for dismissal, it only needed to
focus on one -- scienter -- to dispose of the motion and dismiss
the case.  The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
"requires allegations that the defendant acted with 'an intent to
deceive, manipulate [or] defraud,' or 'with severe
recklessness.'"  Here, "every one of Citizens' allegedly
misleading statements was reviewed by independent outside
auditors," no officer or director was alleged to have sold stock
or otherwise profited from the alleged misrepresentations and, as
the court explained, it was clear that the problems with
plaintiffs' case could not be cured by amendment.  Further, the
court stated there "is evidence supporting the inference that
Citizens was not acting with an intent to defraud or mislead, but
rather that they had reason to believe the disclosures were
adequate."

In response to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal issued
by the court, Geoff Kolander, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Citizens said, "You reach a point in life where you do
the absolute best you can, and then you turn it over to God.  The
court's decision is an answered prayer for our executive team and
a victory for our stockholders.  We strive to ensure the
disclosures for our investors are timely and accurate.   This
decision validates many hours of hard work by our executive team
and our outside legal counsel in preparing our disclosures during
a difficult season for the Company."  In conclusion, Mr. Kolander
emphasized, "Today is another positive step forward for Citizens,
its new executive team and its Board of Directors."

The global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright represented Citizens in
this matter.  The Norton Rose Fulbright team included Gerry Pecht
-- gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Mark Oakes --
mark.oakes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Peter Stokes --
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Lana Rowenko --
lana.rowenko@nortonrosefulbright.com

                    About Citizens, Inc.

Citizens, Inc. is a financial services company listed on the New
York Stock Exchange under the symbol CIA.  The Company utilizes a
three-pronged strategy for growth based upon worldwide sales of
U.S. Dollar-denominated whole life cash value insurance policies,
life insurance product sales in the U.S. and the acquisition of
other U.S.-based life insurance companies. [GN]


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Class Certification Sought in "Fradella" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Fradella asks the Court to conditionally certify the lawsuit
entitled PAM FRADELLA v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, COCA-COLA
BOTTLING COMPANY UNITED, INC., COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY UNITED-
GULF COAST, LLC AND COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-09622-SM-DEK (E.D. La.), as a class action under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ms. Fradella also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint The Law Office of John D. Sileo,
LLC, John Paul Massicot, Esq., and Craig S. Sossaman, Esq., as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Sileo, Esq.
          Casey W. Moll, Esq.
          John Paul Massicot, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN D. SILEO, LLC
          320 N. Carrollton Avenue, Suite 101
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 486-4343
          Facsimile: (504) 297-1249
          E-mail: jack@johnsileolaw.com
                  casey@johnsileolaw.com
                  jpm@silmas.com

               - and -

          Craig S. Sossaman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG S. SOSSAMAN
          3351 Severn Avenue, Suite 201
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 455-3100
          Facsimile: (504) 455-6500
          E-mail: sossamanlaw@bellsouth.net


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Was Sold for Too Little, "Ftikas" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRIETTA FTIKAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC., ROBERT C.
SKAGGS, JR., STEPHEN P. SMITH, and GLEN L. KETTERING, Case No.
1:18-cv-03670 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2018), arises from the merger
in which Columbia Pipeline was acquired by TransCanada
Corporation, which closed on July 1, 2016.

Unbeknownst to Columbia Pipeline shareholders, Columbia Pipeline
and its executive officers, including CEO Skaggs, CFO Smith, and
President Kettering, conspired with TransCanada and engineered
the Spinoff from NiSource, Inc., and the ultimate sale of the
Company to TransCanada, as part of a self-interested plan to cash
in on lucrative change-in-control benefits, Ms. Ftikas alleges.

As a result of these material misrepresentations and omissions,
Ms. Ftikas contends, Columbia Pipeline shareholders were misled
into accepting consideration from the Merger that was well below
fair value for their Columbia Pipeline shares.

Columbia Pipeline was a Delaware corporation, created following
the Spinoff from NiSource, with its principal executive offices
located in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

NiSource, based in Merrillville, Indiana, is one of the largest
natural gas utility companies in the United States, serving
nearly 4 million customers in seven states under the Columbia Gas
and NIPSCO brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in Norfolk Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled NORFOLK COUNTY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T.
SMITH and W. LARRY CASH, Case No. 3:11-cv-00433 (M.D. Tenn.),
moves the Court for an order certifying the case as a class
action.

The Lead Plaintiff consists of the New York City Employees
Retirement System, the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of
New York, the New York City Teachers' Variable Annuity Program,
the New York City Police Pension Fund, and the New York City Fire
Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiff" or the "NYC Funds").

The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as Class
Representative, and to approve its selection of Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C., as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CfXDw5hJ

Lead Plaintiff the New York City Pension Funds and Lead Plaintiff
NYC Pension Funds are represented by:

          W. Michael Hamilton, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LLP
          Hobbs Building, Suite 303
          4205 Hillsboro Pike
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 297-51932
          Facsimile: (615) 297-1986
          E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com

               - and -

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          David C. Harrison, Esq.
          Scott V. Papp, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  dharrision@lowey.com
                  spapp@lowey.com

Plaintiffs Norfolk County Retirement System, Alberta Investment
Management Corp. and State-Boston Retirement System are
represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ravan@labaton.com

               - and -

          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          James Gerard Stranch, III, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
          227 Second Avenue, N - 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gstranch@branstetterlaw.com
                  jims@bsjfirm.com

De Zheng is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 E. 17th Ave. - Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
          E-mail: Jeff@dyerberens.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          David R. George, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road - Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com
                  dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com

Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association is represented by:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Ave. - 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  strauss@kaplanfox.com
                  pmayer@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Radford, Esq.
          FLYNN & RADFORD
          320 Seven Springs Way, Suite 150
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 370-9448

               - and -

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S. - Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: lockrra@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com

General Retirement System of the City of Detroit is represented
by:

          David S. Hagy, Esq.
          DAVID S. HAGY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1507 16th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 515-7774
          E-mail: dhagy@hagylaw.com

Defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, and W.
Larry Cash are represented by:

          Gary A. Orseck, Esq.
          Michael L. Waldman, Esq.
          Alison Barnes, Esq.
          Matthew Madden, Esq.
          ROBBINS RUSSELL ENGLERT ORSECK UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP
          1801 K Street NW, Suite 411
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 775-4504
          E-mail: gorseck@robbinsrussell.com
                  mwaldman@robbinsrussell.com
                  abarnes@robbinsrussell.com
                  mmadden@robbinsrussell.com

               - and -

          Steven S. Riley, Esq.
          John R. Jacobson, Esq.
          James N. Bowen, Esq.
          Milton S. McGee, III, Esq.
          Elisabeth Gonser, Esq.
          RILEY, WARNOCK & JACOBSON PLC
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 320-3700
          E-mail: sriley@rwjplc.com
                  jjacobson@rwjplc.com
                  jimbowen@rwjplc.com
                  tmcgee@rwjplc.com
                  egonser@rwjplc.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Doyle, Esq.
          Seth D. Fier, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          E-mail: pdoyle@proskauer.com
                  sfier@proskauer.com


CR ENGLAND: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants C.R. England, Inc., and Opportunity Leasing, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Roberts, et al. v. C.R. England, et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-00302-
RJS-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah -
Salt Lake City.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberts, et al. v. C.R.
England, et al., Case No. 18-4056, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 27, 2018, the
District Court granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Quash
Subpoena Issued to Houlihan Valuation Advisors.

This matter is a class action involving the Plaintiffs, who
allege that the Defendants fraudulently solicited and sold them a
business opportunity to drive large trucks.  The Defendants own
and operate a trucking company, a company that leases trucks, and
a school that provides instruction for students so they can
obtain a commercial driver license.  The Plaintiffs allege
violations of various state and federal laws.  In short, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants misrepresented the income
that was available to students, who ended up leasing trucks from
the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek approximately ten years of information
pertaining to the Defendants' net worth and financial condition
in support of their claims for punitive damages.

Here, the Defendants have already provided tax returns and
financial statements for the last 10 years and that is presumably
why the Plaintiffs request mirrors the same time frame.  But,
despite this prior production, the Court finds the current
discovery requests are overbroad as to time and go beyond what is
reasonable for the Plaintiffs to show the Defendants current net
worth or financial condition.  Therefore, in considering relevant
case law found in this circuit, the Court limits any allowed
requests to the last two years plus the current year of three
months (2016, 2017 and 2018).

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript order form and docketing statement were due on
      May 8, 2018, for C.R. England, Inc. and Opportunity
      Leasing, Inc.; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on May 8, 2018, for C.R.
      England, Inc., Kenneth McKay, Opportunity Leasing, Inc. and
      Charles Roberts.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHARLES ROBERTS, an individual, and KENNETH
MCKAY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Aaron H. Aizenberg, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Glicksman, Esq.
          Stephen E. Kravit, Esq.
          Christopher J. Krawczyk, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Prinsen, Esq.
          KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK, S.C.
          825 North Jefferson Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-6495
          Telephone: (414) 271-7100
          E-mail: aha@kravitlaw.com
                  bjg@kravitlaw.com
                  kravit@kravitlaw.com
                  cjk@kravitlaw.com
                  brp@kravitlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
          LAGARIAS & BOULTER, LLP
          1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 460-0100
          E-mail: rsb@lb-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Jason Greene, Esq.
          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
          Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: jgreene@aklawfirm.com
                  jharper@aklawfirm.com
                  tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com
                  hsneddon@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          P.O. Box 10
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0000
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

Defendants-Appellants C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation; and
OPPORTUNITY LEASING, INC., a Utah corporation; and Defendant
HORIZON TRUCK SALES AND LEASING, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability
Corporation, are represented by:

          David B. Dibble, Esq.
          Scott A. Hagen, Esq.
          James S. Jardine, Esq.
          Adam K. Richards, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          E-mail: jdibble@rqn.com
                  shagen@rqn.com
                  jjardine@rqn.com
                  arichards@rqn.com

               - and -

          Drew Robert Hansen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER PC
          535 Anton Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 549-6112
          Facsimile: (714) 549-6201
          E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com

               - and -

          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          Andrew S. Jick, Esq.
          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Neal R. Marder, Esq.
          Christopher K. Petersen, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com
                  ajick@akingump.com
                  gknopp@akingump.com
                  nmarder@akingump.com
                  cpetersen@akingump.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Compensation Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that Credit Suisse
Securities asked a California federal judge on May 30 to toss a
proposed class action alleging it owes workers up to $300 million
in deferred compensation, arguing the financial adviser suing
repeatedly signed an arbitration agreement that's binding under
the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Epic decision.

Christopher Laver sought to represent hundreds of employees in a
class action claiming when Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
shuttered its financial advisory division in 2015, it claimed
financial advisers had "resigned," and weren't entitled to a
portion of their annual income.

The case is Laver v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00828 (N.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge
William H. Orrick.  The case was filed February 7, 2018. [GN]


CREDIT ONE: Accused by "Kafatos" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIOS KAFATOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 8:18-cv-00703 (C.D. Cal., April 25,
2018), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in
negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Credit One Bank, N.A., is financial institution engaged in
soliciting and providing credit services and collection activity
in connection with debts allegedly owed to it.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAIRY FARMERS: Faces SUIT on Conspiracy to Reduce Milk Output
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit claims that National Milk Producers Federation,
Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of America,
Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc. and Agri-Mark, Inc. (collectively
"Defendants") violated the law by entering into a conspiracy to
reduce milk output through a "herd retirement program," where
farmers who bid to participate in the program sent their herds of
milking cows to slaughter in exchange for payment, allegedly
limiting the production of raw milk and driving up prices for
butter and cheese. The Defendants deny that they did anything
wrong.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The Court decided that the Class includes all persons and
entities in the United States that purchased butter and/or cheese
directly from one or more Members of Defendant, Cooperatives
Working Together and/or their subsidiaries, during the period
from December 6, 2008 to July 31, 2013. Those that are included
are called "Class Members."

A list of all the Members of Cooperatives Working Together and
their subsidiaries can be found at
www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com

Class Members must choose whether to stay in the Class.  If Class
Members stay in the Class, and money or benefits are obtained,
those Class Members will be notified about how they can
participate.  Class Members will be bound by all orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or not, and won't be
able to sue the Defendants on their own for the claims at issue
in this case.  Class Members who want to stay in the Class DO NOT
HAVE TO DO ANYTHING NOW.

To be excluded from the lawsuit, Class Members must send a letter
asking to be excluded.  Instructions for making this request can
be found at www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com or by calling
toll-free 855-804-8574.  Class Members must mail their exclusion
request postmarked on or before July 30, 2018.  If excluded,
Class Members cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit,
and will not be bound by any orders or judgments in this case.
If a Class Member does not request exclusion, they may (but do
not have to) enter an appearance in the Court through their own
counsel.
[GN]


DALLAS, TX: Settles Police, Firefighters' Pay Suit for $173.3MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Hallman, Robert Wilonsky and Jennifer Emily, writing for
Dallas News, report that an executive committee representing
nearly 8,700 current and former Dallas police officers and
firefighters has agreed to a $173.3 million settlement in their
decades-old class-action lawsuits against City Hall over years of
back-pay claims.

The figure is an agreed-upon price that comes with caveats
because it's not yet a done deal.  But the agreement in such a
massive case is a significant milestone -- one that, while
pricey, comes without a tax increase and would remove the biggest
fiscal threat hanging over local government.

"If and when it comes to pass, it will be a historic day for the
city of Dallas.  It's been 24 years.  It's time for it to be
over," said Ted Lyon, who represents the public safety workers.
"It's important for the city and all the firefighters and police
officers to put this behind them and move forward
constructively."

Mayor Mike Rawlings said on May 29 that the settlement was "a
prudent move for taxpayers, not only financially, but
psychologically."

"I'm very, very happy that we've resolved this," Mr. Rawlings
said. "This is a major clearing of the air, and there are no
clouds over us anymore with these lawsuits."

The agreement comes almost seven months after the Dallas City
Council voted to spend $61.7 million to settle four lawsuits in
Collin County over the language of a 1979 pay referendum that was
pushed by police and firefighters and approved by voters.

The city has argued that voters believed the language, which
requires the pay differential between the ranks to be maintained,
was only meant to apply to the one-time raises called for by the
ballot initiative.  But police and firefighters long insisted
evidence obtained during subsequent years -- in which city
officials appeared to have interpreted the language as binding in
all future raises -- showed they were owed money they never
received.

The lawsuits have bounced around the courts for years, and both
sides have talked settlements at various times without reaching
an agreement.  The Rockwall cases have been in the state Supreme
Court since last fall, after the trial and appeals courts denied
the city's request to throw out the lawsuits on jurisdictional
grounds.

City Attorney Larry Casto said negotiations with Mr. Lyon have
been ongoing for months, but talks got serious again about three
weeks ago.

"This is a good day for the city that has been a long time in the
making," Mr. Casto said.  "It's my hope all the parties involved
see this as a fair and equitable deal, and I believe it is."

The lawsuits had contributed to a feeling of mistrust of City
Hall among first responders, which spilled into pay and pension
negotiations in 2016 and 2017.

Mr. Rawlings had previously said the lawsuits -- and four other
similar lawsuits filed in Collin County -- could help bankrupt
the city, as there were potentially billions on the line.  When
the Collin County lawsuits settled in November, the mayor said if
all the lawsuits had been settled at the same rate, the cost
would be $235 million.  That ended up being the case.

The city had hoped to settle the Rockwall cases and the Collin
County suits at the same time. But the thousands of plaintiffs in
Rockwall had wanted a higher figure from the city.  Several
months of talks hadn't moved the needle.

"There were times when I thought the two sides were too far apart
to reach an accord," Mr. Casto said.

But the Supreme Court's decision to review the case added further
uncertainty to the discussions on both sides.

Late on May 25, the city and the plaintiffs asked the court to
hold off on considering the city's appeal in the lawsuits because
the two sides had entered negotiations.

Mr. Casto and Mr. Lyon both said the consequences of losing for
their sides could have been catastrophic.  Mr. Casto said the
city was staring at "a potential multi-billion dollar judgment."
And the plaintiffs could have come away with nothing after all
these years.

Mr. Lyon said the deal "was the best we could get on all sides."
Mr. Casto said "the extreme either way was hurtful to both
parties" in the "all-or-nothing" case.

The settlement agreement comes out to an average of about $20,000
per plaintiff in the Rockwall cases.  But it will be up to the
plaintiffs to decide how the settlement will be distributed using
a formula that takes into account such things as rank, salary and
years of service.

Mr. Rawlings said he still believes the city would've won.

"It's a litigious world we live in," Mr. Rawlings said.  "When we
are playing with taxpayer money, we want to take out as much risk
as we can, and that's what we did here."

The settlement will need approval from the City Council before
moving forward.  Mr. Rawlings said they'll vote sometime this
summer.

As with the Collin County cases, the city plans to use its
existing bond capacity to pay for the agreement, meaning
taxpayers would not see an increase in property taxes. Rawlings
said it might mean the council can't lower taxes as much in
coming years.

Council member Lee Kleinman, who has battled police and fire
associations and was critical of the Collin County settlement,
said he was happy the city has bonding capacity available to be
rid of the cases.  He lauded the mayor, the city attorney and the
council for dealing with the settlement, as well as the pension
crisis.

