CAR_Public/180619.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, June 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 122



                            Headlines


1 PERSON AT A TIME: White Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
276-8 PIZZA CORP: "Martinez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
515 MADISON: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Encarnacion Says
AARON'S INC: Collection Process Violates TCPA, "Grogan" Suit Says
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Narrows Claims in ACCP Access Suit

ALLIED POWER: Blackburn Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wojcieski" Suit
ALLY FINANCIAL: McKinnon Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Analysts
AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Fleenor" Suit
ASHBURN CORP: Courts Denies Final Approval of "Cannon" Settlement

AXA EQUITABLE: NJ App. Div. Affirms "Shuster" Dismissal
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Fund's Class Certified in Securities Suit
BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Accused by Ding of Not Paying Overtime Wages
BLUE CROSS: Ct. Issues Order on Seal Bids in Shane Group Suit
BOLUFE ENTERPRISES: Gerstenberger Sues Over Text Message Ads

BURGER KING: Gesten Seeks to Certify Consumers Class Under FACTA
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Certification of Class Sought in "Voeks" Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Arbitrator's Decisions in "Katz" Affirmed
CENTRAL LOAN: Wins Final OK of Class Settlement in "Jones" Suit
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Arbitrage Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

CORRECTIONS CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Grae" Suit
CRST EXPEDITED: Montoya's Bid to Certify Classes Allowed in Part
DELTA AIR: Faces "McGarry" Suit Over Breach of Customers' PII
DEMARK INC: Griffin Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA
DENTAL EQUITIES: "Scoma" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Decision by FCC

DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
DREW COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in "Darrough" Suit Denied
DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Breached ERISA Duties, Cusack-Acocella Claims
DW DIRECT: Fails to Pay Technicians Overtime, "Ames" Suit Alleges
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Volkman Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Berg" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein Moves to Certify Class of Property Owners
FBCS INCORPORATED: Chunnu Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices
FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Wins Final Approval of "Gomez" Suit Deal
FIFTH THIRD: Harmon Sues for Accountholders Over Service Fees

FIRST MORTGAGE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ryman" RESPA Suit
FORSTER GARBUS: Bid to Amend "Heerema" FDCPA Suit Partly Granted
GC SERVICES: Avina Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
GLOBAL TRUST: Norton Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
GOPRO INC: Larkin Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class

GREAT LAKES: Hicks Moves to Certify Class of Home Health Workers
HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Garden Veggie Straw Suit
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
HEIN ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Cerveny" Claims
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Smith Moves to Certify Hourly Workers Class

HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Violates OT Provisions of FLSA, Diaz Says
IMPERIAL MARBLE: Olson's Cert. Bid Cont'd; July 10 Hearing Set
IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sobol Seeks TCPA Class Certification
JDSA I LTD: Andrews Moves to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Fricia Challenges Conspiracy to Suppress Wages

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Wins Bid to Move "Collins" Suit to E.D. Wisc.
KOHN LAW FIRM: Rizzo Seeks Class Certification Under Rule 23(b)
KPMG LLP: Gaynor Moves for Production of Docs Complying Subpoena
LANSING, MI: Partial OK of Summary Disposition in "Ray" Upheld
LEE N' EDDIES: Urban's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Reset to July 12

LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Bencomo" Suit
LJ ROSS: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Bencomo" Class Suit
LVEB LLC: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
MAINES PAPER: "McCuen" Suit Alleges NYLL Violations
MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement in "Bowens" Suit Wins Prelim. Approval

MEGGITT-USA SERVICES: Settlement in "Trout" Has Prelim Approval
METRO SECURITY: Post Supervisors Class Certified in "Smith" Suit
MILWAUKEE, LA: Certification of Detainees Class in "Hall" Denied
MODESTO AREA: Court Allows Filing of Amended "Berry" Suit
MONTE R LEE: Sued by Arredondo for Not Paying OT to Installers

MORAN TOWING: "Clevenger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MOSES CONE: Dismissal of Amended "Chambers" Suit Affirmed
MTGOX INC: Greene's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Report Due on June 25
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Briefing Schedule in "De Angelis" Set
NCB MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Fleenor" Suit

NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
OCLARO INC: "Karri" Class Suit Challenges Acquisition by Lumentum
OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Technicians Class Certified in "Ross"
OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motels Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
PANERA LLC: Meyer Renews Bid to Certify FLSA & DCMWA Collectives

PEACEHEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Echlin"
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Claim 7 in "Bango" Recommended for Dismissal
PORT PIPE: Kostmayer Moves to Certify Class of Phone Subscribers
QUALCOMM INC: Sued by Camp for Vexing Broadcom's Buyout Attempt
RENDEZVOUS CAFE: Chocolatl Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages

ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Faces "Henthorn" Suit Over TCPA Violations
RPX CORPORATION: "Barrington" Class Suit Challenges Sale to HGGC
RPX CORPORATION: Carmean Seeks to Block HGGC Acquisition Offer
SATELLITE COUNTRY: "Prejean" Class Has Conditional Certification
SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses "Hine" Data Breach Suit

SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses "Martin" Data Breach Suit
SOUTHWEST GAS: Howard Seeks to Recover OT Pay for CS Dispatchers
STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Wins Final OK of $5.6-Mil. Deal in "Fronda"
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Weisberg Moves to Certify Two Classes
TIVITY HEALTH: Lackawanna Seeks to Stop Sending of Unwanted Faxes

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Gunther's Placeholder Bid to Certify Dropped
UNITED AIRLINES: Moss Seeks to Certify Three Classes of Pilots
UNITED STATES: Class of Detainees Certified in "Gonzalez" Suit
UNITED STATES: Must File Info on Parole Applications in D.A. Suit

UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Cost-Sharing Reduction Class
UNITED STATES: USCIS Can Supplement Admin Record in EADs Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Fleenor" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Royal Park Securities Class Denied

YAHOO! INC: Bid to Reconsider Decertification in "Johnson" Denied






                            *********


1 PERSON AT A TIME: White Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MARK WHITE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1 PERSON AT A
TIME, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01047-NBF (W.D. Pa.), moves for an
order:

   * certifying the proposed class for final approval;

   * approving the terms of the proposed class action settlement
     agreement for purposes and finding the agreement is fair and
     reasonable;

   * approving the notice of the settlement provided to the
     members of the class;

   * approving counsel's request for attorneys' fees; and

   * approving counsel's request for an incentive award.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DLg0iHm5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com


276-8 PIZZA CORP: "Martinez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Martinez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, v. 276-8 Pizza Corp. dba John's Pizzeria of
Bleecker Street and Robert Vittoria, Case No. 1:18-cv-03859 (S.D.
N.Y., April 30, 2018), seeks damages for the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jose Luis Martinez is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. He was
employed by the Defendants at 276-8 Pizza Corp. dba John's
Pizzeria of Bleecker Street from 1993 until November 2017.

The Defendants own and operate a Pizzeria at 278 Bleecker Street,
New York, New York 10014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598


515 MADISON: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Encarnacion Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN ENCARNACION, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated v. 515 MADISON GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSEN SLOW
FAST FOOD, 515 MADISON A VENUE BAKE, LLC, doing business as ESSEN
SLOW FAST FOOD, or any other business entity doing business as
ESSEN SLOW FAST FOOD, located at 515 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10022, and CHONG H. LEE, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-05153
(S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants knowingly
and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff lawfully earned minimum
wages and overtime compensation in contravention of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

515 Madison Group, Inc., doing business as Essen, is a domestic
business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York, with a principal place of business in New York
City.  515 Madison Avenue Bake, LLC, doing business as Essen, is
a domestic business corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business
in New York City.  Chong H. Lee, is the owner, officer, director
or managing agent of Essen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
                  jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


AARON'S INC: Collection Process Violates TCPA, "Grogan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GROGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AARON'S INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02821-ODE (N.D. Ga.,
June 8, 2018), is brought for relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act arising from the alleged illegal activities of the
Defendant, which used pre-recorded and automatically dialed
messages to solicit payment from individuals it presumably
believed to be its debtors.

Aaron's is a Georgia corporation, with its principal place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Company leases furniture,
appliances, and electronic devices to its often credit-challenged
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Lin Wood, Esq.
          G. Taylor Wilson, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Grunberg, Esq.
          L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
          1180 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 891-1402
          Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
          E-mail: lwood@linwoodlaw.com
                  twilson@linwoodlaw.com
                  jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Narrows Claims in ACCP Access Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, T. K., Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-04595-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H.
Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
Adobe's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint or to
strike the class allegations.

Plaintiff T.K., a minor, brings the putative class action against
Adobe related to its sale of subscriptions to the Adobe Creative
Cloud Platform ("ACCP") to minors. In March 2016, T.K. was given
a one-year license to access ACCP as a gift.  In order to access
ACCP, she was required to create an Adobe account, which involves
agreeing to Adobe's terms of service for ACCP.  She was also
required to provide credit or debit card information.  T.K.
provided her own debit card information.