"Under Mike and Larry, the council's attitude was, 'Let's clean
this stuff up and be done with it,'" Mr. Kleinman said.

Mr. Kleinman said he wasn't thrilled that taxpayers would take on
the bond debt, but would "rather not have it lingering around."

The agreement still has other legal hurdles to clear that are
"times five" the issues in Collin County, Mr. Casto said.  Among
them is getting the Texas Supreme Court to pause the existing
appeal, accounting for all the plaintiffs and figuring out how to
administer the settlement.

Still, Mr. Rawlings said reaching a price tag is important.

"Getting this behind us helps us be in a better situation for our
public safety strategies going forward," he said.  "We could hang
on to minimize that or try to win in court.  But you're throwing
the dice, and I don't think that's what a mayor or a City Council
should do."

On May 29, Mr. Rawlings wasn't critical of past mayors and
councils for not settling the longstanding cases.  But he's glad
to be done with them.

"Hopefully," he said, "you won't be hearing about police and
bankruptcies or lawsuits for a long, long time." [GN]


DELL: Settles Class Action Over Sales Taxes for $3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
David Donovan, writing for North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, reports
that in the early 2000s, Dell, a computer maker, was famous for
its "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" ad campaign.  But earlier this
year, it agreed to pay out more than $3 million to customers who
paid North Carolina sales taxes on maintenance agreements they
purchased around that time. [GN]


EARLY WARNING: Muir Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled STEVE-ANN MUIR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00521-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), moves for
an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and
granting final approval of the parties' class settlement
agreement.

The class is defined as:

     All natural persons residing in the United States, any U.S.
     territory, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico who,
     between January 29, 2014 and December 31, 2016, requested a
     copy of his or her file disclosure from EWS and whose
     disclosure reflected that EWS maintained an Internal Fraud
     Prevention Service record about that consumer at the time it
     prepared the disclosure.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint averring that Early Warning
Services violated the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.  After extensive work, the Parties began engaging in arm's-
length discussions which ultimately culminated in an agreement to
settle the claims of the Plaintiff and Settlement Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z7kxJ0rc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Bullard Law Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
David J. Riewald, Esq. -- driewald@bullardlaw.com -- and Trevor
R. Caldwell, Esq. -- tcaldwell@bullardlaw.com -- of Bullard Law,
in an article for Oregon Business Report, wrote that the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that class action waivers in arbitration
agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
and are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The
Court's 5-to-4 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis resolved
one of the most hotly-contested workplace issues in recent years,
and is a significant win for employers.  The decision also is yet
another reason why every employer should consider requiring that
their nonunion employees sign arbitration agreements, and include
a class action waiver in those agreements.

Background

Arbitration agreements require that the parties to the agreement
resolve their disputes outside of court in the more informal
arbitration setting.  Some of the benefits employers get from the
arbitration process include quicker resolution of disputes, cost
savings in defense expenses, and elimination of jury sympathy as
a factor in the ultimate decision.  Indeed, the Supreme Court in
Epic Systems noted that arbitration agreements provide "the
promise of quicker, more informal, and often cheaper resolutions
for everyone involved."

Because of these benefits, in recent years there has been a
dramatic increase in the number of nonunion employers that
require their employees to sign arbitration agreements.  A recent
study found that although only 2.1% of employers required their
employees to sign arbitration agreements in 1992, that number has
risen to 53.9% of employers today.

Additionally, because of the tremendous cost employers incur to
defend against employees' class actions (and collective actions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act), many arbitration agreements
expressly state that employees waive their right to pursue
class/collective actions.  One study found a significant increase
(from 16.1% in 2012, to 30.2% in 2016) in the number of
arbitration agreements that included such class/collective action
waivers.

The increase in employer-mandated arbitration agreements with
class/collective action waivers led the National Labor Relations
Board, the federal agency that polices the NLRA, to rule in 2012
in its D.R. Horton, Inc. case that class/collective action
waivers violate Section 7 of the NLRA.  Section 7 says employees
must be allowed to engage in protected "concerted activities" for
the purpose of their mutual aid or protection.  The issue of the
validity of class/collective action waivers then proceeded up
through the federal courts, with some federal courts of appeal
agreeing, and others disagreeing, with the NLRB's decision in
D.R. Horton.

The Supreme Court's decision

In the decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the ability to
bring a class/collective action is not a concerted activity that
is protected under the NLRA.  In reaching this conclusion, the
Court ruled the NLRB's position to the contrary was not entitled
to any deference.  The Court also noted that the FAA (which was
enacted 10 years before the NLRA) established a liberal policy in
favor of enforcing the agreed-upon terms in arbitration
agreements, and that an exception to enforceability found in the
FAA's so-called "savings clause" did not require a different
result.

What this Decision Means for Employers

The Court's decision in Epic Systems reaffirms that every
nonunion employer should consider taking advantage of the
benefits of requiring their employees to sign arbitration
agreements that include class/collective action waivers.  For
employers that already have arbitration agreements in place but
they do not include a class/collective action waiver, those
employers should consider adopting new arbitration agreements
that include that waiver. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Nexsen Pruet Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Dubberly, Esq. -- ddubberly@nexsenpruet.com -- of Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision on May 21,
2018, ruling that class and collective action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and do not violate Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The 5-4 decision, written by
Justice Neil Gorsuch in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and two other
cases consolidated with Epic Systems, allows employers to require
workers to arbitrate legal claims on an individual basis, in
effect prohibiting class or collective cases.

The FAA and NLRA and the split in the federal appeals courts
The FAA, enacted in 1925, encourages private dispute resolution
through arbitration.  Section 7 of the NLRA, enacted in 1935,
protects employees who engage in "concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection."

In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board)
concluded for the first time that an employer violated the NLRA's
Section 7 by requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements
that contained a waiver of the right to pursue class and
collective claims in court.  The Board reasoned that "the
collective pursuit of workplace grievances through litigation or
arbitration is conduct protected by Section 7."

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision
in 2013.   But since then, the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit
Courts of Appeals adopted the NLRB's position that class and
collective action waivers violate Section 7, while the Second and
Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals, agreeing with the Fifth
Circuit, ruled that the NLRA permits mandatory class waivers.

This resulted in a classic split between federal appeals courts
in different parts of the country.  In October 2017, the Supreme
Court heard appeals in Epic Systems and two other cases embodying
the split--all three cases asserted collective wage and hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Supreme Court's decision
The Supreme Court majority concluded that an employment
arbitration agreement containing a class and collective action
waiver does not conflict with the NLRA.  According to the Court,
Section 7's policy of protecting "concerted activities" for
"mutual aid or protection" at work does not conflict with
Congress's endorsement of arbitration in the FAA.

The Court noted that in the FAA, "Congress has instructed federal
courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms
-- including terms providing for individualized proceedings." It
further stated that the FAA's "saving clause," which allows
arbitration agreements to be defeated "upon such grounds as exist
at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract" -- such
as fraud, duress, or unconscionability -- is not applicable to
this case.

The Court also said that while the NLRA "secures to employees
rights to organize unions and bargain collectively," it is silent
on "how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave
the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum."
According to the ruling, the "concerted activities" protected by
Section 7 do not include the right to assert class and collective
actions.

In a 30-page dissent, the minority led by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg called the decision "egregiously wrong."  She expressed
concern that employees will now "be disinclined to pursue small-
value claims," like wage and hour claims under the FLSA, "when
confined to proceeding one-by-one."

The bottom line for employers
While employers may now use arbitration agreements to in effect
eliminate most employment class litigation, keep in mind that
there are pros and cons of requiring arbitration of employment
disputes.  Also, arbitration agreements have to meet basic due
process standards to be enforced; agreements that are one-sided
will still be subject to challenge based on traditional contract
defenses. [GN]


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on
May 22, 2018, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a putative securities fraud class action against
pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts Holding Company
("Express Scripts" or "Company") and several of its current and
former officers.  In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Secs. Litig.,
No. 1:16-cv-03338 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018).  Plaintiff -- a
shareholder of Express Scripts -- alleged that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making affirmative misstatements concerning
negotiations to renew the contract with largest customer. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Request to Postpone Face Tagging Case Trial OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Marotti, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a federal
appeals court in San Francisco has granted Facebook's request to
postpone the July trial in a lawsuit over the social media
giant's facial tagging feature that could involve millions of
Illinois users.

Facebook said that it would send out more than 28 million
notifications to its users, explaining that they could be parties
to the class-action lawsuit against the social network.  Those
notifications will no longer be dispatched because the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals plans to review the case's class-action
certification, Facebook spokeswoman Genevieve Grdina said on
May 30.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago in 2015
and later moved to federal court in San Francisco, alleges
Facebook violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by
failing to obtain written consent from users before creating
templates of their faces from photos and by not properly
notifying them about how the information would be used or how
long it would be kept.  Facebook denies the allegations.

The suit asked the court to award damages of $5,000 for each
reckless violation of the Illinois law and $1,000 for each
negligent violation.  The judge hearing the case granted the suit
class-action status in April and said in his order that damages
could amount to billions of dollars.

Proposed changes to Illinois' biometric law concern privacy
advocates

Certification of the class was a milestone for privacy advocates,
and experts said at the time that it had the ability to affect
the numerous biometric privacy lawsuits brought against other
tech companies and employers.  Facebook has argued that the
collection of biometric data caused no real harm to the people
suing, but by granting class-action status, the judge indicated
that a potential invasion of privacy was harm enough to allow the
case to proceed.

Facebook started rolling out its facial tagging feature for
photos in 2010.  The social media platform has information on its
website regarding the feature and points users toward their
settings to disable it, and in December it introduced new tools
to help users better manage use of facial recognition. [GN]


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: "Jennings" Suit Seeks to Stop Unimin Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JENNINGS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS INC., JENNIFFER D.
DECKARD, MATTHEW F. LEBARON, WILLIAM E. CONWAY, MICHAEL G. FISCH,
CHARLES D. FOWLER, STEPHEN J. HADDEN, MICHAEL C. KEARNEY, WILLIAM
P. KELLY, MICHAEL E. SAND, and LAWRENCE N. SCHULTZ, Case No.
1:18-cv-00931 (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger
and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless and
until material information is disclosed to Fairmount's
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed
Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 11, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger between Fairmount and Unimin
Corporation, a subsidiary of SCR-Sibelco NV, pursuant to which
each share of Fairmount's common stock will be converted into the
right to receive: (i) the number of shares of Unimin common stock
that will result in the holders of Fairmount Common Stock,
together with the holders of certain Fairmount equity awards,
owning 35% of the Unimin Common Stock (the "Exchange Ratio"); and
(ii) an amount in cash equal to the result of (x) $170,000,000,
divided by (y) the Fully Diluted Fairmount Share Number, without
interest (together with the Exchange Ratio, the "Merger
Consideration").

Fairmount is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Chesterland, Ohio.  The Company provides
high-performance sand and sand-based product solutions used by
oil and gas exploration and production companies to enhance the
productivity of their wells.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 200
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


FIVE STAR HOME: De Rodriguez Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARILENIS DURAN DE RODRIGUEZ, RAQUEL PRESTON, and ARACELIS
D'ORTIZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. FIVE STAR HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., IVETTE MARKOV, JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-10, and XYZ CORPS 1-10, Case No. 1:18-cv-02333
(E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, and other monies
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Five Star is a New York corporation, licensed to do business in
the state of New York, that has as its principal place of
business in Brooklyn, New York.  Ivette Markov is a resident of
the county of Kings, city and state of New York and is the owner
of Five Star.  The identities of the Doe ad XYZ Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

Five Star is a privately owned and operated home health service
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Farzad Ramin, Esq.
          KIM & BAE, P.C.
          154-08 Northern Blvd., Suite 2G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 321-0770
          Facsimile: (718) 321-0799
          E-mail: framin@kimbae.com


FIVE STAR QUALITY: Files Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------
Five Star Senior Living Inc., the Defendant-Petitioner in the
lawsuit styled as Five Star Senior Living Inc., fka Five Star
Quality Care, Inc. v. Lourdes Lefevre, Case No. 17-1470, filed
with the Supreme Court of United States petitions for writ of
certiorari.

Response to the Petition was due on May 25, 2018.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 3, 2018,
Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the time to file a petition for
a writ of certiorari until April 20, 2018.

Five Star appeals to the Supreme Court the affirmation of the
arbitration order in the lawsuit styled LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an
individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v.
FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Case No.
5:15-cv-01305-VAP (SPx), in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Five Star appeals the District Court's order denying its motion
to compel arbitration of Lourdes Lefevre's representative claims
under California's Private Attorney General Act.  The Ninth
Circuit affirmed that order.  The appellate case is titled
LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE,
INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 16-
55059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Five Star Senior Living Inc. is represented
by:

          Clifford M. Sloan, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7040
          Facsimile: (202) 661-8340
          E-mail: cliff.sloan@skadden.com


FLEX LTD: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts Flex
Ltd. (NASDAQ: FLEX) ("Flex") investors that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Flex Ordinary
Shares between January 26, 2017 and April 26, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Flex securities during the Class Period
may, no later than July 9, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/flex-ltd#join.

According to the complaint, Flex purportedly provides design,
engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain services and
solutions.

The Class Period commences on February 23, 2017, when Flex
published a press release announcing its financial results for
the quarter ended December 31, 2016.

According to the complaint, on April 26, 2018, Flex issued a
press release disclosing that the company's Audit Committee, with
the assistance of independent outside counsel, was investigating
allegations by an employee that the company improperly accounted
for obligations in a customer contract and certain related
reserves.

Following this news, Flex's share price fell $3.61 per share, or
more than 21%, on high trading volume, to close at $13.03 per
share on April 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the company's internal
controls over financial reporting were materially weak and
deficient; (2) that the company had improperly accounted for
obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves;
and, (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
financial statements and the defendants' statements about Flex's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

Flex investors may, no later than July 9, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


FLUOR CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on May 30 disclosed that on May 25, 2018, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Fluor
Corporation (NYSE:FLR).  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 14, 2013 through May 3, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Fluor
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than July 24, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

          Robin Hester
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Goodroad" Suit Over Reduced Emissions Trucks
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN GOODROAD, JR., RICHARD CASTRO, ALAN FLANDERS, EDWARD
HATTEN, MICHAEL KING, WILLIAM MCKNIGHT, LUTHER "ED" PALMER, DON
RECKER, IVAN TELLEZ, BRIAN URBAN AND CHRISTINA BOUYEA, VALUE
ADDITIVES LLC, AND MICHAEL WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAMES
HACKETT, MARK FIELDS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH LLC, and
VOLKMAR DENNER, Case No. 5:18-cv-02403-BLF (N.D. Cal., April 20,
2018), alleges that the Defendants intentionally designed,
marketed, and sold certain trucks in a manner intended to mislead
consumers and regulators about the amount of pollution the trucks
created and the fuel efficiency and performance qualities they
possessed.

This nationwide class action involves Ford's promotion, sale, and
leasing of trucks equipped with 6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel
engines, the Plaintiffs assert.  The Plaintiffs allege that Ford
markets and sells these vehicles as fuel-efficient, reliable,
with best-in-class performance and significantly reduced
emissions -- a cleaner alternative to the high-polluting diesels
of old; but these diesels are dirty.

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dearborn, Michigan.  Ford also
operates a Research and Innovation Center in Palo Alto,
California.  James "Jim" Hackett has been the President and CEO
of Ford since May 22, 2017.  Mark Fields served as President and
CEO of Ford from July 1, 2014, until his retirement on May 22,
2017.

Ford has designed, manufactured, distributed, offered for sale,
sold, and leased thousands of vehicles that include its 6.7-liter
Power Stroke diesel engine -- including the F-250, F-350, and F-
450 "Super Duty" trucks.

Robert Bosch GmbH -- a German multinational engineering and
electronics company headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany -- is the
parent company of Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in
Farmington Hills, Michigan.  Both Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC
operate under the umbrella of the "Bosch Group," which
encompasses some 340 subsidiaries and related companies.  Volkmar
Denner is the Chairman and CEO of Bosch GmbH and leader of The
Bosch Group.

Bosch developed, tested, configured, manufactured, and supplied
the engine fuel injection and emissions selective catalytic
reduction systems, as well as the ECM programming to run them,
knowing and intending that the Class Vehicles, along with the
device, would be marketed, distributed, warranted, sold and
leased throughout all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Rachel Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
          Kevin Budner, Esq.
          Phong-Chau Nguyen, Esq.
          Wilson Dunlavey, 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
                  kbudner@lchb.com
                  pgnguyen@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com

               - and -

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          Katherine I. McBride, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
                  kmcbride@lchb.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Geller, Esq.
          Jason Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Damien Marshall, Esq.
          Alexander Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
          575 Lexington Ave, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com
                  aboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen Zack, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
          E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Schneider"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ford Motor Company filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Steven Schneider v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00367-RGK-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Defendant removed the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, (Case No. 17CV-
0665) to District Court.