On Feb. 20, 2017, T.K. received an unsolicited email from Adobe
informing her that her subscription would renew on March 20, 2017
on an annual basis for a fee of $49.99 per month plus tax.  She
did not respond to this email.  On March 21, 2017, T.K. was
charged $52.99 by Adobe.  On April 21, 2017, she was charged
$52.99 by Adobe.

A short time later, T.K. through her parent Ari Kresch contacted
Adobe and disaffirmed the renewal of the agreement.  On April 26,
2017, Adobe refunded T.K. $52.99.  At some unspecified time after
T.K. filed the complaint in the case, which was on Aug. 10, 2017,
Adobe sent $52.99 to T.K.'s debit card.  T.K. did not voluntarily
accept these funds.  She alleges that she was injured
notwithstanding the refunds because she was denied the use of
these funds beginning on April 26, 2017.

T.K. alleges that by initially refusing to refund both of T.K.'s
monthly payments, Adobe refused to allow T.K. to disaffirm the
automatically renewed agreement.  She alleges that Adobe's
refusal is contrary to California Family Code Section 6710, which
provides minors the right to disaffirm contracts.  She alleges
that Adobe misinforms its users that all sales are final.

T.K. seeks to represent the putative class and subclass of all
ACCP users who are or were minor children according to Adobe's
own records for the four years preceding the date on which the
complaint is filed through the date on which a class is
certified.  Within the Class is a Subclass of minors who
purchased access to the ACCP and attempted to disaffirm the
agreement with Adobe according to Adobe's customer service
records, but were charged fees according to the disaffirmed
contract.

Before the Court is Adobe's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint or to strike the class allegations.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part Adobe's motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint or to strike the class
allegations.  She (i) denied the motion to strike the all sales
are final allegations; (ii) denied the motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction based on the arbitration and no-
class-action terms of the terms of service; (iii) granted with
leave to amend the motion to dismiss the CLRA claim; (iv) granted
with leave to amend the motion to dismiss the UCL claim as to the
fraudulent prong of the UCL and denied as to the unlawful prong
of the UCL; (v) granted with prejudice the motion to dismiss the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; (vi)
denied the motion to dismiss the quasi-contract/unjust enrichment
claim; (vii) denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory
judgment claim; (viii) denied the motion to strike the class and
subclass allegations; and (ix) dismissed sua sponte with leave to
amend the requests for prospective injunctive relief for lack of
Article III standing.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) she cannot say that
the "all sales are final" allegations have no possible bearing on
the subject of the litigation; (ii) she sees no basis to enforce
the arbitration or no-class-action terms of a contract that is
now a "nullity,"; (iii) T.K. has failed to plead reliance on the
allegedly misleading statement in Section 10.1 of the terms of
service; (iv) T.K. has alleged that Adobe's initial refusal to
return both of her payments under the disaffirmed contract
violated California Family Code Section 6710 and that she was
injured by this refusal; and (v) Adobe's alleged actions did not
interfere with T.K.'s right to receive the benefits of the
contract.

Judge Koh ordered that if T.K. fails to file a second amended
complaint within 30 days or fail to cure the deficiencies
identified in the Order or in any of Adobe's two motions to
dismiss, the claims dismissed in the Order will be dismissed with
prejudice.  T.K. may not add new causes of action or new parties
without a stipulation or leave of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Njk670 from Leagle.com.

T. K., by and through her Guardian ad Litem, LYNN KRESCH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Altman --
kaltman@lawampmmt.com -- Excolo Law, PLLC.

Adobe Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Trenton
Herbert Norris -- trent.norris@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & George Freeman Langendorf --
george.langendorf@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP.


ALLIED POWER: Blackburn Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JEFFREY BLACKBURN, JR.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees
v. ALLIED POWER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00347 (N.D.
Ill.), files with the Court his Motion for Stage-One Conditional
Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members.

Mr. Blackburn moves the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the proposed
      collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act;

   2. directing Allied to produce a computer-readable data fail
      containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last
      known personal and work e-mail addresses, telephone numbers
      (both landline and mobile), and dates of employment with
      Allied;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective
      members by mail, e-mail, and text message and an identical
      reminder notice via these means half-way through the opt-in
      period;

   4. authorizing posting of the notice at jobsites; and

   5. allowing for a 60-day opt-in period;

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vq9MyAbs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darren M. Mungerson, Esq.
          Jody A. Boquist, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 795-3264
          E-mail: jboquist@littler.com
                  dmungerson@littler.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wojcieski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wojcieski and Dustine Wilm move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of their lawsuit titled THOMAS
WOJCIESKI and DUSTINE WILM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Case No.
2:18-cv-00887-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiffs (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 Plaintiffs contend, 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 Plaintiffs assert, citing Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS
10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs remind the
Court 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 Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
assert.

As the Motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, 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=kRqpgBNZ

The Plaintiffs are 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


ALLY FINANCIAL: McKinnon Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Analysts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BELINDA McKINNON, on behalf
himself and all others similarly situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL,
INC., VACO NASHVILLE, LLC and VACO CHARLOTTE, LLC, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01462 (M.D. Tenn.), moves the Court to conditionally certify
an FLSA Collective Class defined as:

     All individuals who worked for Ally Financial, Inc. through
     staffing agencies as hourly-paid Compliance Analysts, or any
     equivalent position, at any location in the United States
     during the period from three years prior to the entry of the
     conditional certification order to the present.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to: order judicial notice to
the FLSA Collective Class; order Ally to produce a list of
putative class members, including information necessary to send
the Notice; order a 75-day period for responding to the Notice;
authorize the Plaintiff to distribute the Notice via First Class
U.S. Mail and email; and send a reminder postcard on or about 20
days before the end of the notice period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Fleenor" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fleenor moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled ROBERT FLEENOR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICOLLECT,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00798-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and
to grant him (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).

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

As the Motion to certify a class 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, Mr. Fleenor contends.

Mr. Fleenor 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=qk7zV1eT

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


ASHBURN CORP: Courts Denies Final Approval of "Cannon" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KYLE CANNON, LEWIS LYONS, and DIANE LYONS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ASHBURN CORPORATION, WINES `TIL SOLD OUT
(WTSO.COM), and JONATHAN H. NEWMAN, Defendants, Civil No. 16-1452
(RMB/AMD) (D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, denied the
parties' Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval.

Defendant Wines 'Til Sold Out sells wine exclusively through its
"flash-site" website, WTSO.com.  The Plaintiffs, alleged
customers of Wines 'Til Sold Out, assert that during the proposed
class period, Wines 'Til Sold Out advertised false original
prices and false discounts for wines sold on the WTSO.com website
in order to induce consumers to purchase certain wines.  The
Complaint identifies two different allegedly deceptive schemes --
one related to wines exclusively available on WTSO.com and
unavailable from any other seller (even directly from the
winery); and another related to wines available elsewhere,
although allegedly at prices different than what Wines 'Til Sold
Out represented.

The class proposed in the Complaint is all persons who purchased
from Defendants wines which were advertised for sale on the
WTSO.com website with a fictional, fabricated or inflated
'Original Price.'

The Complaint originally asserted four claims: (I) violation of
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); (II) unjust enrichment;
(III) fraud; (IV) breach of contract; (V) violation of New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA").

Wines 'Til Sold Out moved to dismiss all claims pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The Court dismissed, or dismissed without
prejudice with leave to amend, a majority of the claims, leaving
only the NJCFA, fraud and breach of contract claims premised on
the first theory of liability to survive.

More than six months later, following several extensions of the
Plaintiffs' time to file an amended complaint, the parties filed
a Joint Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class.  The parties
have represented to the Court that they did engage in some
limited "confirmatory discovery," which involved some document
production and at least two "interviews" of a Wines 'Til Sold Out
representatives.

The original proposed settlement provides for varying amounts of
"Credits" to the class members based on whether they purchased
wines listed on the Settlement Agreement's Exhibit A, Exhibit B,
or not listed, which the latter category the Court, and the
parties, have named the "C wines."  The Exhibit A wines
correspond to the wines alleged to be the subject of the
nonexistent comparator scheme described supra; the Exhibit B
wines correspond to the wines alleged to be the subject of the
alleged inflated comparator price scheme described supra, and the
C wines correspond to all other wines Wines 'Til Sold Out sold
during the class period.

Specifically, the Settlement Agreement provides:

      1. For every bottle of Settlement Wine listed on Exhibit A
purchased during the Class Period for $12.99 or less for which no
prior refund was given, the Class Member will receive a Credit of
$1.75.

      2. For every bottle of Settlement Wine listed on Exhibit A
purchased during the Class Period for $13.00 to $18.99 for which
no prior refund was given, the Class Member will receive a Credit
of $2.

      3. For every bottle of Settlement Wine listed on Exhibit A
purchased during the Class Period for $19 or greater for which no
prior refund was given, the Class Member will receive a Credit of
$2.25.

      4. For every bottle of Settlement Wine listed on Exhibit B
purchased as an individual offering (not as part of a combination
package of different wines) during the Class Period for $19.99 or
less for which no prior refund was given, the Class Member will
receive a Credit of $0.50.

      5. For every bottle of Settlement Wine listed on Exhibit B
purchased as an individual offering (not as part of a combination
package of different wines) during the Class Period for $20 or
greater for which no prior refund was given, the Class Member
will receive a Credit of $0.75.

      6. For every other bottle of Settlement Wine purchased
during the Class Period for which no prior refund was given, the
Class Member will receive a Credit of $0.20.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that Credits only may
be used to purchase wine from Wines 'Til Sold Out in the
following manner: The Credits will be applied against purchases
of any wine the first time it is offered on WTSO.com at the rate
of $2 off per bottle, or for the full or remaining Credit amount
if less than $2, for a period of one year following the date the
Credit codes described in Paragraph G below are emailed to the
Class Members.  To be eligible to receive Credits, the Class
Members must submit the Verification Form to the Settlement
Administrator online through the Settlement Website or by mail
within 30 days after the date of the Fairness Hearing.

If Wines 'Til Sold Out is unable to ship wine to a class member's
"primary residence" or "business address" during the Redemption
Period, the Settlement Agreement provides a cash option for only
these no-ship class members, the Class Member may contact WTSO
within 60 days of the Effective Date to request that WTSO pay
that Class Member in cash 50% of the amount of the Credits
received by that Class Member.  WTSO will provide the cash refund
within 30 days of the request.

Lastly, with respect to attorney's fees, the Settlement Agreement
states, the Class Counsel may request, and the Defendant will not
oppose, an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of no more than
of $1.7 million, which is subject to the Court's approval.  The
payment by the Defendant of the attorneys' fees and expenses is
separate from and in addition to the Class Representative Service
Awards and relief afforded the Class Members in the Agreement.

The Court held the preliminary approval hearing on Nov. 8, 2017.
It preliminarily certified the proposed settlement class, and
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, by Order dated
Nov. 16, 2017.

On March 19, 2018, the Court held a final approval hearing.
After the final approval hearing, the parties made two additional
changes to the settlement which they assert provide even further
benefit to the Class.  First, the Second Amended Settlement
Agreement, extends the Verification Period from mid-April to May
15, 2018.  Second, and more significantly, the parties have
changed the provisions concerning attorney's fees and the Cash
Fund.  The settlement now provides for the establishment of a
$1.2 million "Balance Fund" from which attorney's fees, if
awarded by the Court, will be paid.  In the event that the Court
awards fees in an amount less than the total in the Balance Fund,
the remainder will be "transferred" from the Balance Fund into
the Cash Fund to be distributed to class members with unused
Credits.  Thus, in theory, the Cash Fund could end up with a
balance of $1.7 million, but that would only occur if the Court
awarded no attorney's fees.

The class has not received formal notice of these most recent
changes to the settlement either.

After reviewing the post-hearing submissions, by an Order to Show
Cause dated March 29, 2018, the Court directed further briefing
on additional issues with respect to class certification.  In
addition to these written submissions, it has held two hearings
spanning almost six hours.  The Court has undertaken all of this
in an attempt to ascertain all of the information necessary to
decide whether to certify the proposed class and approve the
proposed settlement.

Judge Bumb finds that despite the Court's best efforts to afford
the parties ample opportunity to provide it with the information
it requires, many fundamental and important questions remain
unanswered.  Among other things, the Judge compares (1) the
strength of the putative class' claims with (2) the value of what
class members will receive in exchange for release of those
claims.  At this stage of the case, she cannot adequately
quantify either side of the equation.  She also cannot ascribe
any concrete, quantifiable value to either the Credits or the
injunctive relief, and she has no evidence from which to conclude
that the $500,000 Cash Fund is fair and adequate.

In addition, the Judge finds that the parties also have not
adequately addressed the concern, primarily raised by Objector
Taylor and the Ohio Objectors, that the $2 stacking limit will
effectively force class members to increase their purchasing
frequency in order to exhaust their Credits within the Redemption
Period.  Under such circumstances, she cannot determine the value
of the settlement to the class and cannot hold that the proposed
settlement is fair to the class.

The parties have not submitted a single statement from a single
class member -- not even from the named Plaintiffs -- stating the
class member's interest in using the Credits.  Thus, the Judge
lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that class members do,
indeed, want to use the Credits.

Judge Bumb further finds that the addition of the Cash Fund
option does not salvage the proposed settlement from disapproval.

Finally, the Judge says it is not clear to the Court that the
injunctive relief should be considered in the Court's
determination of whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  Assuming arguendo, however, that the Court may
consider this change in Wines 'Til Sold Out's behavior, which did
come about after the initiation of the instant suit, whatever
value this element adds to the value conferred on the class
cannot overcome the other deficiencies.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ybAjf1 from Leagle.com.

KEITH BROWN, Objector, pro se.

KENDALL M. COX, Objector, pro se.

WILLIAM B. JAMES, Objector, pro se.

STEVEN D. MAYER, Objector, pro se.

Derek Hansen, Vytauras Sasnauskas & Ryan Russell, Objectors,
represented by RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com --
FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC & MONICA M. LITTMAN --
mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC.

Ryan Radia, Objector, represented by JOSHUA DAVID WOLSON --
jwolson@dilworthlaw.com -- DILWORTH PAXSON LLP.

PATRICK DEAN TAYLOR, Objector, pro se.

EDWARD TAHIR DUCKETT, Objector, pro se.

KYLE CANNON, LEWIS LYONS & DIANNE LYONS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & LINDSEY H. TAYLOR --
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO.

ASHBURN CORPORATION & WINES TIL SOLD OUT, (WTSO.COM), Defendants,
represented by GREGORY STEPHEN MORTENSON --
gregory.mortenson@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, JAMES M.
MCCLAMMER -- JMcClammer@mankogold.com -- MANKO GOLD KATCHER & FOX
LLP, NICOLE R. MOSHANG -- nmoshang@mankogold.com -- MANKO GOLD
KATCHER & FOX LLP & SUZANNE ILENE SCHILLER --
sschiller@mankogold.com -- Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP.

Mark Brnovich, Amicus, represented by SCOTT B. GALLA --
sgalla@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL PC.

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by GUSTAV
EYLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH &
JOSHUA DAVID ROTHMAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONSUMER
PROTECTION BRANCH.


AXA EQUITABLE: NJ App. Div. Affirms "Shuster" Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed
the Law Division's dismissal with prejudice of the case, ARLENE
SHUSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, Docket No. A-3160-15T1 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.).

In 1993, Shuster purchased a Flexible Premium Variable Life
Insurance Policy from the predecessor of Defendant, AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Co.  The Plaintiff made two premium payments of
$100,000 each in 1993 and 1994.

In November 2014, she filed a putative class action complaint
alleging AXA breached the Contract.  Broadly stated, the Contract
permitted policyholders to direct the investment of net premium
amounts -- amounts in excess of insurance costs and expenses --
either with the Guaranteed Interest Division ("GID"), which
guaranteed an annual percentage return, or with a "Separate
Account" ("SA").

At the policyholder's direction, funds in the SA would be
invested with different investment divisions within AXA, which,
by the terms of the Contract, invested in securities and other
investments whose value was subject to market fluctuations and
investment risk.  The Plaintiff directed investment in particular
SA funds.

The Plaintiff claimed that beginning in 2009, AXA pursued a
"volatility-management strategy" in some of its SA funds,
including those in which she had invested.  She alleged that in
its filing with DFS, AXA portrayed the amendment adopting its
"volatility-management strategy" as "routine," permitting
implementation of the strategy in due course without review as a
new "original" filing.

In March 2014, AXA entered into a consent order with DFS.  The
Consent Order summarized DFS's findings resulting from an
investigation commenced in 2011 into AXA's implementation of
changed investment strategies in its "variable annuity products."
DFS found AXA violated Section 4240(e) in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by
filing Plans of Operation without adequately informing and
explaining to DFS the significance of the changes to the
insurance product.  The consent order required AXA to pay a civil
fine, obtain necessary approvals for modifications and
communicate with policyholders.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleged AXA breached its contractual
promise to comply with applicable law and not make material
changes in the SA's operating plan without DFS approval.  It
alleged the breach resulted in AXA's implementation of the
volatility-management strategy that "reduced the returns" in
funds held by the Plaintiff and other class members.

AXA removed the Plaintiff's complaint to federal district court
and asked that venue be transferred to the Southern District of
New York, where another action, Zweiman v. AXA Equitable Life
Ins. Co., was pending at the time.  Before AXA's change of venue
motion was heard, AXA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it
was precluded by SLUSA.  The Plaintiff opposed the motions and
moved to remand the complaint to the Law Division

In a comprehensive written decision, the district court judge
concluded AXA's misrepresentation was an essential predicate for
the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.  However, applying four
factors relevant to whether the misrepresentation satisfied the
in connection prong of SLUSA, the judge concluded AXA failed to
make the required showing.  He remanded the complaint to the Law
Division.

AXA promptly filed a motion to dismiss, claiming claimed among
other things that the Plaintiff failed to allege AXA made any
misrepresentation to policy holders, or that she suffered
consequential damages from any breach of the Contract.  AXA also
reiterated that SLUSA precluded the Plaintiff's complaint.  The
judge concluded SLUSA precluded class claims in that suit for
breach of contract based upon the Consent Order.