Ford Motor Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and services automobiles in North America,
South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia
Pacific.  The Company was founded in 1903 and is based in
Dearborn, Michigan.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Schneider v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 18-80052, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com
                  jrk@classactionlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Ellsworth, Esq.
          Kirti Datla, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          James Clayton, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1601 Wewatta Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 454-2481
          E-mail: clay.james@hoganlovells.com


FORTRESS REAL: Condo Buyers File Class Action to Recover Deposit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Levasseur, writing for CBC News, reports that condo buyers
are suing SkyCity Centre Winnipeg, claiming it has become
"patently obvious" the company has breached the sale agreement
because it can no longer meet the move-in date of October 2019,
say court documents filed on May 28.

A couple dozen buyers want their 10 per cent deposit back, said
lawyer Richard Olschewski, who's representing buyers in a
proposed class action lawsuit.

The long-delayed, $200-million condo building was supposed to be
Winnipeg's tallest tower. Instead, the project site remains a
surface parking lot at the corner of Smith Street and Graham
Avenue.

"There's a certain frustration that all buyers seem to share, and
there's a patience that's run thin, and a need to do something
about their investment," said Mr. Olschewski.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of problems facing the
company behind the project, Fortress Real Developments, based in
Richmond Hill, Ont.

The RCMP's Integrated Market Enforcement Team raided the
company's offices in April as part of an investigation into
syndicate mortgage fraud.  That happened after Ontario's
financial services regulator issued $1.1 million in fines
following an investigation into mortgage companies involved in
financing SkyCity and other real estate developments by the
company.

In addition, Fortress chief operating officer Vince Petrozza was
ordered to stop brokering mortgages.

The representative plaintiff, Sherif Sherif, put down $14,075 as
a deposit on a 28th floor condo in October 2015.

"There's been very, very little in terms of communication from
the developer in terms of what's happening next," said
Mr. Olschewski.  He found out that co-developer Edenshaw
Developments pulled out of the project from a CBC News article,
he said.

Mr. Olschewski said some of the buyers bought condos to move into
at retirement while others simply wanted to be part of an
exciting downtown project.

"Most of the purchasers had bought into the dream of SkyCity,"
said Mr. Olschewski.

Buyers he spoke to initially wanted to be patient, thinking there
was potential the condo tower would become a reality.

"It's time to just call it what it is, and it's a project that is
unlikely to move forward.  It's time for the purchasers to get
their deposits back," said Mr. Olschewski.

"You can imagine there would be this corresponding disappointment
to learn that not only is their money tied up but their plans are
not going to materialize."

The lawyer acting as escrow agent for SkyCity said condo buyers
don't need to worry about their deposits.

"I can tell you that any deposit funds that have been paid to
this firm are still safely in our trust account," lawyer Doug
Forbes -- djf@tdslaw.com -- of Winnipeg's Thompson Dorfman
Sweatman LLP, said at the end of April.

Fortress Real Developments did not respond to requests for
comment.

The proposed class action is not certified and the allegations
have not been proven in court. [GN]


FOX RESTAURANT: Watt Moves to Certify Class of ASMs Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled BRITTANY MICHELLE WATT,
JAMES E. KIRKPATRICK, Jr., AND PAUL ROWLAND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOX RESTAURANT
VENTURE, LLC, FOX NC ACQUISITION, LLC, and FOX SC ACQUISITION,
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-02104-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), move for
certification of this class:

    "All individuals who are currently or were formerly employed
     as salaried ASMs at any JIMMY JOHN'S(R) Sandwich Shop owned
     by Fox Restaurant Venture, LLC, Fox NC Acquisitions, LLC
     and/or Fox SC Acquisitions, LLC, as of three years from the
     date of filing of Plaintiffs' initial complaint; or in the
     alternative, three years from the filing of the motion to
     stay the proceedings."

The action seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Plaintiffs and other
current and former Assistant Managers or Assistant Store Managers
(ASMs), who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek at any
Jimmy John's store owned by Franchisees -- the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their notice and
notice procedure, and to order the Defendant to produce the
putative class members' contact information.  They further ask
the Court to equitably toll all putative collective members'
statute of limitations as of three years from the date of filing
of the Plaintiffs' initial complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=chkbfwF8


FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR
FLORES, Each Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FUELCO ENERGY LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-01246-FB-HJB
(W.D. Tex.), ask the Court to conditionally certify this class:

     All current and former employees of Defendant who were
     employed as Operators at any time since December 8, 2014.

Juan Segovia and Victor Flores brought this suit on behalf of
certain former and current Operators of the Defendant to recover
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In another motion, the Plaintiffs also move for approval and
distribution of notice.  They seek the Court's approval of
certain procedures for providing notice to putative class
members.  They further ask the Court to direct the Defendant to
disclose the contact information of the class members.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Craig Stokley, Esq.
          Nathanial L. Martinez, Esq.
          PALTER STOKLEY SIMS PLLC
          Preston Commons - East
          8115 Preston Road, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 888-3112
          Facsimile: (214)-888-3109
          E-mail: cstokley@palterlaw.com
                  nmartinez@palterlaw.com


GILBERT ROZON: Judge Authorizes Sexual Harassment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claudette van Zyl, Esq. --
claudette.vanzyl@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose
Fulbright Canada LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on May
22, Judge Donald Bisson of the Superior Court authorized a class
action applied for by Les Courageuses (The Courageous Ones), a
non-profit organization representing individuals who claim to
have been assaulted or harassed by Gilbert Rozon.

The highly publicized allegations against Mr. Rozon are not the
only reason this decision has garnered widespread interest.  To
our knowledge, this is the first class action to have been
authorized in Quebec wherein an individual person has been named
as the sole defendant.  The court underlined this novelty,
noting, "[t]he peculiarity of this file is that the applicant is
not bringing its claim against the institution within which the
alleged offender worked, but is instead bringing its claim solely
against the alleged offender."

Authorizations of class actions in Quebec
It is generally recognized that Quebec takes a flexible, liberal,
and generous approach to authorizing class actions.  At this
stage, the primary objective is to prevent unnecessary litigation
in which parties must defend against frivolous or untenable
claims.  In Quebec, class actions must be authorized once the
applicant has demonstrated: (1) the claims of the class members
raise identical, similar, or related issues of law or fact; (2)
the facts alleged appear to justify the conclusions sought; (3)
it would be impracticable for class members to assert their
rights outside the context of a class action; and (4) the class
representative can properly represent the class members.  In this
case, Judge Bisson found all four criteria were met.

The judgment - reasons given for authorization
First, and despite acknowledging the individualized nature of
each allegation of sexual assault or harassment, Judge Bisson
found the questions of fact or law raised by Les Courageuses to
be sufficiently identical, similar, or related.  In his reasons,
Judge Bisson referred to the Les Courageuses' assertion that
Mr. Rozon's modus operandi was common to all the alleged
instances of sexual assault and harassment.

Judge Bisson also found sufficient commonality in the application
for moral and pecuniary damages, considering that a common
hearing of evidence would assist the court in its appreciation of
the general consequences suffered by the alleged victims.
Similarly, with respect to punitive damages, Judge Bisson found a
common hearing of evidence would allow the court to more fully
appreciate the seriousness of Mr. Rozon's alleged behaviour while
preventing a repetition of legal and factual analyses.

Second, Judge Bisson found that Patricia Tulasne, the class
representative, had an appearance of right to moral, pecuniary,
and punitive damages.  Ms. Tulasne's testimony was found to be in
itself sufficient to demonstrate the appearance of right, given
the nature of the allegations.  Regarding Ms. Tulasne, the
application sought $200,000 for moral damages and $200,000 for
pecuniary damages.  Regarding the other class members, moral and
pecuniary damages were sought on the basis of individual
recovery.  Interestingly, the application sought punitive damage
on the basis of collective recovery, and this was not contested
by Mr. Rozon.  Ultimately, and should it be required, the method
of recovery will be decided at a later stage.

Third, the court found the class was adequately described,
despite a lack of temporal boundaries and the exact size of the
class remaining unknown.  Among his reasons, Judge Bisson
explained that victims seeking to protect their identity would
only be able to exercise their rights under the anonymity
provided in the context of a class action.

Finally, Mr. Rozon did not contest Ms. Tulasne's suitability as
class representative, and the court found that she met all the
requirements to fulfil that role: Ms. Tulasne was found to have
personal interest in the outcome of the case, the competence to
act as mandatary, and no conflicts of interest.

At the time of writing, no application for leave to appeal has
been filed. [GN]


GROUPME INC: Sent Unsolicited Texts, "Holliday" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY HOLLIDAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GROUPME, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00609 (W.D. Wash., April 26, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited text message
calls to cellular telephones and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

GroupMe, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the
state of Delaware whose principal executive office is located in
Redmond, Washington.  GroupMe does business throughout the United
States, including in the state of Washington and this District.

GroupMe operates a mobile messaging service designed to allow
larger groups of consumers to communicate directly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM LLC
          705 Second Avenue, #1300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 787-1915
          E-mail: corrie@cjylaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


GUAM: Ordered Attorneys to Send H-2B Class Action Notices
---------------------------------------------------------
Haidee V Eugenio, writing for Pacific Daily news, reports that
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood on
May 30 ordered attorneys in a class-action lawsuit related to the
use of foreign labor to mail a public notice by June 15 to those
who were denied or who will be denied worker visas for failure to
demonstrate "temporary need."

The May 30 order also directs class counsel Jeff Joseph to
provide the Guam Department of Labor, by June 15, with a copy of
the approved public notice and exclusion form.

That will allow the Labor Department to distribute the notice to
all people and employers seeking H-2B labor certification as the
case continues to move forward in court.

In 2016, the Guam Contractors Association and nearly a dozen
other businesses that Joseph represents sued the federal
government for its almost blanket denial of H-2B petitions for
Guam.

In March 2018, the court granted the Guam Contractors' motion for
class certification.

Clear, plain-language public notice
The class counsel and counsel for the federal government opposed
each other's proposed public notice of an H-2B class-action
lawsuit.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood reviewed both parties' submissions, and
ordered attached the public notice and exclusion form to be
adopted "for the purpose of directing the best practicable clear,
concise and plain-language notice to all members who can be
identified with reasonable effort."

The notice is intended to advise class members about the case and
their rights with respect to it.

Federal law violations
In the public notice, the plaintiffs allege that, beginning in
June 2015, USCIS, without explanation, and based upon the same
application process and same set of operative facts as in years
past, began denying plaintiffs' H-2B work petitions after years
of granting the petitions.

These denials, based on failure to demonstrate "temporary needs,"
the plaintiffs contend, were a seemingly new interpretation of
the law, made without notice to the public of any change in
position.

The federal government has denied any wrongdoing.  It has denied
any liability to the plaintiffs or any member of the class, the
public notice reads.

The notice states the defendants maintain that an employer
seeking to import foreign workers for the same position for
several years in a row may initially be able to establish that
the position is "temporary" as required by regulation.  But after
many years of successive petitions, the employer may no longer be
able to satisfy that temporariness requirements, the notice
states.

Two categories
The public notice is addressed to petitioners who have filed or
will file with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services an I-129
petition for H-2B workers for Guam in either of the following two
categories:

   -- Peakload need or the "peakload subclass" or
   -- One-time occurrence or the "one-time occurrence subclass

The public notice is also addressed to those who have received or
will receive a denial of such I-129 petition based solely on a
finding that the petition has failed to demonstrate "temporary
need."

In the notice, the court will exclude any member of the class if
a written request for exclusion is made on the form provided and
postmarked on or before Aug. 31, 2018.

Guam, which hosted as many as 1,500 H-2B workers annually, had
none as of May 2018 because of the federal visa denials. [GN]


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Ruzhinskaya"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tatyana Ruzhinskaya filed an appeal from a District
Court judgment dated March 14, 2018, in the lawsuit titled
Ruzhinskaya, et al. v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Case No. 14-
cv-2921, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 1, 2018, Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer granted HealthPort's motion for summary
judgment as to all three claims, and denied Ruzhinskaya's motion
for partial summary judgment.

The long-running class action, now at the summary judgment stage,
involves claims of excessive charges for medical records under a
New York statute, Public Health Law ("PHL") Section 18, which
governs access to and charges for patient medical records.
Ruzhinskaya at first brought, but then dropped, claims against
the hospital, Beth Israel Medical Center, that housed the medical
records of her deceased mother, copies of which Ruzhinskaya
requested and obtained pursuant to Section 18.  Instead,
Ruzhinskaya now sues solely the release of information ("ROI")
company, HealthPort, with whom Beth Israel contracted to
photocopy and provide those records to requesters on its behalf.

The putative class action was originally brought in New York
state court in March 2014.  On April 25, 2014, HealthPort removed
the case to the Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act.  On
May 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint
("FAC").

The FAC brought claims on behalf of three Plaintiffs.  Each had
sought and obtained medical records from a different New York
hospital which had contracted with Healthport to provide those
copies on its behalf.  The hospitals were (1) Beth Israel, from
whom Ruzhinskaya (through an attorney) had sought records
relating to her deceased mother, Marina Rochniak, whose estate
Ruzhinskaya serves as Administrator; (2) Mount Sinai Hospital,
from whom Plaintiff Charles Spiro had sought records; and (3)
Montefiore Hospital, from whom plaintiff Ismael Torres had sought
records. Ruzhinskaya, Spiro, and Torres sued the three hospitals,
along with Healthport, which they alleged was a ROI company in
the business of duplicating and copying documents including
medical records, in a putative class action filed on behalf of
all persons in New York State whom Healthport had charged 75
cents per page for such copies.  The Plaintiffs claimed that this
charge was excessive.  They brought claims under a New York
statute, Public Health Law ("PHL") Section 18, under New York
General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349, and for unjust
enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Spiro, et al. v. HealthPort
Technologies, LLC, Case No. 18-1034, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Tatyana Ruzhinskaya, as Administratix of the
Estate of Marina Rochniak, Deceased, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 218-2725
          E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com

Defendant-Appellee HealthPort Technologies, LLC, is represented
by:

          Scott Robert Emery, Esq.
          LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP
          137 West 25th Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 302-2400
          E-mail: emery@lawlynch.com


HUDSON'S BAY CO: Harris Sues Over Breach of 5-Mil. Customers Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA A. HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE
LLC, and LORD & TAYLOR LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03514-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2018), is brought in connection with a massive data
breach, which occurred at some point commencing in May 2017 and
continued until about April 2, 2018.

At some point commencing in May 2017, Hudson's computer systems
were hacked by a criminal group called JokerStash, the Plaintiff
asserts.  She contends that Hudson, however, was unaware both
that its systems were vulnerable and that it had been hacked.
She notes that the hackers obtained the personal identification
information of over 5 million customers of Hudson's wholly owned
subsidiaries, Saks and Lord & Taylor.

HBC is a Canadian corporation amalgamated under the Canada
Business Corporations Act and domiciled in Canada.  The Company
owns and operates department stores in Canada and the United
States under Hudson's Bay, Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Saks
Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH, Find @ Lord & Taylor, Gilt and Home
Outfitters banners.

Saks is a Massachusetts limited liability company, which is
registered in New York State and maintains its principal place of
business in New York City.  Saks is an agent of Hudson.  Lord &
Taylor is a Delaware Domestic Limited Liability Company.  Lord &
Taylor is an agent of Hudson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com


IBEW PACIFIC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Lehman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Warner Nelson, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Richard Lehman, et al. v. Warner
Nelson, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01835-RSM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought to recover alleged reciprocity contributions
improperly withheld by the Defendants.

The Defendants are trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension
Plan, a multiemployer plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Lehman, et al. v.
Warner Nelson, et al., Case No. 18-35321, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Richard Bamberger, William Beck Jr., Brian Bish,
      Clint Bryson, Dennis Callies, Michael Church, Clif Davis,
      Klaas A. DeBoer, Tim Donovan, Michael Doyle, Greg Elder,
      Glen Franz, Gary Gonzales, Carl D. Hanson, Michael G.
      Marsh, Warner Nelson, Patrick Powell, Gary Price, Rocky
      Sharp, Scott Stephens, Harry Thompson, Roger Tobin, Gary
      Younghans and Grant Zadow's opening brief is due on
      June 25, 2018;

   -- Appellees Richard Lehman and Michael Puterbaugh's answering
      brief is due on July 23, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, and MICHAEL PUTERBAUGH are represented
by:

          Richard J. Birmingham, Esq.
          Joseph P. Hoag, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: richardbirmingham@dwt.com
                  JosephHoag@dwt.com

               - and -

          Christine Hawkins, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          777 108th Avenue NE
          Bellevue, WA 98004-5149
          Telephone: (425) 646-6112
          E-mail: christinehawkins@dwt.com

Defendants-Appellants WARNER NELSON, WILLIAM BECK, Jr., BRIAN
BISH, KLAAS A. DEBOER, MICHAEL G. MARSH, ROCKY SHARP, RICHARD
BAMBERGER, DENNIS CALLIES, CLIF DAVIS, TIM DONOVAN, HARRY
THOMPSON, CLINT BRYSON, MICHAEL CHURCH, MICHAEL DOYLE, GREG
ELDER, GLEN FRANZ, GARY GONZALES, CARL D. HANSON, PATRICK POWELL,
GARY PRICE, SCOTT STEPHENS, ROGER TOBIN, GARY YOUNGHANS and GRANT
ZADOW, in their capacity as Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast
Pension Plan, are represented by:

          Nathan Russell Ring, Esq.
          Michael A. Urban, Esq.
          THE URBAN LAW FIRM
          4270 South Decatur Blvd.
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (702) 968-8087
          E-mail: nring@theurbanlawfirm.com
                  murban@theurbanlawfirm.com


IC SYSTEM: Wood Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Wood moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH WOOD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. IC SYSTEM INC.
and MASON COMPANIES INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00780-NJ (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks the Court to both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from
the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, Ms. Wood tells the Court, citing Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS
10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that
one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a
certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v.
CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns
v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-
1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Ms. Wood asserts that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify
and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the
Plaintiff contends.