After considering oral argument, the Law Division judge dismissed
the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because SLUSA precluded
the action.  The appeal ensued.

The Superior Court finds that it is undisputed that the Plaintiff
alleged AXA breached the Contract by misrepresenting the nature
and scope of its volatility management strategy in order to
secure DFS approval without the review compelled by an "initial"
filing.  This misrepresentation to DFS resulted in AXA initiating
the particular trading strategy and trading securities within the
SA accounts, allegedly to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the
putative class members.

The Court further finds that the Plaintiff contends AXA's non-
public DPS filings did not induce her to make any investment
decision and therefore the misrepresentation cannot be "in
connection" with the purchase or sale of covered securities as
required by SLUSA.  However, the Supreme Court has rejected such
a cramped construction.  Under the terms of the Contract, the
Plaintiff retained the ability to transfer her shares in the SA
account to one or more other divisions of the SA or to the GID
upon her written request.

The Court holds that the Plaintiff's claim for damages relies
wholly upon the assertion that AXA's misrepresentation to DFS
resulted in AXA implementing a trading strategy for the
investments she maintained in the SA accounts that inured to her
detriment.  The broad interpretation of the "in connection" prong
applied by the Supreme Court and other courts means that SLUSA
precludes the Plaintiff's titular breach of contract claim.

Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/MLbaRb from Leagle.com.

Barbara J. Hart -- bhart@lowey.com -- (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart, PC) of the New York and Connecticut bars, admitted pro hac
vice, argued the cause for appellant (Cohn Lifland Pearlman
Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, Zucker Steinberg & Wixted, PA, and Barbara
Hart, attorneys; Peter S. Pearlman, Audra DePaolo, Sung-Min Lee -
- SLee@lowey.com -- (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, PC), David C.
Harrison -- dharrison@lowey.com -- (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart, PC) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Joshua
H. Grabar (Bolognese & Associates, LLC) of the Pennsylvania bar,
admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs).

Jay B. Kasner -- Jay.Kasner@skadden.com -- (Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice,
argued the cause for respondent (Carl D. Poplar, PA and Jay B.
Kasner, attorneys; Carl D. Poplar, Jay B. Kasner and Kurt Wm.
Hemr -- Kurt.Hemr@skadden.com -- (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, LLP) of the New York and Massachusetts bars, admitted pro
hac vice, of counsel and on the brief).


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Fund's Class Certified in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrew J. Guilford grants the motion for class
certification filed by Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund,
the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuit
styled IN RE BANC OF CALIFORNIA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
8:17-cv-00118-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies a class defined as:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     the common stock of Banc of California, Inc. ("Banc" or the
     "Company") during the period from April 15, 2016 through
     January 20, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were
     damaged thereby.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants,
     present or former executive officers and directors of Banc
     and their immediate family members (as defined in 17 C.F.R.
     Section 229.404, Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)).

The Court also appoints the Fund as class representative, and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP lawyers as class counsel.

Several lawsuits were filed against Defendants Banc of
California, a financial holding company, and its former CEO
Steven A. Sugarman purporting to allege securities fraud claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 adopted
by the Security and Exchange Commission to implement the Exchange
Act.  Those lawsuits were consolidated and Iron Workers Local No.
25 Pension Fund was appointed as lead plaintiff.

The Fund alleges that the Defendants misled their investors by
concealing ties between Mr. Sugarman and notorious securities
fraudster, Jason Galanis.  The Fund relies on the Mr. Sugarman's
biography filed on April 15, 2016, with Banc's 2015 Proxy.  Among
other things, the Fund alleges that Mr. Sugarman's biography
"touted his involvement" with COR, the entity that was
responsible for the recapitalization of Banc, and related
entities, "but failed to disclose the ties Sugarman and those
companies had to Galanis."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EzG4wsFd


BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Accused by Ding of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUI HUA DING, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BAUMGART RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, BAUMGART'S
NEXT DOOR, INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, GOU-FU WANG a/k/a Sam
Wang, STEVE WU, MARSHA WU, and THEAN CHOO CHONG, Case No. 2:18-
cv-10358 (D.N.J., June 10, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law arising from their practice of failing to pay their
employees minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

Baumgart Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Baumgart's Cafe, is
a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
state of New Jersey with a principal address in Englewood, New
Jersey.  Baumgart's Next Door, Inc., doing business as Baumgart's
Cafe, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws
of the state of New Jersey with a principal address in Englewood.

The Individual Defendants are the owners, operators or employees
of the Corporate Defendants.  The Defendants operate an Asian-
Italian fusion restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


BLUE CROSS: Ct. Issues Order on Seal Bids in Shane Group Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No. 10-CV-14360
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, has
issued an order regarding various motions to seal or redact filed
by Blue Cross, Spectrum Health Systems, The Dow Chemical Co. and
CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Co.

The matter is on remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit ordered that on remand, the Court must begin
the Rule 23(e) process anew.  It vacated the Court's approval of
the settlement and its orders sealing documents in the court
record.

On June 22, 2012, a Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint
was filed against Blue Cross alleging: Unlawful Agreement in
Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the Rule of
Reason (Count I); Unlawful Agreements in Violation of Section 2
of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (Count II).   The class
action seeks to recover overcharges paid by purchasers of
Hospital Healthcare Services directly to hospitals in Michigan
that resulted from the anticompetitive acts of Blue Cross.

Blue Cross is a Michigan nonprofit healthcare corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.  It provides, directly and
through its subsidiaries, health insurance and administrative
services, including preferred provider organization ("PPO")
health insurance products and health maintenance organization
("HMO") health insurance products.

On remand, the Court held a status conference in the matter.  A
Scheduling Order was issued on Aug. 25, 2016 setting dates
regarding the sealed matters and setting dates for the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.
After Blue Cross conferred with the Third Parties regarding the
sealed documents, many of the previously sealed documents have
been unsealed by agreement or with no opposition.  Motions to
remain sealed or redact certain documents were filed by Blue
Cross, Spectrum Health Systems, The Dow Chemical Co. and CIGNA
Health and Life Insurance Co.  Briefs have been filed and a
hearing held on the matter.

Blue Cross seeks redactions to portions of 12 exhibits (out of
153 exhibits) to four briefs Blue Cross previously filed under
seal.  It appears that Blue Cross followed the Sixth Circuit's
requirement that a movant seeking to seal or redact documents
must review the documents line by line.  The Class Plaintiffs
filed a response to this motion.

After weighing the competing interests in determining whether to
redact certain documents, Judge Hood will grant in part and deny
in part Blue Cross' Motion to Redact and Keep Under Seal Limited
Information.  Among other things, the Judge finds that Blue Cross
has shown a compelling reason that specific portions of the Aoun
communications should be redacted and the redaction is narrowly
tailored to serve Blue Cross' interest in redacting its rate and
margin information trade secret from the public and its
competitors; and Blue Cross has also shown a compelling reason
that specific portions of the exhibits to the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification should be redacted and the redaction be
narrowly tailored to serve Blue Cross' interest in redacting its
rate, margin and reimbursement methodology information trade
secret from the public and its competitors.  Blue Cross may file
the redacted version of the Aoun communications.

Spectrum seeks to preserve exhibits under seal based on attorney-
client privilege and sensitive private information regarding the
legal advice between Spectrum and its outside counsel, Joseph
Aoun.  Blue Cross filed a response indicating it did not oppose
Spectrum's motion.  The Class Plaintiffs did not file a response
addressing Spectrum's motion.

The Judge's review of the documents previously-filed in Doc. No.
110 shows that these documents are subject to the attorney-client
privilege.  Spectrum owns the privilege and it has shown that
these documents were inadvertently produced.  Spectrum has not
waived its privilege over these documents.  None of the parties
object to Spectrum's request that these exhibits remain sealed.
The Judge finds that Spectrum has established that it is entitled
to the requested relief of continuing to seal these documents.
Therefore, she will grant Spectrum's Motion to Preserve Exhibits
Under Seal.

Dow Chemical seeks to keep sealed or redacted, Dow's information
contained in the expert report of Dr. Christopher A. Vellturo.
It reviewed the Vellturo report and seeks to retain three of the
pages sealed based on confidential, proprietary trade secrets and
highly confidential information which Dow claims would
commercially harm Dow if made public.  Blue Cross does not oppose
Dow's request. The Class Plaintiffs respond that Dow has not
established that the information it seeks to protect qualifies as
trade secrets or that its privacy interest outweighs the interest
of the public in accessing court records.

Judge Hood finds that Dow has shown that this information is
confidential and is a trade secret which goes to its ability to
negotiate the costs of healthcare and its overall financial
strength.  Redaction of paragraphs 308, 309, 310 and 311 is
narrowly tailored to serve Dow's interest in protecting its
confidential information and methodology information as to how it
chooses healthcare providers for its employees from the public
and its competitors.  As to paragraphs 312 and 313, she finds
that the information may assist the class members in evaluating
whether the proposed class settlement is reasonable.  Paragraphs
312 and 313 will not be redacted.  Hence, she granted in part and
denied in part Dow Chemical's Motion to Seal/Motion to Redact
Certain Informationt as set forth.

Aetna seeks to redact and keep under seal limited information.
Blue Cross objects to some of Aetna's request.  The Class
Plaintiffs object to Aetna's request arguing that Aetna has not
provided a line by line demonstration necessary to justify the
requested redactions.

After reviewing the cited documents, the Judge grants in part
Aetna's request to redact certain passages, finding that the
redaction is narrowly tailored to protect Aetna's confidential
strategies and information.  Among other things, paragraphs 312
and 313 on page 118 will not be redacted because it shows the
reason why and how MidMichigan dealt with both Aetna and Blue
Cross.  This information, and the remaining passages the Court
declined to redact, may be relevant to the Class Plaintiffs'
evaluation of the Settlement Agreement.  Aetna may redact certain
passages of the October 9, 2012 Michael Winters deposition found
in Doc. No. 133.  Aetna may also redact Deborah Lantzy-Talpos'
Nov. 13, 2012 deposition found in Doc. No. 133, Ex. AA, lines
57:7 to 57:12 and lines 58:6 to 58:11 as these passages include
Aetna's confidential business strategies.

Cigna filed the Motion to Intervene in order to file a motion to
redact and seal limited portions of a document which contains
highly confidential, proprietary, and competitively trade secret
information.  Judge Hood holds that the Court recently issued an
Order denying the Varnum Group's Motion to Intervene noting that
the Sixth Circuit's ruling allowed parties to request documents
to be sealed and that no intervention was required.  Hence, she
will deny Cigna's Motion to Intervene since it is not required to
seek redaction or seal certain documents.

Finally, Cigna seeks to redact certain portions of the Nov. 29,
2012 Michele Hanrahan Tracy Deposition.  Cigna listed in
Attachment A to its motion the pages and lines to be redacted.
Blue Cross does not object to Cigna's request.  The Class
Plaintiffs object claiming that Cigna has not provided a line by
line demonstration necessary to justify the requested redactions.

Judge Hood has reviewed Cigna's affidavit in support of its
motion, along with the specific reasons for each requested
redaction found in Doc. No. 312-2, Pg ID 12172-12175, the
proposed redacted deposition found in Doc. No. 312-3, Pg ID
12177-12188, and the unredacted deposition found in Doc. No. 294,
Ex. 47.  She finds the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored
to protect Cigna's trade secrets, confidential rates, negotiating
strategy, customer and competitor names. Cigna may redact Ms.
Tracy's deposition as noted in Doc. No. 312-3, specifically
lines: 109:11-12; 110:1; 110:5; 110:16; 110:19; 111:7; 111:9;
111:11-12; 111:17; 117:1.

For all these reasons, Judge Hood (i) granted in part and denied
in part Blue Cross' Motion to Seal/Redact and Keep Under Seal
Limited Information; (ii) granted Spectrum's Motion to Preserve
Exhibits Under Sea; (iii) granted in part and denied in part
Dow's Motion to Seal/Redact Certain Information; (iv) denied
Cigna's Motion to Intervene; and (v) granted Cigna's Motion to
Seal/Redact.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/r9zU1V from Leagle.com.

The Shane Group, Inc. & Bradley A. Veneberg, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Casey A. Fry, Miller Law
Firm, P.C., Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
-- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Hedlund --
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel J.
Nordin -- dnordin@gustafsongluek.com -- GustafsonGluek PLLC,
Daniel Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, Jennifer E. Frushour,
Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com --
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mary Jane Fait, Theodore Bell --
tbell@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldens tein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC
& David H. Fink -- dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com -- Fink +
Associates Law.

Scott Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver, Brent
W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Daniel Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel J. Nordin,
GustafsonGluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, David M.
Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Erin C.
Burns -- eburns@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Theodore Bell, Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner --
wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen & E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund,
Abatement Workers National Health and Welfare Fund & Monroe
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 671 Welfare Fund, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Daniel J. Nordin, GustafsonGluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen,
Milstein, Michael A. Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Michelle L. Alamo -- malamo@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright, Michelle R. Heikka -- icle@umich.edu -- Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan, Patrick B. Green --
pgreen@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Robert A.
Phillips, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Thomas G. McNeill --
tmcneill@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Thomas J.
Rheaume, Jr. -- trheaume@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC, Todd M.
Stenerson -- todd.stenerson@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling
LLP, Farayha J. Arrine -- farrine@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Jason R. Gourley, Bodman LLP.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Todd M. Stenerson, Shearman & Sterling
LLP.

City of Pontiac, Interested Party, represented by Jason J.
Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Alyson L. Oliver, Interested Party, pro se.

Gratiot Community Hospital, Metro Health, MidMichigan Health,
Marquette General Health System, Covenant Healthcare, Covenant
Medical Center, Inc., Metropolitan Hospital, CHE Trinity,
Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Bronson Health Care
Group, Inc., University of Michigan Health System, Prime
Healthcare Services - Garden City, LLC, McLaren Health Care
Corporation, Health Alliance Plan of Michigan, Charlevoix Area
Hospital & DLP Marquette General Hospital, LLC, Interested
Partys, represented by David A. Ettinger --
dettinger@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn
LLP.

Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Jonathan F.
Jorissen -- Jorissen@BWST-Law.com -- Brooks Wilkins Sharkey &
Turco, Michael R. Shumaker -- mrshumaker@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day & Thomas Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Sparrow Hospital & Munson Medical Center, Interested Partys,
represented by Richard C. Kraus -- rkraus@fosterswift.com --
Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C.


BOLUFE ENTERPRISES: Gerstenberger Sues Over Text Message Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN GERSTENBERGER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BOLUFE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-22312-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 9,
2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by using automatic telephone dialing systems to
send text message advertisements to the Plaintiff and the
putative class members promoting its used car business without
obtaining prior express written consent.

Bolufe Enterprises, Inc., is an independent used car dealer.  The
Defendant acquires used vehicles to maintain its inventory and
sells vehicles from its inventory to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (305) 323-6433
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
                  richardbennett27@gmail.com


BURGER KING: Gesten Seeks to Certify Consumers Class Under FACTA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RYAN GESTEN, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated v. BURGER KING
CORPORATION, d/b/a BURGER KING, Case No. 1:18-cv-20450-CMA (S.D.
Fla.), seeks an order certifying a class of individuals for whom,
like the Plaintiff, BK printed a credit/debit card receipt that
revealed the first six digits of the proposed class member's
credit or debit card account number.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks certification of a class
defined as:

     All individuals in the U.S.: (i) who made a purchase at one
     of the forty-nine Burger King Corporation restaurants listed
     on Exhibit C to Defendant's supplemental discovery responses
     during any of the time periods in which the Verifone VX 820
     device is described as being "installed" on Exhibit C; (ii)
     who paid for their purchase using a debit or credit card
     according to BK's records; and (iii) whose transaction was
     classified as " according to BK's records.

Mr. Gesten alleges that BK systematically and willfully violated
one of the most basic federal consumer protection against
identity theft -- The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
He contends that BK allowed each of its 49 corporate-owned Burger
King restaurants in Florida to systematically disclose the first
six and last four digits -- nearly two thirds -- of its
customer's credit and debit card account numbers on their
transaction receipts, exposing them to a Congressionally-
determined risk of identity theft that only exists because of
BK's actions.

Mr. Gesten also asks the Court to appoint him and his counsel
class representative and class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Sean M. Holas, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  sean@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Certification of Class Sought in "Voeks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks and George Voeks move the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of their lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS
and GEORGE VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I,
LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00883-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and
to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendants) 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 Plaintiffs assert, 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 Plaintiffs tell 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 Plaintiffs
assert 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 Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, 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=JbnCo69P

The Plaintiffs are 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


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Arbitrator's Decisions in "Katz" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL KATZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 12 CV 9193 (VB) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (i) granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion to partially confirm and partially
vacate the arbitrator's decisions of Oct. 28, 2016, and June 29,
2017; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike from the
record and/or preclude admissibility of all of Verizon's
references to an unrelated arbitration award and the Court's
confirmation thereof; (iii) and granted Verizon's motion to
confirm the arbitrator's decisions of Oct. 28, 2016, and June 29,
2017.

Katz brings the putative class action against Verizon, asserting
claims under New York state law for breach of contract and
consumer fraud based on an administrative charge assessed by
Verizon.

The Plaintiff is a former Verizon subscriber.  In 2012, he
assigned his account to his nonmarital partner, Rita Lenda, but
continued to pay the account bills.  Included in those bills was
a monthly administrative charge ranging from $0.40 in 2005 to
$0.99 in 2012.  In 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to Verizon's
customer agreement, which contained an arbitration clause
requiring the parties to resolve disputes only by arbitration or
in small claims court.

On Dec. 18, 2012, he filed a complaint in the Court asserting
putative class action claims for breach of contract and consumer
fraud under New York's General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349,
and seeking a declaratory judgment that enforcement of the
arbitration agreement would violate Article III of the United
States Constitution.