Ms. Wood also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

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


IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ANDRES GARCIA, TUGSBILEGT
GONGOR and DMITRO MIKHAYLOVSKY, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. IDAVM GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., IDAVM
MULTI GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., MARINOV IM EMPIRE, INC., MARINOV
IM POWER, INC., d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and IVAN MARINOV, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), move pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for entry of an order conditionally certifying an
FLSA Collective, defined as:

     All current and former hourly employees who worked for
     Defendants at any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants at
     any time from May 17, 2015 through the date of judgment (the
     proposed "Collective").

Andres Garcia, Tugsbilegt Gongor and Dmitro Mikhaylovsky also ask
the Court to require the Defendants to identify all putative
members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their
names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers,
and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format within
14 days of the entry of the Order.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to permit their counsel to
send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of
the proposed Collective via U.S. Mail and e-mail; to send the
shortened reminder Notice to putative members of the Collective
via text message 30 days into the opt-in period; and to approve a
60-day opt-in period from the date the Court-approved Notice is
sent during which putative members of the Collective may join
this case by returning their written consents.

In another motion, the Plaintiffs seek an Order pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying for class
action treatment their overtime, minimum wage and breach of
contract claims under Illinois law.  The class is defined as: All
current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants at
any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants in Illinois at any
time from May 17, 2008 through the date of judgment.

The Plaintiffs request a reasonable period of time to conduct
discovery in connection with Rule 23 class certification and will
proceed under whatever schedule the Court directs.  The
Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay briefing on this
motion pending discovery as to Rule 23 class issues.  The
Plaintiffs contend that they are filing the motion now in
conformance with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), in order to avoid
a "buy-off" settlement offer to the named Plaintiffs only, which
could potentially moot the claims for class-wide relief set forth
in their Complaint.

Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iR9GdYpa
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zzyHxi2m

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


INTEL CORP: "Dean" Processor Defect Row Transferred to D. Or.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Zachary Dean and Christopher Vogt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Intel Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00210, (N.D. Cal.,
January 9, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on April 23, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-
00710.

Plaintiff seeks all proper measures of monetary relief and
damages, plus interest, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief including restitution and disgorgement, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such
further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty, in violation of Connecticut's Unfair
Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Laws and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Intel manufactures the central processing units (CPU) that power
most servers, laptops, desktop computers, tablets, smartphones,
and other computing devices. Said CPUs suffer from several
defects that allow hackers to access to what was supposed to be
secure data, notes the complaint. These Defects cannot be fixed
remotely via a software update while any mitigation efforts would
seriously affect CPU performance.

Dean purchased from Apple a Macbook Pro laptop computer
containing an Intel Core i7 processor while Vogt purchased a
Microsoft Surface 3 tablet computer containing an Intel Atom x7-
Z8700 CPU. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
      A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
      Sarah Khorasanee McGrath, Esq.
      BERMAN TABACCO
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel.: (415) 433-3200
      Fax: (415) 433-6282
      Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
             mpearson@bermantabacco.com
             cpoppler@bermantabacco.com
             smcgrath@bermantabacco.com

             - and -

      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Christian P. Levis, Esq.
      Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      Matt Acocella, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
      44 South Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 997-0500
      Fax: (914) 997-0035
      Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
             clevis@lowey.com
             llefkowitz@lowey.com
             macocella@lowey.com


JORDAN SCHOOL: SG Moves to Cert. Female Athletes Class, Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned S.G., by and through her
general guardian, BRENT GORDON; et al. v. JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00677-RJS-DBP (D. Utah), move the Court
for an order certifying the case as a class action under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class and
Subclass.

The "Female Athletes Class" consists of:

     All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school
     district female high school students who seek to participate
     and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics.

The "Football Subclass" consists of:

     All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school
     district female high school students who seek to participate
     and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high
     school football teams.

The Plaintiffs contend that they bring this motion now because
the Defendants opposed their motion to amend the complaint to
redefine the class and add a subclass, arguing that amendment was
futile because certification under the proposed amended complaint
would not be proper.

Since the issue of class certification was addressed in
connection with the motion to amend and the Court has set a
hearing date in July to address the motion to amend, it makes
sense from a judicial economy standpoint to resolve the class
certification issue at the same time, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to remedy alleged sex
discrimination in athletic opportunities at the Jordan School
District, Granite School District, and Canyon School District and
the sex discrimination by the Utah High School Activities
Association.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=74n1vjwG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark L. Smith, Esq.
          Michelle Correll, Esq.
          D. Loren Washburn, Esq.
          Jacob L. Fonnesbeck, Esq.
          SMITH CORRELL, LLP
          8 E. Broadway, Suite 320
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 584-1800
          Facsimile: (801) 584-1820
          E-mail: MSmith@smithcorrell.com
                  mcorrell@smithcorrell.com
                  lwashburn@smithcorrell.com
                  jfonnesbeck@smithcorrell.com

               - and -

          Brent Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW FIRM, INC.
          477 Shoup Ave., 101
          Idaho Falls, ID 83402
          Telephone: (208) 552-0467
          Facsimile: (866) 886-3419
          E-mail: brent@brentgordonlaw.com

Defendants Canyon School District, Granite School District,
Jordan School District, James Briscoe, Martin Bates, and Patrice
Johnson are represented by:

          Darin B. Goff, Esq.
          Rachel G. Terry, Esq.
          UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          160 E. 300 S., 6th Floor
          P.O. Box 140856
          Telephone: (801) 366-0100
          E-mail: dgoff@agutah.gov
                  rachelterry@agutah.gov

Defendant UHSAA is represented by:

          Mark O. Van Wagoner, Esq.
          SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON PC
          170 S. Main Street, #500
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 328-2200
          E-mail: movw@comcast.net


KAISER FOUNDATION: "Smith" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Monica Smith, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, a California corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-07273, (N.D. Cal., December 21, 2017) was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on April 23, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00780.

Smith seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, reimbursement of business expenses, prejudgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant offers call center services to its patients and insured
members located in California, Georgia and Hawaii, and employs
nurses in the positions of telemedicine specialists and advice
nurses to receive and respond to patient phone calls, among other
duties. Defendant fails to pay them "off-the-clock" at the
beginning of each shift, during meal periods, and at the end of
each shift, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 638-8800
     Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
     E-Mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

             - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Tel: (248) 355-0300
     Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
            rjohnston@sommerspc.com

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is represented by:

     Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
     Pritee Kamal Thakarsey, Esq.
     Kerry McCoy Friedrichs, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415) 397-2823
     Fax: (415) 397-8549
     Email: crowley@seyfarth.com
            kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com

            - and -

     Candace Sheri Bertoldi, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     333 So. Hope Street, 39th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
     Tel: (213) 270-9600
     Fax: (213) 270-9601


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Bahamas Surgery Appeals Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in its lawsuit entitled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC
v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08390-
DMG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff brought the putative class action asserting claims for
common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool
surgical gowns.

The appellate case is captioned as Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-55558, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on July 23, 2018; for
      Halyard Health, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Corporation;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on August 23, 2018, for
      Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on September 24, 2018,
      for Halyard Health, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Corporation;
      and

   -- Optional cross appeal reply brief due within 21 days of
      service of third brief on cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BAHAMAS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a California
limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, DBA Bahamas Surgery Center, is represented
by:

          Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
          EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
          520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-7000
          E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com

               - and -

          Stuart Bruce Esner, Esq.
          ESNER, CHANG & BOYER
          234 East Colorado Boulevard
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 535-9860
          E-mail: esner523@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Jessica Culpepper, Esq.
          Samuel Eckman, Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Julian Wing-Kai Poon, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  jculpepper@gibsondunn.com
                  seckman@gibsondunn.com
                  TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  apoon@gibsondunn.com

Defendant-Appellee HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
is represented by:

          Daniel Paul Collins, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9125
          E-mail: Daniel.Collins@mto.com

               - and -

          Donald Beaton Verrilli, Jr., Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          1155 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (213) 683-9507
          E-mail: donald.verrilli@mto.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Devereaux, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          191 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: sdevereaux@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Madison Kitchens, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2712
          E-mail: mkitchens@kslaw.com


LA PETITE: Former Hudson Dentist Sued, Class Action Likely
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Longaecker, writing for New Richmond News, reports that a
former Hudson dentist's legal troubles intensified when a
malpractice suit was filed against him in Minnesota.

Andy Mancini, the Woodbury man who operated Hudson-based La
Petite Dentistry until it closed in April, is being sued in
Washington County District Court by two St. Croix County women
who allege he was negligent in his services for their children.

The suit, brought by Hudson resident Rebecca Viebrock and New
Richmond resident Lisa Vansomeren on behalf of their children,
names Mancini, La Petite and Figero Crowns as defendants in the
case.

The complaint lists the same address for Figero Crowns -- a
"pediatric dental crown manufacturer and supplier" -- as
Mancini's home address in Woodbury.

Twin Cities attorney Brent Schafer is representing the families
in the case and said he's been contacted by dozens more.  He's
now been contacted by more than 70 families and said, depending
on how it proceeds, a class-action "is a possibility."

The allegations mirror much of what Mr. Mancini has been accused
of in Wisconsin state agency-led investigations that have accused
him of unnecessary tooth extractions, unnecessary caps placed on
teeth and improper anesthetic treatment.

Mr. Schafer said he's also concerned about the records of former
La Petite patients.  He said some of them had been sent letters
from the dentistry stating it would destroy their records if they
weren't contacted by May 18.

"Unfortunately, we didn't see this letter until May 18,"
Mr. Schafer said.  "He is systematically destroying all of these
records."

He said the next step will be "to follow the paper trail" and
connect billing records with work done on patients' teeth.

Mr. Mancini surrendered his license to practice in Wisconsin in
April, bringing an end to several investigations by the state's
Department of Safety and Professional Services -- though one
additional investigation there was launched after he gave up his
license.  In addition to misdemeanor criminal charges he faces in
St. Croix County, the 42-year-old is also being sued in Dane
County for allegedly submitting false Medicaid claims through the
dentistry.

Asked about the most recent allegations, Hudson attorney
Kevin Urbik, who is representing Mr. Mancini in the Dane County
case, declined to comment.

The Minnesota lawsuit alleges that because of Mr. Mancini's
actions, the children "have endured pain, suffering,
inconvenience, mental anguish, emotional distress" and fear of
injury, according to the court filing.

The suit specifically names La Petite Dentistry in a section
alleging intentional misrepresentation, claiming actions at the
business allowed the plaintiffs' children "to wholly unnecessary
and inadequately performed medical procedures" that led to
additional dental work. [GN]


LAD CORPORATION: Accused by "Beever" Suit of Underpaying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN D. BEEVER, ANGELA BENALY, RICHARD EVANS, TRICIA M.
FRANKLIN and JONATHAN L. PETERS, for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. LAD CORPORATION BK, an Illinois corporation
and ALLEN C. EILERS, Case No. 3:18-cv-03091-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.,
April 23, 2018), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act resulting
from the alleged underpayment of wages and overtime wages.

LAD Corporation BK is an Illinois corporation and Burger King
franchisee with seven stores located in Illinois, Iowa and
Missouri.  Allen C. Eilers is a resident of Adams County,
Illinois, and is the principal owner of LAD Corporation BK.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H.T. Lee, Esq.
          MAHAFFEY & LEE
          409 N. Cherry St.
          Morrison, IL 61270
          Telephone: (815) 400 9496
          Facsimile: (815) 400 9499
          E-mail: will@mahaffeyleelaw.com


LDWB LLC: Hoff Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MASON HOFF, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LDWB, LLC; LDWB
#2, LLC; THE LONESOME DOVE WESTERN BISTRO, LTD.; and LDWB KNOX,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00378-LY (W.D. Tex.), asks the Court to
conditionally certify and permit notice to:

     All individuals who worked as servers for Defendants in the
     last three years.

The Plaintiff and Class Members worked as servers in the
Defendants' restaurants.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring
that he and his fellow servers, among other things, share their
tips with non-tipped management employees -- the Private Dining
Coordinator, the VP of Sales, and the Sommelier -- even on days
when those individuals were not working in the restaurant.

Mr. Hoff also asks the Court to direct prompt disclosure by the
Defendant of contact information for potential class members, and
to authorize his counsel to notify prospective class members of
this lawsuit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-2293
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Howell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a
Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a
Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-
01017-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., April 24, 2018), challenges the
Defendants' alleged policy and practice of requiring their non-
exempt employees to work substantial amounts of time without pay
and failing to provide their non-exempt employees with legally
compliant meal and rest periods to which they are entitled by law
at their Tracy, California plant in California.

Leprino Foods Company is a Colorado corporation, and a food
processor in Tracy, California.  Leprino Foods Dairy Products
Company is a Colorado corporation, and a food processor in
Tracy.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
          E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


LOS CORBATICAS: "Soto" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Soto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Los Corbaticas Deli Grocery II Corp.
(d/b/a Los Corbaticas Deli Grocery), Wilson Sanchez and Manuel
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03602 (S.D. N.Y., April 23,
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 deli, located at 1685
University Avenue, Bronx, New York 10453 under the name "Los
Corbaticas Deli Grocery" where Soto was employed as a deli
worker. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of his 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


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Riviera Beach Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MACQUARIE
INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, JAMES HOOKE, JAY DAVIS, LIAM STEWART,
and RICHARD D. COURTNEY, Case No. 1:18-cv-03608 (S.D.N.Y., April
23, 2018), is a securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of Macquarie stock between February 22, 2016, and
February 21, 2018.

The matter arises under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 resulting from the Defendants'
alleged misrepresentations and material omissions concerning
Macquarie's International-Matex Tank Terminals ("IMTT") business
and the sustainability of the Company's dividend to shareholders,
the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff asserts that IMTT, which
provides bulk liquid storage and handling services at 12 marine
terminals in the United States and Canada, is Macquarie's most
important business segment.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York City, owns and operates a portfolio of
infrastructure and infrastructure-like businesses.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Macquarie owns, operates, and invests in a diversified group of
infrastructure businesses.  Macquarie is composed of four
operating segments: (1) its IMTT business, a bulk liquid
terminals business providing storage, handling, and related
services at 10 marine terminals in the United States and 2 in
Canada; (2) Atlantic Aviation, a provider of fuel, terminal,
hangaring, and other services to 69 airports in the United
States; (3) Contracted Power, which owns a gas-fired power
facility and controlling interests in wind and solar power
facilities; and (4) MIC Hawaii, an energy business that processes
and distributes gas, and owns renewable and distributed power
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com


MDL 2591: Venue Fight in Syngenta Fees Highlights Policing Power
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that a racketeering
suit was by a prospective class of corn farmers.  The farmers,
represented by Douglas Nill of Farm Law, claim plaintiffs'
lawyers, led by Mikal Watts of Watts Guerra, duped them into
signing contingency fee contracts to pursue individual claims
against the agricultural giant Syngenta, then cut deals with
class action lawyers to preserve their contingency fee contracts
when Syngenta agreed to a $1.5 billion class action settlement.

Since the case was filed in April, Nill and the Watts alliance
have been fighting over venue, a battle that poses the question
of whether judges overseeing MDLs have policing power over
individual contingency fee contracts for plaintiffs in the
litigation.

The twist here is that Watts Guerra -- unlike contingency fee
lawyers in the VW and NFL cases -- is counting on the inherent
power of the Syngenta MDL judge to protect its fee agreements.

A quick recap of the farmers' case against Watts and his so-
called joint venture partners: The farmers' complaint, filed in
federal court in St. Paul, Minnesota, alleges that Watts Guerra
and associated plaintiffs' firms deceived clients about the
relative benefits and drawbacks of filing their own suits against
Syngenta, which the farmers blamed for selling genetically
modified seeds that produced corn that China refused to import.
When Syngenta began negotiating a global resolution of the GMO
claims in consolidated litigation in Kansas City federal court
and in Minnesota state court, the farmers allege, Watts Guerra
negotiated to exclude its clients from a class action settlement
and failed to keep clients apprised, effectively opting farmers
out of classwide proceedings without considering their due
process and equal protection rights.

In the end, Watts Guerra settled its clients' claims as part of
the global deal, which received preliminary approval from U.S.
District Judge John Lungstrum in April.  The consequence,
according to the farmers now suing the firm, is that Watts Guerra
clients will receive no more from Syngenta than farmers who never
signed individual contingency fee contracts, yet Watts clients
will net much less because they're on the hook for the law firms'
fees.

Mikal Watts has called the case "frivolous and meritless,"
pointing to ethics opinions okaying his joint prosecution deals
with lawyers in the state and federal MDLs.  "We have done a good
job and we've done it ethically," Watts told me in April. "Every
dollar I'm going to earn in this case is a fee earned."