On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff moved for partial summary
judgment on his declaratory judgment claim and Verizon cross-
moved to compel individual arbitration.  On Dec. 12, 2013, the
Court denied his motion, granted Verizon's motion, and dismissed
the case.

On July 28, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of
Verizon's motion to compel arbitration.  However, the Circuit
vacated and remanded in part with instructions to stay the
proceedings pending arbitration.  By Order dated Aug. 26, 2015,
the Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Demand for
Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, which
sought a declaration regarding the enforceability of Section 3 of
the arbitration agreement; damages for breach of contract and
consumer fraud under GBL Section 349; and individual and general
injunctive relief under GBL Section 349.  The same day, Verizon
moved the Court to determine whether the arbitration agreement
permitted the Plaintiff to seek general injunctive relief.

On May 27, 2016, the Court denied Verizon's motion, holding the
issue was for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance.  It
also denied the Plaintiff's cross-motion for attorney's fees and
costs.

On Oct. 28, 2016, the arbitrator issued a decision granting
Verizon's motion for summary disposition and holding the
Plaintiff could not seek general injunctive relief under GBL
Section 349 -- i.e., relief on behalf of all present and future
customers of Verizon who are or may be in the future subjected to
the alleged Verizon's wrongful and deceptive Administrative
Charge practices.

On Dec. 13, 2016, Verizon tendered a check to the Plaintiff for
$1,500, stating the check represented a full refund of the
disputed administrative charge plus the maximum amount to which
the Plaintiff was entitled in damages.  The Plaintiff rejected
the tender.

On June 29, 2017, the arbitrator issued a second decision
granting Verizon's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The
arbitrator found the Plaintiff was not a customer of Verizon and
that he has no obligation to pay the Verizon bill of his non-
marital partner and therefore lacks standing to seek individual
injunctive relief under GBL Sec. 349.  The arbitrator also found
the Plaintiff had not disputed that $1,500 represented the full
amount in dispute.  The arbitrator thus rejected his request for
individual injunctive relief and an accounting, and ordered
Verizon to pay him $1,500 without interest and $500 in attorney's
fees.  The arbitrator also awarded arbitrator compensation in the
amount of $13,962.50, to be paid by Verizon pursuant to the
arbitration agreement.

The Plaintiff seeks to confirm the October 2016 Decision to the
extent it holds Section 3 of the arbitration agreement is
enforceable and vacate it in all other respects under Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") Section 10(a).  He further seeks to
vacate the June 2017 Decision in its entirety under FAA Section
10(a), and to vacate those parts of the October 2016 Decision and
the June 2017 Decision that constitute rulings of law, on the
ground that the Plaintiff's alleged involuntary consent to the
standard of review under FAA Section 10(a)(4) amounted to a
deprivation of due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Because Verizon requested that the Court confirms the Decisions
in their entirety, and because a motion to confirm and a motion
to vacate an arbitration award submit identical issues for
judicial determination, Judge Briccetti construes Verizon's
opposition as a motion to confirm the Decisions.

As to the Plaintiff's move to vacate parts of the October 2016
Decision on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his
authority and manifestly disregarded the law, the Judge is not
persuaded.  He finds that the arbitrator did not exceed his
powers under Section 3 of the arbitration agreement by holding
GBL Section 349 does not permit general injunctive relief, and
did not manifestly disregard the law by holding the Plaintiff was
not entitled to general injunctive relief under GBL Section 349.

The Judge is also not persuaded with the Plaintiff's move to
vacate parts of the June 2017 Decision on the grounds that the
arbitrator exceeded his powers and manifestly disregarded the
law.  The Plaintiff also seeks to vacate the June 2017 Decision
in its entirety on the grounds that there was evident partiality
or corruption in the arbitrator, and the arbitrator was guilty of
misconduct.  The Judge finds that the arbitrator did not exceed
his powers by awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $500.
And because the arbitrator did not intentionally defy the law, he
did not manifestly disregard the law by ruling Verizon must pay
the Plaintiff $1,500 without interest.  The arbitrator is not
also guilty of misconduct for denying the Plaintiff the right to
take limited discovery or because of his statements during the
Dec. 16, 2016, telephone conference.  And lastly, the Plaintiff
has failed to show evident partiality on the part of the
arbitrator either because Verizon paid his fees or from the Dec.
16, 2016, telephone conference.

As to the Plaintiff's argument that his right to due process of
law under the Fifth Amendment was violated, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff's due process claim deals with the
constitutionality of waiving judicial review of arbitration
proceedings.  It is law of the case that the requisite state
action is absent in the signing of the arbitration agreement.
The Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim thus fails for
lack of state action.

Finally, the Judge holds that he will not strike references in
Verizon's opposition to the Schatz arbitration award and the
Court decision confirming the award.  The Plaintiff argues that
the arbitration agreement governing the Schatz arbitration
applies only to that case, and therefore any citations to it are
prohibited. He says the Plaintiff offers no support that such
language prohibits the Court from considering judicial precedent.
Nor, in the Court's view, could he.

Accordingly, Judge Briccetti granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion to partially confirm and partially vacate
the arbitrator's decisions of Oct. 28, 2016, and June 29, 2017.
He denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike and/or preclude.  He
granted the Defendant's motion to confirm the arbitrator's
decisions of Oct. 28, 2016, and June 29, 2017.  The Clerk is
instructed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/YaIu6B from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Katz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Robert
Weinstein -- Bill@wweinsteinlaw.com -- Law Offices of William R.
Weisnstein.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless,
Defendant, represented by Joshua S. Turner --
jturner@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP & John Lin, Wiley Rein
LLP.


CENTRAL LOAN: Wins Final OK of Class Settlement in "Jones" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian Martinotti grants final approval to the class
action settlement entered by the parties in the lawsuit entitled
HARRY JONES, GLORY JONES, AND PETER HODDERSEN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CENTRAL LOAN
ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING d/b/a Cenlar FSB, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-09245-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.),

The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class, as identified
in the Settlement Agreement, which shall consist of:

     All borrowers in the United States who, within the
     Settlement Class Period (as defined below), were charged by
     Cenlar under a hazard, flood, flood gap or wind-only LPI
     Policy for Residential Property, and who, within the
     Settlement Class Period, either (i) paid to Cenlar at least
     a portion of the Net Premium for that LPI Policy or (ii) did
     not pay to and still owe the Net Premium for that LPI
     Policy.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i)
     individuals who are or were during the Settlement Class
     Period officers or directors of the Defendants or any of
     their respective affiliates; (ii) any justice, judge, or
     magistrate judge of the United States or any State, their
     spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship
     to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; (iii)
     borrowers who only had an LPI Policy that was cancelled in
     its entirety such that any premiums charged and/or collected
     were fully refunded to the borrower or the borrower's escrow
     account; (iv) borrowers who, since the issuance of the LPI
     Policy, filed a Petition under Chapter 7 of the United
     States Bankruptcy Code that compromised or discharged
     indebtedness on their Residential Property secured by their
     security instrument; and, (v) all borrowers who filed a
     timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement
     Class, who the Court finds are listed in Exhibit A hereto.

The "Settlement Class Period" shall commence on January 1, 2010,
and shall continue through and including December 6, 2017.

Judge Martinotti finally appoints the law firms of The Moskowtiz
Law Firm, PLLC, Kozyak, Tropin, & Throckmorton, LLP, Podhurst
Orseck, RA, and Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class.  Judge Martinotti also finally designates
Named Plaintiffs Harry Jones, Glory Jones, and Peter Hoddersen as
the Settlement Class Representatives.

The Court awards Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the amount of $830,000 payable
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  The Court
also awards Case Contribution Awards in the amount of $5,000 to
the Named Plaintiffs Harry and Glory Jones collectively and Peter
Hoddersen individually payable pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Final Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=czaF7HbR


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Arbitrage Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE ARBITRAGE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC., ROBERT C. SKAGGS, JR.,
STEPHEN P. SMITH, GLEN L. KETTERING, SIGMUND L. CORNELIUS, MARTY
R. KITTRELL, W. LEE NUTTER, DEBORAH S. PARKER, LESTER P.
SILVERMAN, and TERESA A. TAYLOR, Case No. 1:18-cv-00861-UNA (D.
Del., June 8, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing false and misleading
proxy materials and breached the fiduciary duties they owed to
the Plaintiff and the Class.

The class action is brought on behalf of all Columbia Pipeline
shareholders, except the Defendants and their affiliates, (i) who
held common shares as of May 18, 2016, the record date for
Columbia Pipeline shareholders to be eligible to vote on the
merger between Columbia Pipeline and TransCanada Corporation and
(ii) who held common shares through July 1, 2016, the day the
merger closed.

Columbia Pipeline was a Delaware corporation, created following
the Spinoff from NiSource, Inc., 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:

          Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0336
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
                  bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Jessica A. Margulis, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  jmargulis@entwistle-law.com


CORRECTIONS CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Grae" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
02267 (M.D. Tenn.), moves the Court for an order certifying the
matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Lead Plaintiff is Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the
LongView Collective Investment Fund.  The Lead Plaintiff also
asks the Court to appoint it as Class Representative and to
approve its selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oRXy7ImQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (800) 449-4900
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  clyons@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Black, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dennish@rgrdlaw.com
                  willowr@rgrdlaw.com
                  kennyb@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com


CRST EXPEDITED: Montoya's Bid to Certify Classes Allowed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Patti B. Saris entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit entitled JUAN CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., and CRST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-10095-PBS (D. Mass.):

   -- allowing the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action;

   -- allowing in part and denying in part the motion to certify
      the proposed Iowa wage class;

   -- allowing in part and denying in part the motion to certify
      a consumer-fraud class; and

   -- allowing in part and denying in part the motion to certify
      the Iowa usury class.

The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class asserting claims under
Iowa's usury law is allowed in part, with respect to the class of
drivers, who signed the Training Agreement and/or the Employment
Contract, received a collection letter, and did not complete
Phase 4.  The motion is otherwise denied.

Juan Carlos Montoya alleges that the Defendants underpaid their
long-haul truck drivers, misled them regarding the costs of
driver training, and imposed excessive charges to recoup those
costs in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
Iowa law.

Mr. Montoya seeks to certify four classes:

   -- Count I (a collective action under the FLSA):

      All individuals who have participated as contract drivers
      in any phase of CRST's Driver Training Program, at any time
      since December 22, 2013;

   -- Counts II and III (classes under Iowa's wage laws and
      Consumer Frauds Act):

      All individuals who have participated as contract drivers
      in any phase of CRST's Driver Training Program, at any time
      since January 21, 2014; and

   -- Count IV (a class under Iowa's usury law):

      All individuals who have signed pre-employment contracts
      and/or driver employment contracts with CRST that have
      provided for an interest rate on amounts owed at a rate
      higher than the maximum lawful rate of interest determined
      by the Iowa Superintendent of Banking (ranging between 3.5
      percent and 7.25 percent per annum) at any time since
      January 21, 2006.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1GYfNoub


DELTA AIR: Faces "McGarry" Suit Over Breach of Customers' PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA J. McGARRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and [24]7.AI, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02794-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2018), arises from a data breach
involving Delta customers, whose sensitive personal
identification and payment card information was hacked and
accessed for a period of weeks in September and October 2017.

According to Delta, Delta and its third-party vendor, [24]7.ai,
who, along with Delta collected customers' personal
identification and financial information to make travel bookings,
suffered a malware attack, which allowed customer information to
be accessed by hackers.  Despite the hack occurring six months
prior, the Plaintiff alleges, Delta customers were not notified
of the breach of their sensitive information until April 2018.

Delta Air Lines, Inc., is a major American airline.  Delta is a
Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Delta maintains and operates a Web
site where customers can book tickets for airline travel online.

[24]7.ai is a California corporation with its headquarters in San
Jose, California.  [24]7.ai provides online chat services for
Delta and other companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cale Conley, Esq.
          Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW
          Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 467-1155
          E-mail: cale@conleygriggs.com
                  ranse@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Denis F. Sheils, Esq.
          Barbara L. Gibson, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: dsheils@kohnswift.com
                  bgibson@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: gmn@whafh.com


DEMARK INC: Griffin Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN GRIFFIN, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated v. DEMARK, INC., Case No. 1:18-
cv-00979 (N.D. Ill.), files with the Court his Motion for Stage-
One Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class
Members.

Mr. Griffin contends he and the Putative Class Members were
together the victims of Demark's common policy or plan (straight
time for overtime pay practice) alleged to violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Griffin also asks the Court to:

   1. order Demark to produce a computer-readable data fail
      containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last
      known personal and work e-mail addresses, telephone numbers
      (both landline and mobile), and dates of employment with
      Demark;

   2. authorize the issuance of notice to all collective members
      by mail, e-mail, and text message and an identical reminder
      notice via these means half-way through the opt-in period;

   3. authorize posting of the notice at jobsites; and

   4. allow for a 60-day opt-in period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Rebecca P. DeGroff, Esq.
          Alex W. Karasik, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  rdegroff@seyfarth.com
                  akarasik@seyfarth.com


DENTAL EQUITIES: "Scoma" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Decision by FCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele granted Mastercard International Inc.'s
motion to stay proceedings pending a decision by the Federal
Communication Commission in the lawsuit entitled SCOMA
CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
WILLIAM P. GRESS, an Illinois resident, individually and as the
representatives of a class similarly-situated persons, and
FLORENCE MUSSAT M.D., S.C., an Illinois service corporation,
Plaintiffs v. DENTAL EQUITIES, LLC, JOHN DOES (1-10), FIRST
ARKANSAS BANK & TRUST, and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiff, and
PEER EQUITIES, LLC, Third Party Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00041-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.).

On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs (three medical providers)
filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants.  The one-count Complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, by sending the
Plaintiff (and others) unsolicited commercial advertisements by
facsimile machine beginning in December of 2015 (i.e. "junk
faxes").

According to Judge Steele's opinion and order, the case is stayed
and the Clerk is directed to add a stay flag.  The stay shall
remain in effect until such time as the FCC issues a decision on
the Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling of AmeriFactors
Financial Group, LLC.  Mastercard is directed to file a notice
with the Court when the FCC reaches a decision.  Once the stay is
lifted, the parties should also propose a briefing schedule for
class certification and inform the Court whether the remaining
case deadlines remain feasible.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and the Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File Sur-Rebuttal Report are denied without
prejudice.  The Defendant's Motion to Stay Briefing and Motions
for Leave to File Replies are denied as moot.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JJ9jZNTz


DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned SUSAN JOHNSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00839-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and also asks the Court to 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 says.

As the Motion to certify a class 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=0bKW7XgF

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


DREW COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in "Darrough" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes denied the motion for class certification
filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PAUL DARROUGH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MARK
GOBER, individually and in his official capacity; and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Paul Darrough brings this action against Mark Gober, individually
and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Drew County, Arkansas.
He alleges that he was arrested without probable cause, beaten,
and denied a prompt first appearance.  He asserts claims for
excessive force and violation of his rights to due process.

Mr. Darrough also seeks to represent a class of persons who,
within three years prior to the commencement of this action, were
denied a first appearance by Gober and who have been incarcerated
in the Drew County jail.

In response to the Motion, Mr. Gober has submitted the
uncontested affidavit of Susan Potts, along with records of Mr.
Darrough's arrest and first appearance.  Pursuant to a bench
warrant, Mr. Darrough was arrested on May 10, 2017, at 12:30
p.m., and appeared before a judge for his first appearance on May
12, 2017.

In his opinion and order, Judge Holmes opines that based upon the
facts in the Potts' affidavit, Mr. Darrough is not a member of
the class that he seeks to represent and his claims are,
therefore, not typical of the class.  "Nor can he adequately
represent the class. Id.  The motion for class certification is
therefore DENIED," Judge Holmes rules.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k1QzReXd


DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Breached ERISA Duties, Cusack-Acocella Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY CUSACK-ACOCELLA, an individual, SCOTT LANGER, an
individual, MICHAEL HENRY, an individual, JANICE SMOTHERS, an
individual, and GRACE OUDIN, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DUAL
DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER, INC., a California corporation doing
business as SOVEREIGN HEALTH, TONMOY SHARMA, an individual, KEVIN
GALLAGHER, an individual, DAVID TESSERS, an individual, and
ALLIED BENEFIT SYSTEMS, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No.
8:18-cv-01009 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2018), alleges breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Dual Diagnosis.  Sovereign
offered health benefits to its employees through a self-funded
plan, the Sovereign Health Employee Benefits Plan.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court that Sovereign has ceased funding
the Plan, which has therefore ceased paying covered claims for
benefits.  They allege that Sovereign and its senior executives
have failed to hold Plan assets, including regular payroll
deductions, in trust, as required, but instead have
misappropriated and misused Plan assets.

Sovereign is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in San Clemente, California.  Sovereign is the Plan
Administrator for the Plan.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers Sovereign.

Allied is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.  Allied is the Claims
Administrator for the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Friedenberg, Esq.
          Adam M. Rapp, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210-2800
          Facsimile: (925) 945-1975
          E-mail: afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com
                  arapp@glynnfinley.com

               - and -

          William B. Reilly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM REILLY
          86 Molino Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941-2621
          Telephone: (415) 225-6215
          Facsimile: (415) 225-6215
          E-mail: bill@williambreilly.com


DW DIRECT: Fails to Pay Technicians Overtime, "Ames" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMEON AMES, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated v. DW DIRECT, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-01885
(S.D. Tex., June 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay the Plaintiff and its other cable technicians/installers
overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DW Direct, Inc., is a cable installation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
          ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
          3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 960-8300
          Facsimile: (713) 621-6670
          E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
                  tracey@rosenberglaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Volkman Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derick Volkman asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the lawsuit titled DERICK VOLKMAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, d/b/a ERC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00091-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action against ERC
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The class is defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
     Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC mailed an initial written
     communication to collect a debt between January 17, 2017 and
     February 7, 2018, which was not returned as undeliverable,
     and which stated "[y]our recently disconnected Time Warner
     Cable account has been forwarded to us to assist you in the
     resolution of your balance due."