Within days of the filing of the farmers' suit, Watts Guerra
tagged the racketeering case as a tag-along in a motion for
consolidation at the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.
"This potential tag-along action directly impacts the settlement
approval process which is within (Judge Lungstrum's) exclusive
jurisdiction," the motion said.  The farmers' suit "also
potentially impacts the MDL court's control over any award of
attorneys' fees which is inextricably interwoven with the
settlement approval process."

The JPML conditionally transferred the case to Judge Lungstrum on
May 1.  Watts Guerra and its associated firms then asked U.S.
District Judge Donovan Frank of St. Paul to stay proceedings in
his court.

The farmers' lawyer, Mr. Nill, is fighting to keep the suit
before Judge Frank in Minnesota.  On May 29, he filed both a
brief at the JPML, arguing against consolidation before Judge
Lungstrum, and a motion for class certification before Judge
Frank.  The class certification motion also requests a
preliminary injunction that would direct fees Judge Lungstrum
awards to Watts Guerra in the Syngenta MDL to be placed in an
escrow fund until the resolution of the racketeering suit.

The farmers contend their case is entirely distinct from the MDL
litigation against Syngenta. "The Syngenta MDL has no reason to
address Kellogg -- a private contract dispute between clients and
lawyers -- nor does the Syngenta MDL, with pretrial proceedings
concluded and a final settlement hearing on November 15, 2018,
have the time or reason to address class certification and
discovery for the Kellogg plaintiffs," the JPML suit said.  "The
issue for Judge Lungstrum is whether defendants are entitled to a
fee for their work on the case.  The issue for Judge Frank in
Minnesota is whether defendants are allowed to keep that fee as a
result of their racketeering and fraud scheme."

In effect, the farmers seem to be assuming that the Syngenta MDL
judge will award Watts Guerra and its associated law firms big
fees based on their contingency fee agreements.  Rather than
raising opposition to those fees in the MDL, they want their case
to be heard by a judge with no interest in the Syngenta
settlement.

That's certainly a different course than we saw in the VW and NFL
cases.  The farmers' lawyer said in his JPML brief that the
racketeering case raises nationally important questions about
lawyers exploiting clients in mass cases by whipping up
suspicions about class actions in order to lock in individual
contingency fees.  That's a provocative assertion.  But it's also
fair to wonder if MDL judges are best equipped to deal with the
issue.

In an email response to Ms. Frankel's query about the venue
fight, Mr. Watts said the Syngenta settlement agreement gives the
MDL judge exclusive jurisdiction over fees, including fee
disputes between farmers covered by the settlement and their
individual lawyers.  Mr. Nill's clients, he said, are trying to
use "fictional class allegations" to attack the settlement, but
Mr. Watts said that's not going to work before Judge Lungstrum.

Mr. Nill declined to comment. [GN]


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Steffens" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Steffens moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled FRED STEFFENS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI &
KRAMER, P.A., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00778-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material
to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify
and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L1OqN8hH

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


MICRO FOCUS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Micro Focus International plc ("Micro Focus ")
(NYSE:MFGP) (1) between September 1, 2017 and March 19, 2018,
and/or (2) pursuant to the August 4, 2017 Registration Statement
or August 22, 2017 Prospectus. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed for the Company's Initial Public Offering
contained materially false and misleading information and/or
failed to disclose material information, and that Micro Focus
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information throughout the class period.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com[GN]


MID-BEACH MANAGEMENT: "Islas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos A. Islas, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Mid-
Beach Management, Inc. dba Four Points by Sheraton Miami Beach,
Case No. 1:18-cv-21506 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2018), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant Four Points by Sheraton employed the Plaintiff as a
non-exempt full-time bartender, from approximately February 2013,
to January 18, 2018.

Patricia King is a resident and citizen of South Carolina.

The corporate Defendant Mid-Beach Management, Inc, operates Four
Points by Sheraton Miami Beach, a hotel located at 4343 Collins
Avenue, Miami Beach FL 33140, where the Plaintiff worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOSES H CONE: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jenkins" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Jenkins filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Jenkins v. Moses H. Cone
Memorial Health Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-
00188-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina at Raleigh.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Jenkins v. Moses
H. Cone Memorial Health Services Corporation, et al., Case No.
18-1453, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER JENKINS, On behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert E. Fields, III, Esq.
          Samuel Pinero, II, Esq.
          OAK CITY LAW, LLP
          702 North Blount Street
          Raleigh, NC 27604
          Telephone: (919) 274-3100
          E-mail: rob.fields@oakcitylaw.com
                  sam.pinero@oakcitylaw.com

               - and -

          J. Michael Malone, Esq.
          HENDREN & MALONE, PLLC
          4600 Marriott Drive
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 573-1423
          E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com

Defendants-Appellees MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES
CORPORATION, MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, MOSES H. CONE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION and MOSES H. CONE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Dorothy H. Cornwell, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
          1180 West Peachtree Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30309-0000
          Telephone: (404) 962-1000
          E-mail: dorothy.cornwell@smithmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Nis Leerberg, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP
          434 Fayetteville Street
          2 Hannover Square
          Raleigh, NC 27601-0000
          Telephone: (919) 755-8759
          E-mail: matt.leerberg@smithmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Maureen Demarest Murray, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
          P. O. Box 21927
          Greensboro, NC 27420-0000
          Telephone: (336) 378-5258
          E-mail: maureen.murray@smithmoorelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SVN HOLDINGS, LLC, is represented by:

          Dana Clinton Lumsden, Esq.
          Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          214 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 338-6034
          E-mail: dlumsden@bradley.com
                  apuckett@bradley.com


NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Abriq's Bid to Certify Class Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denied the Motion for Class
Certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled
ABDULLAH ABRIQ, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00690 (M.D. Tenn.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vXn4yz5o


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: CBS Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dade Hayes and Dawn C. Chmielewski, writing for Deadline
Hollywood, reports that the suit was filed in Delaware Chancery
Court by the Westmoreland County Employees Retirement System.
(Westmoreland County is in Pennsylvania, just east of
Pittsburgh.) It contends that the execs in charge of NAI, which
controls about 80% of CBS and Viacom, "breached and continue to
breach contractual, implied obligations and fiduciary duties that
they owe to CBS's Class B stockholders." The NAI control is
achieved via a dual-class stock ownership structure, a setup
commonly used by many startup companies and even at some mature
ones, such as Facebook.

The retirement fund is seeking certification for class action
status on behalf of all of CBS's Class B shareholders. Lawyers
for the pension fund argue that CBS's board had the authority to
issue a special dividend when the majority of the board voted to
dilute Shari Redstone's voting control over the company.

In its suit, the fund accuses NAI chief Shari Redstone, the
family's National Amusements holding company, and two board
members of harming Class B shareholders by interfering with this
special dividend. "The Share Distribution Provision permits share
distributions that are dilutive to the excessive voting power of
the Class A," the complaint says. "Sumner Redstone is no longer
in control of CBS. His daughter has seized control, interfered
with the management of the company and pressured the company to
pursue her self-interested plan to combine CBS with Viacom."

National Amusements issued a statement saying it was merely
exercising its legal right to change the CBS bylaws.
"Furthermore, as detailed in NAI's complaint, the efforts of the
CBS Directors to unilaterally dilute the voting rights of its
controlling shareholder are extraordinary, unjustified and
unlawful," the company said in a statement. "We are confident the
court will uphold NAI's action."
The pension fund's lawyers argue that Redstone and her allies
broke their promise to act in good faith by using National
Amusement's controlling stake in CBS to effectively nullify the
board's vote through a last-minute bylaw change.
"This denies the Class B stockholders the protection that the
Share Distribution Provision was intended to afford them against
an overreaching controlling shareholder," the lawyers argue.

The pension fund argues that the bylaw change, requiring approval
of 90% of the board to issue such a dividend, is invalid for
reasons similar to those cited by CBS's attorneys. The lawyers
are asking the Delaware Chancery to authorize the issuance of
new, Class A voting stock to all CBS shareholder and find
Redstone, NAI and board members David Andelman and Robert Klieger
in breach of their fiduciary duties.

One recent report by a Western Pennsylvania newspaper said the
pension fund serves 1,300 retired government workers and ended
2017 with $459 million.

The action by shareholders is the latest attempt to challenge the
bylaws that give NAI, control of the company. CBS, in a special
board meeting May 17, voted to overturn the bylaws and reduce
NAI's control to around 20%, after first taking NAI to court,
seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent interference
with the board vote. NAI then sued over that move.

Courtroom battles have not interfered with Shari Redstone's
efforts to lead CBS and Viacom through a challenging environment
for traditional media companies. She was seen casually chatting
with attendees at the Code Conference, a prominent technology and
entertainment conference in Rancho Palos Verdes.

All of the legal warfare has deep roots, but it has flared up in
recent weeks after two attempts by Redstone to bring the
companies back together amid overall industry consolidation. One
effort at a reunion in 2016 was abandoned. The next, which began
in January, led to the current meltdown. Both sets of talks ran
aground over issues over managerial control and compensation,
with CBS chief Les Moonves resisting efforts to install current
Viacom CEO Bob Bakish as the No. 2 in a combined entity. A larger
point of contention is that CBS has insisted that Redstone was
trying to force a merger regardless of the downside. NAI
emphatically denies that charge.

CBS declined to comment on the suit. NAI did not immediately
respond to Deadline's request for comment.

National Amusements was founded as a Boston-area theater circuit
in 1936 by the father of longtime former CBS and Viacom chairman
Sumner Redstone, who took the helm of the company in 1954.
Redstone would eventually expand the regional exhibitor into a
global media power. During his six-decade run, the company bought
Viacom in a bare-knuckled battle that involved Barry Diller, and
then acquired CBS in 1999. CBS and Viacom operated together until
deciding to split in 2006. Initially, the thinking behind the
divorce was that then-high-flying Viacom, with Paramount
Pictures, MTV and Nickelodeon, had too much upside to be weighed
down by broadcast-and-localTV-heavy CBS. Stock-wise and
operationally, it turned out to be the opposite scenario. Under
Moonves, CBS went on a tear that continues to this day, topping
the ratings charts and unlocking more shareholder value than
Viacom, making Moonves and many shareholders wary of a
combination with Viacom and newly critical of the NAI bylaws.

Shari Redstone, who earlier this decade had become estranged from
her father, reconciled after the grueling process of ousting
former Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman. With the health of Sumner
Redstone, 95, now fading, Shari Redstone has steered the family-
owned company since 2016.[GN]


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Crocker" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Navient Corporation, Navient Credit Finance
Corporation and Navient Solutions, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Evan Crocker, et al. v.
Navient Solutions, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 16-3175, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

The appellate case is captioned as Navient Solutions, L.L.C., et
al. v. Evan Crocker, et al., Case No. 18-90016, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents EVAN BRIAN CROCKER, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, also known as
Crocker Legal, P.L.L.C., formerly known as Evan Brian Haas;
MICHAEL SHAHBAZI, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, formerly known as Montana Shahbazi; WENDY L. LANDES, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated; and
RAEGENA SEITZ-MOULDS, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jason W. Burge, Esq.
          FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 586-5241
          Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
          E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com

               - and -

          George F. Carpinello, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
          30 S. Pearl Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Marc Douglas Myers, Esq.
          ROSS, BANKS, MAY, CRON & CAVIN, P.C.
          7700 San Felipe
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 439-4147
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6014
          E-mail: mmyers@rossbanks.com

               - and -

          Lynn Elizabeth Swanson, Esq.
          JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C.
          Pan American Life Center
          601 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523-2500
          E-mail: lswanson@jonesswanson.com

               - and -

          Susan Tran, Esq.
          CORRAL TRAN SINGH, L.L.P.
          440 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 975-7300
          Facsimile: (832) 975-7301
          E-mail: Susan.Tran@ctsattorneys.com

Defendants-Petitioners NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., NAVIENT CREDIT
FINANCE CORPORATION and NAVIENT CORPORATION are represented by:

          Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 571-9191
          E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Dion W. Hayes, Esq.
          Kyle Hosmer, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          800 E. Canal Boulevard
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1217
          E-mail: dhayes@mcguirewoods.com
                  khosmer@mcguirewoods.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Crocker"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Navient Credit Finance Corporation and Navient
Solutions, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Evan Crocker, et al. v. Navient Solutions,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 16-3175, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

The appellate case is captioned as Evan Crocker, et al. v.
Navient Solutions, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-20254, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that fee was
due on May 9, 2018, for Appellants Navient Credit Finance
Corporation and Navient Solutions, L.L.C.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees EVAN BRIAN CROCKER, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, also known as Crocker Legal,
P.L.L.C., formerly known as Evan Brian Haas; MICHAEL SHAHBAZI, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, formerly
known as Montana Shahbazi; WENDY L. LANDES, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated; and RAEGENA SEITZ-
MOULDS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Jason W. Burge, Esq.
          FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 586-5241
          Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
          E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com

               - and -

          George F. Carpinello, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
          30 S. Pearl Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          E-mail: gcarpinello@BSFLLP.com

               - and -

          Marc Douglas Myers, Esq.
          ROSS, BANKS, MAY, CRON & CAVIN, P.C.
          7700 San Felipe
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 439-4147
          E-mail: mmyers@rossbanks.com

               - and -

          Lynn Elizabeth Swanson, Esq.
          JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C.
          601 Poydras Street
          Pan American Life Center
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523-2500
          E-mail: Lswanson@jonesswanson.com

               - and -

          Susan Tran, Esq.
          CORRAL TRAN SINGH, L.L.P.
          440 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 975-7300
          Facsimile: (832) 975-7301
          E-mail: Susan.Tran@ctsattorneys.com

Defendants-Appellants NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., and NAVIENT
CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION are represented by:

          Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 353-6677
          E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Kyle Hosmer, Esq.
          Karen Elizabeth Sieg, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          800 E. Canal Boulevard
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1217
          E-mail: khosmer@mcguirewoods.com
                  bsieg@mcguirewoods.com


NEVADA, USA: Walden Appeals D. Nevada Decision to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Donald Walden, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Donald Walden, Jr., et al. v. State of
Nevada, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00320-MMD-WGC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Reno.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Donald Walden, Jr., et al. v.
State of Nevada, et al., Case No. 18-15691, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript ordered by May 21, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on June 18, 2018;

   -- Appellants Nevada Department of Corrections and State of
      Nevada's opening brief is due on July 30, 2018;

   -- Appellees Aaron Dicus, Nathan Echeverria, Brent Everist,
      Timothy Ridenour, Daniel Tracy, Donald Walden Jr. and
      Travis Zufelt's answering brief is due on August 27, 2018;
      and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DONALD WALDEN, Jr., NATHAN ECHEVERRIA, AARON
DICUS, BRENT EVERIST, TRAVIS ZUFELT, TIMOTHY RIDENOUR and DANIEL
TRACY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

Defendants-Appellants STATE OF NEVADA and NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS are represented by:

          Richard Dreitzer, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          300 South 4th Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 727-1400
          E-mail: richard.dreitzer@wilsonelser.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nguyen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Huu Nguyen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-05591-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 18, 2018, the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification of:

Class:

    "all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from
     an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped
     with a FS6R31A manual transmission"; and

CLRA Sub-Class:

    "all members of the Class who are "consumers" within the
     meaning of California Civil Code section 1761(d)."

The appellate case is captioned as Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North
America, Inc., Case No. 18-80050, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          John Ely Stobart, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  John.Stobart@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Respondent NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Marshall Baker, Esq.
          Michael J. Stortz, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7531
          E-mail: marshall.baker@dbr.com
                  mjstortz@dbr.com

               - and -

          Sherman Vance Wittie, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE REATH LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201-7367
          Telephone: (469) 357-2500
          E-mail: vance.wittie@dbr.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Rodz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Rodz moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOHN RODZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00783-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks the
Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, Mr. Rodz asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

Mr. Rodz asserts that he is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify
and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the
Plaintiff contends.

Mr. Rodz also asks to be appointed as class representative, and
for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zth2z8fq

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


PCPG LLC: "Villegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERVANDO GARCIA VILLEGAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PCPG LLC (D/B/A VITE VINOSTERIA), CARMELO
BENNICI, PINUCCIO URAS, GERMAN RIZZO, and PIETRO MOLENDINI, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02484 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

PCPG LLC, doing business as Vite Vinosteria, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners,
managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 31-05 34th Street, in Astoria, New York.[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


PET VALU: Wins Costs for Failed Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Raymer, writing for The Canadian Lawyer, reports that a
one-time Pet Valu franchisee is liable for the franchisor's costs
in class action litigation he brought against Pet Valu Canada
Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on May 29.

In Pet Valu Canada Inc. v. Rodger, 2018 ONSC 3353, Justice Sandra
Nishikawa held that the individual officer, director, shareholder
and guarantor of the representative plaintiff in a $100-million
class action lawsuit against Pet Valu in 2009 was liable for the
significant costs awards -- in excess of $1.7 million -- that Pet
Valu had been awarded after defeating the class action.

Robert Rodger was the sole shareholder of 1250264 Ontario Inc.
Since 2005, he had been a Pet Valu franchisee, and in 2009, he
attempted to sell his franchise back to Pet Valu, a wholesaler
and retailer of pet food, supplies and related services. In
December 2009, 1250264 Ontario Inc. commenced a class action
against Pet Valu alleging breach of contract and breach of the
Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, S.O. 2000 c. 3.
The gist of the claims was that Pet Valu had not shared volume
rebates it received from suppliers with the franchisees and that
it overcharged franchisees for certain items.

After nearly seven years of litigation, the class action was
dismissed and Pet Valu was awarded its costs of $1,703,896. In
January 2012, while the class action was still proceeding, Rodger
sold the assets of 1250264 Ontario Inc. to a third party and left
the Pet Valu franchise system.

Issues before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice were: i)
whether Rodger was liable for the costs awards pursuant to the
indemnification provision in the franchise agreement he had
signed with Pet Valu in 2005, which specified that the franchisee
agreed to indemnity Pet Valu for costs incurred in defending any
action or claim brought the franchisee against Pet Valu; ii)
whether Rodger was liable for the costs awards under the
agreement's guarantee; iii) whether Pet Valu's claim was statute-
barred by the Limitations Act; and iv) whether Pet Valu had
released its claim against Rodger in the course of previous
litigation between the parties.

In granting Pet Valu's motion for summary judgment and dismissing
Rodger's cross-motion to dismiss the claim, Nishikawa ruled in
favour of Pet Valu in all instances. She found that the
indemnification provision in the franchise agreement applied to
the costs awards, and she rejected Rodger's assertion that he was
not personally bound by that provision. Rather, the judge found
that Rodger had signed the franchise agreement on his own behalf
as well as on behalf of 1250264 Ontario Inc. and that he intended
to be personally bound to the agreement as a franchisee. During
cross-examination, Rodger had admitted that he had received
independent legal advice and was aware that he was exposed to the
risk of a potential adverse costs award in the class action.

"The unique part of this scenario is that, usually in these
cases, in class actions, the potential cost consequences to
representative plaintiffs are limited by indemnification by class
counsel" if there is an adverse cost award to the plaintiffs,
says Derek Ronde, Esq.-- dronde@casselsbrock.com -- a litigation
partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP in Toronto who, along
with co-counsel Kate Byers, Esq. represented Pet Valu. If the
representative plaintiffs' law firm does not cover costs to
plaintiffs, "third-party funders can pay for those expenses or
the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund. Unfortunately, in this case,
that was not done."

Since 1250264 Ontario Inc. had sold its assets during the
litigation, Pet Valu was not able to enforce the judgment against
the company -- "it was a shell," says Ronde -- and so action was
brought against Rodger instead.

"The other unique factor [in this case] was that there was a
contract between the parties," he says. "That's not often the
case between plaintiffs and defendants in a class action."

A thorough commercial franchise agreement between the parties
included an indemnification provision and also a personal
guarantee by Rodger of 1250264 Ontario Inc.'s obligations.

Pet Valu was able to rely on those provisions to have Rodger be
liable for the franchise corporation's liabilities, Ronde told
Legal Feeds, and "the indemnification and guarantee allowed us to
pursue Mr. Rodger for what [1250264 Ontario Inc.] owed."

A takeaway from this decision, he says, is that "it's reassuring
to franchisors that Ontario courts are willing to enforce these
indemnification provisions and guarantees." As well, he says,
"it's reassuring that there's recognition that defendants in
class actions are entitled to be compensated if they're
successful, and they're not left holding the bag on costs."

Finally, the decision of Nishikawa and an earlier decision of
Justice Edward Belobaba of the same court both suggest that
"indemnification from class counsel, third-party funders, the
Class Proceedings Fund -- they're there for a reason," says
Ronde. "Ultimately, yes, Pet Valu was indemnified thorough this
contract," he says, but a franchisee who serves as the repr
esentative plaintiff in a class action can also be indemnified
for any cost award against them.

"It's important litigation, and sometimes these plaintiffs may
not have the funds to survive an adverse cost award," Ronde says.
Indemnification by one's own lawyers, or a fund, can relieve the
burden of adverse costs if their action is unsuccessful. In this
case, "no one indemnified [1250264 Ontario Inc.] and Mr.
Rodger."[GN]


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Jaimes Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Jaimes a/k/a Josefina Muniz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Phillips & Cohen Associates,
Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-00635-UNA (D. Del.,
April 26, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act arising from their alleged
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., is a "debt collector" as the
phrase is defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with
an address in Wilmington, Delaware.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 722-6885
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


PHH CORPORATION: "Lei" Suit Alleges SEC Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Edward Lei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHH Corporation, Jane D. Carlin, Robert B. Crowl,
James O. Egan, James C. Neuhauser, Charles P. Pizzi, Kevin Stein,
and Carrol R. Wetzel, Jr., Case No. 1:18-cv-07934 (D. N.J.,
April 17, 2018), is a class action complaint for breach of
fiduciary duties and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action as a result of
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Ocwen Financial
Corporation and POMS Corp., as a result of an unfair process for
an unfair price, and to enjoin the stockholder vote on a proposed
all-cash transaction valued at approximately $360 million, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California and, at all times
relevant hereto, has been a PHH stockholder.

The Defendant PHH, through its subsidiaries, provides outsourced
mortgage banking services to financial institutions and real
estate brokers in the United States.  PHH is organized under the
laws of the State of Maryland and has its principal place of
business at 3000 Leadenhall Road, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054.
Shares of PHH common stock are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "PHH."

The Individual Defendants are officers of PHH.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      1040 Kings Highway N., Ste. 650
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 795-7250
      Fax: (856) 795-1799
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
              mackerman@brodskysmith.com


PRECISION PRODUCTS: "Wise" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wise, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Precision Products
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00926 (N.D. Ohio, April
23, 2018), seeks compensatory damages in the amount of their
unpaid wages, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount,
costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this action and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

Wise worked at Defendant's facility in Apple Creek, Ohio. He
claims to be denied all of the overtime compensation they earned.
Defendant allegedly rounds its employees' clock-in time in a
manner in which an employee always loses credit for time actually
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 4646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


PROTHENA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Prothena Corporation plc (NASDAQ:PRTA) from October
15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Prothena
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Prothena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1348.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period
violated the federal securities laws by: (1) withholding relevant
trial data showing that Prothena's NEOD001, an antibody designed
to treat amyloid light chain amyloidosis ("AL amyloidosis"), was
not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis; (2) making
misleading comparisons of NEOD001's "best response" rates against
certain prior studies; and (3) touting that Prothena's ongoing
Phase 1/2 study of NEOD001 provided a strong basis for late-stage
Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies of NEOD001, even though the full
Phase 1/2 study data demonstrated that NEOD001 was not an
effective treatment for AL amyloidosis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 16, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


QUINTIS: Class Action Alleges Improper Accounting
-------------------------------------------------
Vesna Poljak, writing for Financial Review, reports that
a third shareholder class action linked to collapsed sandalwood
grower Quintis, which also ensnares its auditor Ernst & Young,
alleges that the former TFS overstated its profitability and
flouted multiple Australian accounting standards.

The Perth-based Quintis is accused of improperly inflating the
value of its Indian sandalwood trees which represent the group's
biological assets. At their peak, the trees alone were worth more
than $700 million.

What the action alleges is that in coming to this estimate,
Quintis relied on valuations of seedlings and saplings "that
substantially exceeded" what they were worth. It continues to
allege that Quintis used a heartwood yield per tree input for the
group's biological asset valuation that "was materially higher"
than the actual heartwood results it was reporting to managed
investment scheme (MIS) investors.

Further, Quintis is accused of aggressively revaluing a 580-
hectare plantation -- "inconsistent with the known market
evidence" -- earmarked for an external investor that failed to
settle, upon reclaiming the plantation as a direct investment of
the group. And it broadly used a discount rate input that was too
low, which also had the effect of inflating the value of the
trees.

Part of the argument the action relies on is that such modelling
produced figures that didn't reflect fair value, a price that
would be received "to sell the biological assets in their current
location and condition" or in an "orderly transaction between
market participants" at the relevant date as accounting standards
demand.

Another of the alleged failings submitted is that the accounts
did not include a corresponding liability for the necessary
forestry work over the life of a project on behalf of managed
investment scheme (MIS) investors who paid upfront rent and
annual fees.

Sale proceeds

The absent "unearned income" covers "the portion of those fees
which related to services which had not yet been rendered", court
documents detailing the Federal Court action show. Instead, the
fees were recognised in the year in or the year after which they
were paid. In the 2016 financial year, for example, such fees
(plus the benefit of separate establishment fees) were $116.9
million of total cash revenue of $128.2 million.

As it is argued, Quintis was required to only recognise revenue
from the upfront fee when those services were provided, meaning
the balance should have been recognised as deferred revenue. Not
doing so had the effect of "materially overstating the revenue",
it is alleged.

The "substance" of an MIS investment was 80 per cent -- not full
-- proceeds of the harvest, minus any fees linked to processing,
marketing and selling, and an option to pay annual fees and rent
in exchange for additional interest in the sale proceeds. That
meant Quintis had an option to acquire an interest in growers'
lots. Most investors elected not to pay the annual fee and annual
rent, the pleadings indicate.

The correct accounting treatment would demand that Quintis
attribute the payment of annual property management lease fees as
"payment for the sale of an asset", being an interest in the
remaining 20 per cent of the proceeds of sale.

Similarly, Quintis' accounts also provided for deferred lease and
management fees as intangible assets. It is pleaded that Quintis
should not have recognised this as accrued income receivable and
an intangible asset because this disregarded the fact that
Quintis had an interest in the sale proceeds. In being non-
compliant, revenue was reported as higher than it should have
been, it is alleged.

EY audited Quintis' accounts in 2014-15 and 2015-16, the two
years which preceded more than $300 million in writedowns in the
2017 fiscal year. Its biological assets were valued at $624.6
million in 2014-15, thanks to a revaluation of $136.6 million.
The following year, the trees were worth $771.2 million, thanks
to a revaluation of $76.9 million.

The applicants, represented by Piper Alderman are seeking damages
with interest plus costs from all three respondents (Quintis,
founder and former managing director Frank Wilson, and EY), plus
a further award of damages from the third respondent, which is
EY. The action relates to investors who acquired stock between
August 31, 2015 and May 15, 2017.

Quintis and Mr Wilson have previously denied wrongdoing and said
they intend to defend proceedings with respect to other class
actions. Comment was sought from EY.[GN]


RECRO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Recro Pharma, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 18-cv-02279, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise, acquired securities of Recro securities between July
31, 2017 through May 23, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Recro securities between
July 31, 2017, and May 23, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 30, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Recro is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops non-
opioid therapeutics for the treatment of pain in the post-
operative setting.  Recro offers its products to the medical
industry.  The Company's lead product is a proprietary injectable
form of meloxicam, a long-acting preferential COX-2 inhibitor
("IV meloxicam") to be used for the management of moderate to
severe pain.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) IV meloxicam
lacked supporting clinical data to show sufficient clinical
benefits to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval; and (ii) as a result, Recro's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 24, 2018, Recro announced that the FDA had declined to
approve Recro's New Drug Application ("NDA") for IV meloxicam.
In its Complete Response Letter, the FDA stated that the drug's
analgesic effects did not meet FDA expectations and raised
questions related to chemistry, manufacturing and controls data.

On this news, Recro's share price fell $6.79, or 54.67%, to close
at $5.63 on May 24, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


REN MEDIA: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. REN MEDIA GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-00998-
EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla., April 25, 2018), seeks to collect alleged
unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Ren Media Group USA, Inc., operates a home shopping television
channel in Pinellas County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


RH: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of RH (NYSE: RH) breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders. RH, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the home furnishings
market.

Investors filed a consolidated class action complaint against RH
arising from defendants' false and misleading statements
regarding the launch of RH's new product line, RH Modern, and the
company's inventory levels. The complaint alleges that RH
repeatedly assured the public that it would have the inventory to
support the product launch, but in reality, RH had not even
placed orders with manufacturers in time for the launch. As a
result, orders were delayed for up to a year, and RH made
extensive accommodations to combat customer complaints, resulting
in $18 million in customer accommodation expenses. When the truth
of RH's wrongdoing was revealed, the company's stock dropped 75%,
erasing more than $3 billion in shareholder value. On February
26, 2018, the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
RH's motion to dismiss, paving the way for litigation to proceed.
This class action could result in substantial damages to RH,
causing depletion of its financial resources and further harm to
shareholders.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com[GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Faces Suit Alleging Sale of Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review, reports that a class action lawsuit was
filed on May 3rd against Ripple Labs Inc. -- a fintech startup
that controls the third-largest cryptocurrency in the world --
and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse, alleging that Ripple sold
unregistered, non-exempt securities in violation of federal and
California state securities laws.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs characterized the sale of XRP
(Ripple's native token) as "a scheme by Defendants to raise
hundreds of millions of dollars through the unregistered sale of
XRP" and "what is essentially a never-ending initial coin
offering (ICO)." In addition to attorney fees, costs of the suit,
and punitive damages, the plaintiffs also request a declaration
from the court that the sale of XRP is an unregistered securities
sale and to enjoin defendants from further violating securities
laws.

Plaintiffs alleged facts that correspond to the elements of the
Howey test for determining whether an instrument qualifies as an
"investment contract," and thus, as security, under the federal
securities laws. Specifically, the complaint states that XRP
purchasers (1) made an investment of money, (2) in a common
enterprise, (3) with a reasonable expectation of profits (4)
derived predominantly from the essential managerial or
entrepreneurial efforts of others.

This lawsuit comes in the wake of heightened SEC scrutiny of
cryptoasset token issuances. As we've noted, SEC Chairman Jay
Clayton has said in recent months that he has not seen a single
token issued through an ICO that is not a security.

Ripple's prominent position within the blockchain ecosystem, the
relationship between XRP tokens and Ripple's enterprise software,
and the manner in which their tokens are distributed could form
the basis for tremendously impactful judicial precedent with
respect to ICOs.

We will continue to monitor developments in this area.[GN]


RSP PERMIAN: Being Sold to Concho for Too Little, "Robinson" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ROBINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RSP PERMIAN, INC., MICHAEL GRIMM, STEVEN
GRAY, JOSEPH B. ARMES, SCOTT MCNEILL, KENNETH V. HUSEMAN, MATTHEW
S. RAMSEY, MICHAEL S. WALLACE, CONCHO RESOURCES, INC., and GREEN
MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01047-L (N.D. Tex., April 25,
2018), is brought under the Securities and Exchange Act alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts
to sell the Company to Concho as a result of an unfair process
for an unfair price.

Mr. Robinson seeks to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on a
proposed stock for stock transaction in which Concho will acquire
each outstanding share of RSP common stock for 0.320 shares of
Concho common stock, valued at approximately, $50.24 per share
based on Concho's closing price on March 27, 2018, with a total
valuation of approximately $9.5 billion.

RSP is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Dallas, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

RSP is an independent oil and natural gas company that engages in
the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich
natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin of West Texas.  The
Company owns interest in contiguous acreage blocks in the core of
the Midland Basin primarily in the adjacent counties of Midland,
Martin, Andrews, Dawson, Ector, and Glasscock; and in Loving and
Winkler counties of the Delaware Basin.

Concho is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Midland, Texas.  Merger Sub is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Concho.

Concho is an independent oil and natural gas company, engages in
the acquisition, development, and exploration of oil and natural
gas properties in the United States.  Concho's principal
operating areas are located in the Permian Basin of southeast New
Mexico and west Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


SC LOTTERY: Won't Pay $34MM for Glitchy Winning Christmas Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seanna Adcox, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
thousands of lottery players who mistakenly won on Christmas Day
because of a computer glitch are getting empty stockings.

Lottery commissioners decided on May 30 not to pay anything on
the potential $34 million worth of outstanding tickets that have
been in limbo since the game was shut down five months ago.

Instead of getting the maximum $500 to $2,500 possible for a
winning ticket, players can get a refund for the $1 to $5 they
bet.

Paying for tickets printed in error would violate state law,
commissioners said before voting unanimously against payouts.

The decision followed a two-hour, closed-door meeting where
commissioners discussed a report from Gaming Laboratories
International of New Jersey -- hired in January to investigate
what happened -- and two pending lawsuits from ticket-holders.

Over two hours on Christmas Day, 42,000 tickets printed for a
game that plays like tic-tac-toe contained Christmas trees on all
nine squares, instead of the maximum five they're supposed to
have. People bet a total of $71,000 on those tickets, according
to the investigation. How many individual players bought them is
unknown.

Retailers paid out $1.7 million in cash on the Holiday Cash Add-
A-Play tickets before the error was discovered. They're allowed
to pay customers immediately for prizes up to $500 -- the maximum
prize for a $1 play on the game.

Those players just got lucky, said Tim Madden, Esq. an attorney
hired by the state to handle the mishap.

The agency will seek $1.7 million from its former game machine
operator, Intralot, to reimburse the state for those paid
tickets, he said.

Gamers aren't happy.

"They should pay out the rest," said Gwendolyn Bobo of
Summerville, whose son and husband bought 14 winning tickets that
would have paid out $7,000. "That is totally unfair."

The Bobos tried to immediately cash out at the two gas stations
in Charleston where they bought tickets but were told there
wasn't enough cash in the registers. Not all of their time-
stamped tickets were winners, as shown to The Post and Courier.
Three of the tickets they bought during that two-hour window had
five trees each, none in a lineup needed to win.

It's not right for the lottery to treat winning tickets like
losers, Bobo said, and whatever happened is not players' fault.

Class-action lawsuits seeking players' prizes have been filed in
Richland and Sumter counties. The lottery agency has asked judges
to dismiss both cases. So far, there's been one hearing in
Richland County but no ruling. Both lawsuits also name Intralot.

"Those two lawsuits are just the beginning," Bobo said.

Madden called the snafu regrettable but said commissioners
handled it in a way that "does nothing but enhance the integrity"
of the state lottery.

"This lottery takes everything it does very seriously" and
players should conclude that commissioners did what they were
supposed to do, Madden said.

"What they thought they had as a winner was never a winner at
all," he said. "If they'll step back and think about it, it might
have been a fleeting moment where they thought, 'This is going to
be a good day for me.' ... They'll realize that document in their
hand should never have come out of that machine. Then they'll
say, 'Those things happen.' "

This mistake won't happen again, he insisted.

The error was caused by flawed software and computer source code,
as well as inadequate and incomplete testing by Intralot,
according to Gaming Laboratories' report. It confirmed lottery
Director Hogan Brown's prediction in February that the glitch
wasn't the state's fault.

All of the game's equipment and technology belonged to Intralot,
the Greek company contracted to handle South Carolina's
computerized games over the past decade. It was Intralot, which
was also responsible for monitoring the system, that shut down
the game and informed lottery officials, Brown has said.

The entire system switched to London-based IGT for the next 10-
year contract, worth about $78 million.

The transition for nearly 4,000 machines began last summer but
was put on hold while Intralot protested not getting picked
again. The state Procurement Review Panel, which hears contract
complaints, dismissed the protest in February.

Players have until Jan. 7 to claim a refund on the $1 to $5
ticket price. [GN]


SECOND ROUND: "Kempler" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Jill Kempler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Second Round, LP, Case No. 18-cv-60851 (S.D. Fla.,
April 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and at all times relevant to
this action, was a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in
Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation whose principal place of
business is located at 1701 Directors Blvd., Ste. 900, Austin, TX
78744. The Defendant regularly uses the mail and telephone in a
business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of
consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Legg, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
      499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (954) 235-3706
      E-mail: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

          - and -

      Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
      J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
      North Palm Beach, FL 33408
      Tel: (561) 692-6013
      Fax: (305) 574-013
      E-mail: Darren@cloorg.com
              DCard@Consumerlaworg.com


SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Bodie" Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS BODIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN PARKING SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-00986-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2018), alleges that
the Defendant failed to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Constitution minimum wage provisions.

The Defendant operates a parking service company throughout
Florida, including in Tampa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: mfenton@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  csaba@wfclaw.com


SOCIETE NATIONALE: Scalin Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Roland Cherrier, Josiane Picard and Karen Scalin filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Karen
Scalin, et al. v. Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Francais,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03362, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought on behalf of all the heirs and beneficiaries of the
deported Jews and other undesirables during the World War II, and
seeks compensation for the personal property, including cash,
securities, silver, gold, jewelry, works of art, musical
instruments, clothing, and equipment that was illegally,
improperly, and coercively taken from the ownership or control by
the Defendant as part of the genocide against the Jews during the
War.

Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Francais is the national
railway of France and the operator of all rail passenger lines
within France.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen Scalin, et al. v.
Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Francais, Case No. 18-1887,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by May 8, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's brief was due on or before June 4, 2018, for
      Roland Cherrier, Josiane Picard and Karen Scalin.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KAREN SCALIN, JOSIANE PICARD and ROLAND
CHERRIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Steven Paul Blonder, I, Esq.
          MUCH SHELIST, P.C.
          191 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-1615
          Telephone: (312) 521-2000
          E-mail: sblonder@muchshelist.com

Defendant-Appellee SOCIETE NATIONALE DES CHEMINS DE FER FRANCAIS
is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Scharf, Esq.
          SCHARF BANKS MARMOR LLC
          333 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-2224
          Telephone: (312) 726-6000
          E-mail: sscharf@scharfbanks.com


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Investors Compete for Lead Plaintiff Role
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for Law360, reports that one investor backed
by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is competing with another
represented by Levi & Korsinsky LLP in separate bids filed in
Massachusetts federal court on May 29 to be named lead plaintiff
in a proposed class action accusing a bioscience company of
withholding information about the toxicity of its signature
muscular dystrophy treatment ahead of its initial public
offering.

Investors James Watkins and Ashish Bhandari each agree that the
instant suit against Solid Biosciences Inc., originally filed by
Glancy Prongay-counseled Watkins in late March, should be
consolidated.

The case is Watkins v. Solid Biosciences, Inc. et al, Case No.
1:18-cv-10587.  The case is assigned to Judge Mark L. Wolf.  The
case was filed March 27, 2018. [GN]


SPEEDYPC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Software Problem
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that a company
that makes computer repair software on May 30 asked the Seventh
Circuit to throw out the certification of a class of consumers
who claim the software is worthless, arguing there are too many
differences between the class members for them to proceed as a
group.

The Canadian maker of SpeedyPC told the appellate court at oral
arguments that its product has too many different versions and
too many different potential outcomes to be the subject of a
class action claiming it didn't work.

The case is Archie Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, Case No.
18-1010 {7th Cir.).  The case was filed January 2, 2018. [GN]


SUNLIGHT SUPPLY: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Troy Brynelson, writing for The Columbian, reports that almost
two months after its sale was announced, Vancouver company
Sunlight Supply now faces a lawsuit accusing it of laying off
more than 100 workers without lawful notice.

A suit filed April 24 in the U.S. District Court's Western
District of Washington claims the Vancouver horticulture supplies
company violated federal statutes that require advanced notice
when large numbers of workers are laid off.

Lawyers representing Brett Martin, a former IT desktop specialist
for the company, say they are seeking class action status for the
workers, though lawyers are unsure exactly how many were laid
off.

"We don't know the exact numbers yet, so it remains to be seen,"
said Jack Raisner, Esq. --  jar@outtengolden.com --
a lawyer from New York firm Outten & Golden, representing
Martin.

Sunlight Supply denied the allegations in a response filed May
24. Representatives for the company declined to comment.

The dispute arises about six weeks after news broke that Sunlight
Supply would sell to Ohio-based lawn care giant Scotts Miracle-
Gro for $450 million -- among the largest acquisitions in Clark
County history.

Months before the sale was announced, Sunlight Supply filed for
government aid for 135 workers in its fabrication department,
saying the horticulture lights and other products they made are
now imported from China.

In their suit, Martin and his lawyers claim that more than one-
third of Sunlight Supply's employees were laid off within a 90-
day window. The suit argued that action would violate the Worker
Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act -- also known as the
WARN Act.

Because the WARN Act demands 60 days' notice to the qualified
workers before termination, the suit aims to recoup that much in
wages and benefits for all affected workers.

In Sunlight Supply's response, the Lake Oswego, Ore., firm
Buckley Law argued that Sunlight Supply's layoffs were not
significant enough to fall under the federal statute.

Even if the layoffs did qualify, the response said, Sunlight
Supply could be excused because it faced "unforeseen business
circumstances."

When its sale to Scotts Miracle-Gro was announced, Sunlight
Supply revealed it made $460 million in sales for its last fiscal
year, and $55 million in earnings. The sale could close in early
June.[GN]


TAURANGA CITY: Faces Class Action Over Failed Homes Development
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Yeoman, writing for NZ Herald, reports that a class action
has been filed and will be served on the Tauranga City Council on
behalf of the residents and owners affected by the failed Bella
Vista Homes development at The Lakes.

Auckland QC David Heaney, who filed the action, told the Bay of
Plenty Times Weekend he had filed proceedings in the Tauranga
District Court, which would be served within a few working days
on the city council.

"Proceedings have been issued as a class action in respect of
residents and owners in the Bella Vista development -- Lakes
Boulevard and Aneta Way," Heaney said.

"At the moment, only the Konowes and the McDiarmids are named in
the proceedings. Because it's a class action the opportunity for
any other owner in the development exists for them to join into
the proceedings."[GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Paul Hasting Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Antonelli, Esq. -- anthonyantonelli@paulhastings.com --
Kevin P. Broughel, Esq. -- kevinbroughel@paulhastings.com -- and
Shahzeb Lari, Esq. -- shahzeblari@paulhastings.com -- of Paul
Hastings LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Eighth
Circuit's recent decision in Zola v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. -- which
affirmed the dismissal of a series of class actions based on a
brokerage firm's alleged violations of best execution duties when
routing customer trades -- represents the latest decision in a
line of growing authority finding that the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") bars class action
plaintiffs from bringing state law "best execution" claims.

Statutory Framework

In 1995, Congress passed The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA"), which imposed a variety of reforms -- including a
heightened pleading standard for securities fraud claims -- to
address "'perceived abuses' of federal class action securities
litigation."   The PSLRA, however, also prompted plaintiffs to
bring securities class actions under state law in an attempt to
avoid the effects of the legislation in federal courts.  Thus, to
prevent plaintiffs from circumventing the PSLRA, Congress passed
SLUSA.  SLUSA, in relevant part, bars plaintiffs from bringing
"(1) a covered class action (2) based on state law claims (3)
alleging that defendant made a misrepresentation or omission or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device (4) in connection
with the purchase or sale of (5) a covered security."
The Zola Decision

In Zola, plaintiffs filed three separate class action complaints
against brokerage firm TD Ameritrade, Inc. asserting breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and various other state law
claims.  Plaintiffs alleged that TD Ameritrade "failed to direct
client orders to the trading venues that offered the 'best
execution' possible for the order -- that is, the best price,
speed of execution, and likelihood that the trade would be
executed" -- and, instead, directed the orders to venues willing
to pay the largest "'kickbacks,' i.e., rebates or payments for
order flow" to TD Ameritrade.[6] The United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska held that plaintiffs' claims were
precluded by SLUSA and dismissed the complaints.  On appeal,
plaintiffs argued that SLUSA did not apply because the complaints
failed to allege (1) a "misrepresentation or omission" or a
"manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" that was (2)
"in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security.
The Eighth Circuit disagreed.

Judge Robert L. Wollman, writing for the unanimous court,
explained that plaintiffs could not avoid the impact of SLUSA
simply by styling their claims as breach of contract claims
because the Court "look[s] at the substance of the allegations,
based on a fair reading of the complaint" in order to determine
whether a plaintiff has alleged a misrepresentation or omission
of material fact.  Although plaintiffs' complaints "carefully
avoided allegations that explicitly sounded in fraud (words like
misrepresentation, omission or deception . . .)," plaintiffs'
claims were nonetheless grounded upon on an alleged omission: "TD
Ameritrade's failure to disclose the fact that it was selling its
order flow to [trading venues that were] the highest bidders."
The Court's finding was in keeping with Eighth Circuit precedent
holding that a plaintiff has alleged a misrepresentation or
omission when the "core" of the complaint is that the broker "did
not disclose its practice of not obtaining best execution,
permitting it to acquire and retain trading venue rebates."

The Eighth Circuit also found the alleged omission was "in
connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security
because TD Ameritrade received payments from the trading venues
in exchange for routing orders to buy and sell securities.  In
doing so, the Court noted that SLUSA's "in connection with"
requirement is interpreted broadly and is satisfied if the
alleged fraud simply "coincides with" a securities transaction.

Ramifications

The Zola decision is in accord with recent cases from the Second,
Seventh, and Ninth Circuits finding that SLUSA precludes class
action plaintiffs from bringing state law claims based on an
alleged violation of the duty of best execution -- regardless of
whether they are characterized as sounding in contract or breach
of fiduciary duty -- when the gravamen of those claims is a
purported omission or misrepresentation by defendants in
connection with the routing of covered securities.  These
decisions should provide broker-dealers, investment advisers, and
their executives and employees with helpful precedent when
seeking to dispose of state law "best execution" claims at the
pleading stage. [GN]


TIPS INC: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. TIPS, INC., TIPS LLC, TIPS INVESTMENTS LLC and STEVE
AUSTERMANN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00937 (D. Colo., April 21, 2018), is
brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores.

Tips, Incorporated, is a Kansas Corporation maintaining its
principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.  Tips LLC
is a Colorado Limited Liability Company maintaining its principal
place of business in this District.  Tips Investments LLC is a
Colorado Limited Liability Company maintaining its principal
place of business in this District.  Steve Austermann is an
owner, officer and director of all the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  matthew@foresterhaynie.com


TIPTON COUNTY, TN: Smith Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Debra Alsbrook, Carla Carothers, Sarah Davis, Tonya
Kenney, Doris Mitchell, Cynthia Moore, Christy Scherffius, Bobbie
M. Smith, Audrey Starnes, Regina Starnes and Donald Volner filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Bobbie
Smith, et al. v. Tipton County Board of Education, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02282, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee at Memphis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, who are employees of the County's school system,
allege in the $19 million federal class-action lawsuit that their
confidential information was released to a third party when the
school board responded to a phishing e-mail with their W-2 and
tax information.

The appellate case is captioned as Bobbie Smith, et al. v. Tipton
County Board of Education, Case No. 18-5426, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BOBBIE M. SMITH, REGINA STARNES, DEBRA
ALSBROOK, TONYA KENNEY, CARLA CAROTHERS, DORIS MITCHELL, CHRISTY
SCHERFFIUS, SARAH DAVIS, DONALD VOLNER, AUDREY STARNES and
CYNTHIA MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Laura Ann Elizabeth Bailey, Esq.
          CRONE & MCEVOY
          5583 Murray Road, Suite 120
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          E-mail: lbailey@thecmfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION is
represented by:

          Stephen L. Shields, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          E-mail: sshields@jsyc.com


TORONTO-DOMINION: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Prepayment Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
Montreal law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Canada's major financial institutions over what the suit
describes as "abusive" mortgage prepayment charges.

The class action, which will need to be authorized by a judge,
argues the country's major banks charge unreasonable prepayment
fees when Quebec homeowners pay off their mortgage before the end
of the term.

The suit claims banks include clauses in loan agreements that
require people who pay off their mortgages early to pay one of
two possible penalties, depending on which is highest: three
months' interest calculated on the prepayment amount, or what
banks call the "interest-rate differential."

The firm behind the class action, LPC Avocat Inc., contends the
latter is virtually impossible to calculate and is always the
highest.

"Unless you're an actuary, and even then, we believe this is
incomprehensible to a reasonable consumer," said lawyer Joey
Zukran, Esq. on May 31.

The suit will aim to have the banks reimburse class members and
to have the clause nullified for future loan agreements. It will
also seek $100 million in punitive damages.

The firm, Zukran said, began working on the suit after being
approached by two clients.

Both clients described the calculations behind the penalties they
paid as incomprehensible. The first, who decided to sell her
property after making two years of payments, had to pay an "IRD"
charge of $12,648 to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, instead of the
prepayment penalty calculated on three months of interest, which
would have been $2,247.

A second client, dealing with CIBC, was ordered to pay $29,340
instead of the three-month interest penalty of $5,788.

"The difference is objectively abusive, excessive and
disproportionate," the class-action application states.

As for the $100 million in punitive damages being sought, the
motion describes the banks' conduct as "lax, careless, passive
and ignorant with respect to consumers' rights."

"The reality is that (the banks) have likely generated billions
of dollars in profits over the years by charging prepayment
charges in excess of three months of interest," the application
says.

Zukran believes there could be "tens of thousands" of Quebecers
eligible to participate in the class action. He's hopeful a judge
will hear the motion to have the suit authorized within the next
year.

Eligible members will need to have paid a mortgage prepayment
charge of more than three months' interest in Quebec since May
31, 2015. [GN]


TOWN SPORTS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pisarri" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joshua Bilmes, Samantha Fahy, Aubily Remus Jasmin,
Bari Lasky, Carly Pisarri, Elizabeth Plesser, Petr Prielozny,
Vadim Ternovski and Helena Von Rosenberg filed an appeal from a
District Court Memo Endorsement entered on April 18, 2018, in the
lawsuit titled Pisarri, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC,
et al., Case No. 18-cv-1737, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on February 26, 2018.  Town Sports is a health club
company that owns and operates sports clubs in the Northeastern
United States.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Contract Action."

The appellate case is captioned as Pisarri, et al. v. Town Sports
International, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-1164, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Carly Pisarri, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; Aubily Remus Jasmin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; Joshua Bilmes, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Samantha
Fahy; Bari Lasky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; Elizabeth Plesser, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Petr Prielozny, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; Vadim Ternovski, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; and Helena Von Rosenberg, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Taylor Crabill, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          E-mail: tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Town Sports International, LLC, DBA New York
Sports Club, DBA Boston Sports Clubs, DBA Washington Sports
Clubs, DBA Philadelphia Sports Clubs; and Town Sports
International Holdings, Inc., DBA New York Sports Clubs, DBA
Boston Sports Clubs, DBA Washington Sports Clubs, DBA
Philadelphia Sports Clubs, are represented by:

          Peter George Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com


UBER: Women Still Fighting for Right to Bring Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Ehrenkranz, writing for Gizmodo, reports that women who
say their Uber drivers sexually harassed and assaulted them are
still fighting the company for the right to bring their class
action lawsuit to court.  The firm representing the women, Wigdor
LLP, filed a legal brief on May 29 to challenge Uber's
arbitration policies, which continue to force many people with
claims against the company behind closed doors.

"Uber duped the media and public when it claimed to allow Jane
Does 1-9 access to court two weeks ago," Jeanne Christensen --
jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- partner at Wigdor LLP, told Gizmodo
in a statement.  "At the same time that Uber was making its
public 'announcement' about not forcing these victims to
arbitrate assault and battery claims, its lawyers were busy
filing a motion to compel to arbitration all of the other claims
in the lawsuit.  If successful, Uber achieves the result it
wanted all along -- to silence female victims' voices on a
collective basis.  Such a result also allows Uber to keep secret
the data about the countless other incidents of sexual assault by
Uber drivers."

A few months after the women first filed their class-action
lawsuit against Uber, the company filed a motion against it.
When more women were added to the lawsuit, Uber continued to
enforce its mandatory arbitration, telling Gizmodo in an email
that it "is the appropriate venue for this case because it allows
plaintiffs to publicly speak out as much as they want and have
control over their individual privacy at the same time."

By mid-May, the company seemingly had a change of heart, freeing
all individual users from arbitration with regards to sexual
harassment and assault claims.  Before, riders were forced to
settle all disputes in arbitration, or by a third party behind
closed doors.  But despite Uber's announcement, the ride-sharing
company still prohibited collective action and, continues to
double down on mandatory arbitration for all other claims. This
is what prompted the firm to file its brief on May 29.

Uber's relaxed arbitration policy is a win for users, but as
Christensen noted, it's certainly not the most meaningful change
the company could make.  "Uber has made a critical step in this
direction, but preventing victims from proceeding together, on a
class basis, shows that Uber is not fully committed to meaningful
change," Ms. Christensen told Gizmodo when Uber first announced
the policy change.  "Victims are more likely to come forward
knowing they can proceed as a group. This is the beginning of a
longer process needed to meaningfully improve safety."

Lyft and Microsoft have also, like Uber, freed users and
employees from arbitration for individual sexual harassment and
assault claims.  But to show that they are more than just bowing
to public pressure, there's more sweeping and consequential
changes these companies can make that would be in the best
interest of their users and their workforce.  Like, for instance,
eliminating forced arbitration altogether. [GN]


UMH PROPERTIES: Sued by Morgan for Violating FLSA, Min. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN MORGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UMH PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00948-DCN
(N.D. Ohio, April 25, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged
practice and policy of failing to include commissions and bonuses
earned by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated hourly, non-
exempt employees in their regular rate of pay, for purposes of
calculating their overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

UMH is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Maryland, and licensed to conduct business
in the state of Ohio.  UMH maintains offices in Olmsted Township,
Ohio; Olmsted Falls, Ohio; and Aurora, Ohio.

UMH is a real estate investment trust that owns and operates
manufactured home communities in eight states throughout the
northeast, including New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Indiana, Maryland and Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


VALLEY CREDIT: Lost Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Glen E. Conrad denied as moot the motion to deny class
certification filed by the Defendant in the lawsuit entitled
ASHLEY SCHWEINHART v. VALLEY CREDIT SERVICE, INC., Case No. 3:18-
cv-00002-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va.).

Judge Conrad opined that since the Defendant filed the Motion,
the Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint removing all class
allegations.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y1CrJBaj


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Cert. of Class Sought in "Cassell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Loren L. Cassell, Pamela M. Steele, John E. Rice,
Penelope A. Adgent, Dawn E. Crago and Lynda Payne move the Court
to certify all claims in the action captioned LOREN L. CASSELL et
al. v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02086 (M.D.
Tenn.), as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class is defined as:

     All participants and beneficiaries of the Vanderbilt
     University Retirement Plan and the Vanderbilt University New
     Faculty Plan from August 10, 2010 through the date of
     judgment, excluding the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint each of them as
representatives of the class and to appoint their attorneys --
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP -- as class counsel for the
class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=456iuRg3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          James Redd, IV, Esq.
          Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  jredd@uselaws.com
                  shoeplinger@uselaws.com

               - and -

          William B. Hawkins, III, Esq.
          HAWKINS HOGAN, PLC
          205 17th Avenue North, Suite 202
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 726-0050
          Facsimile: (315) 726-5177
          E-mail: whawkins@hawkinshogan.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. McFarland, Esq.
          Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-7250
          Facsimile: (615) 742-2750
          E-mail: amcfarland@bassberry.com
                  rcooper@bassberry.com

               - and -

          William J. Delany, Esq.
          Abbey M. Glenn, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: william.delany@morganlewis.com
                  abbey.glenn@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
          Allison N. Powers, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com
                  allison.powers@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com


WAKEMED: Southern Appeals E.D.N.C. Decision to Fourth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff M. P. Southern filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit titled M. Southern v. WakeMed, Case No.
5:16-cv-00017-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

The nature of suit is stated as employee retirement.

The appellate case is captioned as M. Southern v. WakeMed, Case
No. 18-1460, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix were due on June 4, 2018; and
   -- Response Brief is due on July 5, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant M. P. SOUTHERN, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert E. Fields, III, Esq.
          OAK CITY LAW, LLP
          702 North Blount Street
          Raleigh, NC 27604
          Telephone: (919) 274-3100
          E-mail: rob.fields@oakcitylaw.com

               - and -

          J. Michael Malone, Esq.
          HENDREN & MALONE, PLLC
          4600 Marriott Drive
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 573-1423
          E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com

Defendant-Appellee WAKEMED is represented by:

          Dorothy H. Cornwell, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP
          1180 West Peachtree Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30309-0000
          Telephone: (404) 962-1000
          E-mail: dorothy.cornwell@smithmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Nis Leerberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Whitley, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP
          434 Fayetteville Street
          2 Hannover Square
          Raleigh, NC 27601-0000
          Telephone: (919) 755-8759
          E-mail: matt.leerberg@smithmoorelaw.com
                  jeff.whitley@smithmoorelaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Nikmanesh" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Afrouz Nikmanesh filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00202-AG-JCG, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Walmart
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55557, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Afrouz Nikmanesh, Elvis Atencio, Anna Nguyen and Effie Spentzos
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80005.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 25, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on June 25, 2018;

   -- Appellant Afrouz Nikmanesh's opening brief is due on
      August 3, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Walmart
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on September 4, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant AFROUZ NIKMANESH, on behalf of herself, the
general public, and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Dayton B. Parcells, Esq.
          PARCELLS LAW FIRM
          1901 Avenue of The Stars, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9882
          E-mail: dbparcells@parcellslaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366
          E-mail: emepstein@aol.com

               - and -

          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com

Defendants-Appellees WALMART INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Naomi Beer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1200 17th Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Goldich, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7883
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5242
          E-mail: goldichr@gtlaw.com



WELLS FARGO: Judge OKs $142MM Accounts Scandal Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Wells Fargo & Co. customers who didn't
consent to having 3.5 million accounts created by bankers trying
to hit sales quotas are finally getting what amounts to an
"imperfect solution."

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed on May 30 to issue
final approval for a $142-million class-action accord that will
pay an average of $35 for account holders at the center of the
company's worst scandal in modern history.

The San Francisco judge told attorneys who objected to the
settlement that it has flaws, but said it's "rough justice" and
was better than pressing forward with trial or proceeding with
lots of individual lawsuits.

"There's no doubt this is an imperfect solution, but what's the
alternative?" Judge Chhabria said.  "I do believe this settlement
is fair and there was a conscientious effort by both parties to
come up with the least-worst solution for what's happened here."

The settlement is the latest fallout for Wells Fargo for creating
unauthorized savings accounts, credit cards and lines of credit
from May 1, 2002, to April 20, 2017.  The bank said it fired more
than 5,000 employees linked to the malfeasance, agreed to refund
customers and paid fines totaling $185 million.

The practice of employees creating unwanted accounts as they
tried to reach tough sales goals was first reported by the Los
Angeles Times in 2013 after an investigation.

A spokesman for the bank said the outcome of the May 30 hearing
is "another step forward for our broad and far-reaching $142
million settlement agreement that will support our efforts to
make things right for our customers and further restore trust
with all of Wells Fargo's stakeholders."

Payouts for individual customers will vary according to how many
fake accounts were created in their names and the damage to their
bank balances and credit scores.

Judge Chhabria asked consumer attorneys who negotiated the deal
to file additional paperwork that will delay approval until at
least on May 28.  The filings will include an oversight mechanism
to ensure the settlement is fully enforced before plaintiffs'
attorneys receive their $21-million portion.  There also may be a
bond requirement for appeals to deter "serial objectors" from
trying to block the settlement.

Consumers from Utah and Texas will appeal the approved settlement
to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Steven
Christensen, the attorney who filed the first consumer suit
against the bank after the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
fined Wells Fargo in September 2016. The appeal will probably
delay payouts to consumers.

"No one knows the true number of victims," Mr. Christensen wrote
in a court filing May 14. He called for further investigation
into the bank's behavior, including details into its alleged
"shredding parties" where documents detailing the fake accounts
were destroyed.

He also faulted the bank's record-keeping.

"On occasion, they allege the records are meticulously
maintained, and constitute sufficient evidence to force a
helpless customer/victim into arbitration," he said.  "In the
next breath, the CEO of the company publicly announced that many
of the bank's records were not reliable due to age and storage
reasons."

Supporters of the settlement say it's probably impossible to
identify every affected consumer.  But the accord allows for the
$142 million payout to be increased if enough customers file
claims.

The fallout from the scandal has stretched into this year. In
April, the bank was hit with a $1-billion fine by federal
regulators over other consumer abuses, and it is operating under
an unprecedented growth cap slapped on it by the Federal Reserve
as it works to improve its corporate governance. [GN]


WILLBROS GROUP: "Graulich" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Primoris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARL GRAULICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WILLBROS GROUP INC., S. MILLER WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J.
FOURNIER, DANIEL E. LONERGAN, MICHAEL C. LEBENS, PHIL D.
WEDEMEYER, and W. GARY GATES, Case No. 4:18-cv-01286 (S.D. Tex.,
April 24, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Willbros will be acquired by Primoris Services Corporation
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Waco Acquisition Vehicle,
Inc.

On March 28, 2018, the Company's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Merger
Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will purchase each issued and outstanding share of Willbros
common stock for $0.60 in cash, for a total preliminary equity
value of approximately $37.5 million, or a total enterprise value
of $107.6 million.  Upon completion of the Merger, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Willbros, with Willbros surviving the
merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Primoris.

Willbros is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

According to the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31,
2017, Willbros "is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor
serving the power and oil and gas industries with offerings that
primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities
development services." The Company has three segments: Utility,
Transmission and Distribution ('UT&D'); Canada; and Oil & Gas."
UT&D segment provides "a wide range of services in electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution ('T&D'), including
comprehensive engineering, procurement, maintenance and
construction, repair and restoration of utility infrastructure."
As to the Canadian segment, the Company "is an industry leader in
construction, maintenance and fabrication."  The Oil & Gas
segment provides "construction, maintenance and lifecycle
extension services to the midstream markets."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          711 Louisiana St., Suite 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 438-5244
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: jeffchambers@chambers-law-group.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  fqian@wolfpopper.com


WYN REAL ESTATE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Heaver" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY A. HEAVER v. WYN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC and ALL CITY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 4:18-cv-00909 (N.D. Ohio, April 20,
2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly
situated individuals seeking relief based on the Defendants'
alleged willful failure to compensate employees, to maintain
accurate payroll records, and to pay overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40, as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

WYN is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Ohio, with its headquarters located in Warren, Ohio.
ACP is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Warren.  WYN and ACP
are joint-employers and operate as a single enterprise under the
direction of their owner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Meyerson, Esq.
          Shaun H. Kedir, Esq.
          SEAMAN & ASSOCIATES
          1400 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-1080
          E-mail: dmeyerson@seamanatty.com
                  shaunkedir@seamanatty.com


XEROX CORP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in OK Firefighters Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System filed an appeal
from a District Court judgment dated March 23, 2018, and opinion
& order dated March 20, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-8260, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 21, 2016, the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System filed a
purported securities class action complaint against Xerox
Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn
Blodgett and Robert Zapfel in the District Court on behalf of the
Plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common
stock.  The complaint alleged that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to
the operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise
business.  The Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Oklahoma Firefighters Pension,
et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-1165, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com

Defendants-Appellees Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, David H. Bywater
and Mary Scanlon are represented by:

          Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4779
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: sandra.goldstein@kirkland.com

Defendant-Appellee Robert K. Zapfel is represented by:

          Charles Bergin, Esq.
          ADRIAN CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (646) 632-3704
          Facsimile: (646) 833-0877
          E-mail: cbergin@tresslerllp.com


YAMBO INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Lidia M. Martinez, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Yambo, Inc. aka Yambo Restaurant, Armando Perez Sr., and Reymar
Perez, Case No. 1:18-cv-21519 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2018), seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a full-time non-exempt restaurant employee from
approximately March 2004, to April 9, 2018. The Plaintiff worked
in the kitchen, and she had duties as a cook and cleaning
employee of the night shift.

The Defendant is a Nicaraguan restaurant, located at 1643 SW 1st
Street, Miami Florida 33135, where Plaintiff worked.

The Individual Defendants are owners, partners, directors and
managers of Yambo Inc.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Commission Wants Ban on Class Action Contingency Fees Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that the ban on contingency fees for class action lawyers should
be lifted, the federal law reform commission said.  The move
would be a major shakeup of Australia's class action industry
that would likely be a win for plaintiff class action firms and
lead to more mid-sized class action claims.

The Australian Law Reform Commission also recommended reviewing
the "legal and economic impact" of continuous disclosure
obligations for ASX-listed entities.

The Australian Law Reform Commission said percentage-based
contingency fees for solicitors on their clients' winnings in
lawsuits should be allowed in class actions if the case gets
permission from the court.

"Contingency fee arrangements in class action proceedings may
enable medium-sized class action matters to proceed and, as class
actions are strictly supervised by the court, the proposal offers
a cautious introduction to this method of billing," the ALRC
said.

Time-based billing 'lengthy and too complex'

Currently, Australian solicitors are banned from billing clients
on a contingency fee basis -- that is to provide their services
in exchange for a percentage of the amount recovered in the
litigation.

This means that in a class action funded by a litigation funder,
both the funder's commission and the legal fees calculated on
time-based billing models are deducted from the client's
settlement.

ALRC said a contingency fee arrangement should be allowed because
class actions are strictly supervised by the court and under the
proposal lawyers would be required to get leave from the court,
which would ensure the contingency fee arrangements are
"reasonable and proportionate".

It also said contingency fees could be particularly useful for
plaintiffs who find time-based billing invoices "lengthy and too
complex".

More competition
The ALRC said allowing contingency fee arrangements could
increase the competition between class action lawyers and
litigation funders, resulting in lower fees for plaintiffs.

In the last five years, 64 per cent of class action cases in the
Federal Court received funding from third party litigation
funders, ALRC said, with all of the shareholder class actions
funded by a third party.

Litigation funders usually charge about 30 per cent of the
settlement sum.

"While lifting the prohibition on contingency fees in class
actions does not guarantee direct competition, it may put
downward pressure on commission rates," it said.

"There is also the possibility that introducing contingency fees
will broaden access to justice for mid-sized class action
claims."

Under the proposal, a class action which has a contingency fee
agreement cannot also be directly funded by a third-party
litigation funder which is also charging on a contingent basis.

Review the impact of continuous disclosure obligations
ALRC recommended reviewing the "legal and economic" impact of the
continuous disclosure obligations of ASX-listed entities.

The breach of continuous obligations form the backbone of most
shareholder class actions.

The commission said there is "growing evidence of unintended
adverse consequences" of Australia's continuous disclosure
obligations, which has an impact on the value of the investments
on the shareholders of the company subject to a class action and
the impact on the availability of insurance for directors and
officers.

ALRC noted the cost of D&O insurance has increased more than 200
per cent in the last 12 to 18 months, with at least one
significant insurer recently leaving the Australian D&O market.

'Radical change'
The discussion paper proposes all third party litigation funders
should be required to obtain and maintain a "litigation funding
licence" to operate in Australia.

The licensing would require all third party litigation funders to
provide their services "efficiently, honestly and fairly" and be
subject to an annual audit.

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ruth Overington --
ruth.overington@hsf.com -- said the proposals have "the potential
to radically change the class action landscape".

"The future funding of class actions is set to undergo
significant change -- with both an increase in the potential
regulation applicable to litigation funders, and the potential
for plaintiff lawyers to charge contingency fees, both on the
table," she said.

The inquiry was launched by then Attorney-General George Brandis
in December last year, in order to "ensure the costs of such
proceedings are appropriate and proportionate and that the
interests of plaintiffs and class members are protected."

He said at the time there is a significant risk plaintiff groups
may be required to pay "exorbitant and unjustifiable" lawyers'
fees.

He said at the time despite playing a significant role, third
party funders, unlike lawyers, are not bound by professional
ethical obligations. [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  * * *