Mr. Volkman also asks the Court to appoint him to represent the
putative class members, and that his attorneys be appointed
counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Berg" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Ann Berg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-
05339 (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Puyallup, Washington and is a
consumer.

The Defendant Equifax prepares and sells "consumer reports" or is
a credit reporting agency.  Equifax regularly conducts business
in the Western District of Washington and has a principal place
of business located at 1550 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30309.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
      Benjamin M. Drachler, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103
      Tel: (206) 816-6603
      Fax: (206) 319-5450
      E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
              enusser@terrellmarshall.com
              bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com


EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein Moves to Certify Class of Property Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, an
individual, JOHN COVAS, an individual, and GISELA JANETTE LA
BELLA, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey
corporation; PBF ENERGY INC., a Delaware corporation; TORRANCE
REFINING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF
ENERGY WESTERN REGION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
STEVEN STEACH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal.), file with the Court
their motion and corrected motion for class certification.

The proposed class consists of these subclasses:

   * Soil and Groundwater Contamination Subclass:

     "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property -- at
      any point between February 18, 2012 and the present
      ("Property Damage Period" herein)--within the boundaries of
      the plume maps (subject to modification) attached to the
      declaration of Dr. W. Richard Laton as Exhibits 1-5,
      showing chemicals of concern5 ("COCs" herein") in the soil
      and groundwater migrating from the refinery located at 3700
      W 190th St, Torrance, California 90504 ("Torrance Refinery"
      herein)."

   * Operational Emissions Subclass:

     "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property --
      during the Property Damage Period -- within the
      "Contaminated Area," which shall mean the (to be modeled
      and mapped) locations where air emissions at any time
      exceeded safe levels and/or that are known to register as
      malodorous.

   * Explosion Debris Subclass:

     "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property within
      the 'Area of Debris,' which shall mean the (to be modeled)
      area where emissions and/or deposited particulate matter
      from the explosion on February 18, 2015 landed, migrated or
      otherwise impacted a portion of that property."

   * Physical Exposure Subclass:

     "Persons who live and/or work within the (to be modeled)
      Area of Debris, Contaminated Area, or within the boundaries
      of the soil and groundwater plume maps who were physically
      exposed to the emissions and/or deposited particulate
      matter from the refinery from February 18, 2012 to the
      present."

The Plaintiffs bring the action in the wake of the Torrance
Refinery's February 18, 2015 explosion which registered a 1.7
magnitude earthquake, sending flames and ash into the sky and
fueling fears among the families, residents, and workers in
proximity to the Refinery.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
representatives and to appoint Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 11, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EWs9eEsx
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=quytqtQj

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  dbass@maternlawgroup.com


FBCS INCORPORATED: Chunnu Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED CHUNNU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FBCS, INCORPORATED; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; and RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-03365 (E.D.N.Y., June 8,
2018), seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged actions of using
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt, in violation
of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

FBCS, Incorporated, is a collection agency with its principal
place of business located in Hatboro, Pennsylvania.  LVNV
Funding, LLC, is a collection agency with its principal place of
business located in Columbia, South Carolina.  Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, is a collection agency with its principal place of
business located in Columbia, South Carolina.

LVNV Funding purchases domestic and international consumer debt
owned by credit grantors.  The management of the assets that LVNV
purchases is outsourced to Resurgent, which is a third party
which manages consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and
debt buyers.  Resurgent will then typically assign collection
activities to collection agencies, such as FBCS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Subhan Tariq, Esq.
          THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          68 Jay Street - Suite 201
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (718) 674-1245
          Facsimile: (516) 453-0490
          E-mail: subhan@tariqlaw.com


FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Wins Final Approval of "Gomez" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants final approval of the class action settlement in the
lawsuit styled REGINA GONZALES GOMEZ, and FIDEL GUERRERO
COMOFORT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. FERNANDEZ BROTHERS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:17-
cv-01863-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
described in the Settlement, comprised of all persons who, at any
time between April 4, 2013, and 10 September 14, 2017, worked for
the Defendant as a seasonal agricultural worker, who performed
field work harvesting strawberries.

The Court orders that the Defendant make a payment into the
settlement fund, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Settlement, of the amount needed to fund all amounts payable
under the Settlement.  The Court orders payment from the
settlement fund of settlement administration fees to Atticus
Administration in the amount of $10,000 in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Settlement.

The Court awards the Plaintiffs the amount of $320,000 for
reasonable attorney's fees.  The Court awards the Plaintiffs the
amount of $5,108 for reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from
the settlement fund.  The Court also awards the Plaintiffs the
amount of $10,000 each as a class representative enhancement
payment.

The Court directs that this order be entered as a final judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yYjur2qm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831} 228-1560
          Facsimile: (831) 228-1542
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
                  esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com


FIFTH THIRD: Harmon Sues for Accountholders Over Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE JOANN HARMON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00402-MRB (S.D. Ohio, June 7, 2018), seeks redress from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful practices perpetrated on its
checking accountholders to increase fees.

Ms. Harmon alleges that at least with respect to the first $100
of any deposit, 5/3 improperly charges low-income consumers a fee
for a useless service: the provision of funds "immediately" that
are already "immediately" available.

5/3 is a Fortune 500 company and has bank locations throughout
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee,
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Georgia, and North
Carolina.  5/3's headquarters and principal place of business is
in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Among other things, 5/3 is engaged in the
business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          3142 Losantville Ave., Suite A
          Cincinnati, OH 45213
          Telephone: (513) 381-2224
          E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


FIRST MORTGAGE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ryman" RESPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
the case, JOHN RYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-17-1757 (D.
Md.).

The Class Action Complaint in the case alleges that FMC violated
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and by
entering into a kickback scheme whereby it received unearned fees
from Genuine Title, LLC for referrals.  The Plaintiffs also seek
to pierce the corporate veil to hold Defendant Health One Credit
Union liable, and seeks to hold New England Federal Credit Union
("NEFCU") liable by way of successor liability.

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Class Action
Complaint in the case on behalf of four Named Plaintiffs: Ryman,
Bobby Thomas, Thelma Thomas, and Kimberly Thomas.  The Complaint
alleges that, during the relevant time period, broker Angela
Pobletts worked for FMC and received kickbacks from Genuine Title
in exchange for referrals of FMC borrowers.  The Complaint
further alleges that three other brokers, Frank Bisesi, Ernest
"Steven" Greathouse and John Hauck, helped the Named Plaintiffs
obtain residential mortgages from FMC and referred them to
Genuine Title for title and settlement services.  All the four
Named Plaintiffs obtained their mortgages from FMC in or around
2011.

The four Named Plaintiffs in the case now seek to represent the
proposed class of all individuals in the United States who were
borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan originated or
brokered by FMC for which Genuine Title provided a settlement
service, as identified in Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between Jan.
1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014.

FMC was incorporated under Michigan law by Health One in 1996,
and Health One became the sole shareholder of FMC.  Thereafter,
Health One allegedly dominated FMC's board, management, and
finances to such a degree that Health One was FMC's alter ego.

On May 16, 2014, the Director of the Michigan Department of
Insurance and Financial Services ("DIFS") placed Health One in
conservatorship because it was in an "unsound and unsafe
condition."  DIFS appointed the National Credit Union
Administration ("NCUA") as the conservator, who thereby seized
all of Health One's assets.

As conservator, NCUA negotiated a Purchase & Assumption Agreement
("PAA") whereby NEFCU purchased certain assets and liabilities of
Health One.  All Health One shareholders automatically became
NEFCU shareholders and members.  On Dec. 12, 2014, the same day
the NEFCU entered into the PAA, NCUA was appointed as the
receiver and liquidating agent for Health One.

Defendant NEFCU filed a Motion to Dismiss on Sept.  29, 2017.
Defendants FMC and Health One filed a Motion to Dismiss on Oct.
26, 2017.  In February 2018, following the Court's dismissals of
the five related Genuine Title cases, NEFCU submitted a letter
requesting the same ruling in the case.

The Plaintiffs' counsel responded, noting the personal and
subject matter jurisdiction challenges specific to the case.  The
counsel for NEFCU then waived NEFCU's challenge to personal
jurisdiction.  FMC and Health One have not engaged in any
postbriefing correspondence.

Common to both Motions to Dismiss is a statute of limitations
defense, including the argument that the Plaintiffs' have failed
to state a plausible claim for equitable tolling.  As the
Defendants' have incorporated each other's arguments on the
issue, Judge Bennett focuses on the common defense, which is
dispositive in the case.  The Plaintiffs do not dispute that
their claims only survive if this Court exercises its equitable
authority to toll the statute of limitations.

The Judge finds that the Court filings and news articles offered
by the Defendants will help resolve the question of equitable
tolling by establishing the date of public notice of Genuine
Title's kickback practices.  Regarding the Angela Pobletts
subpoena, the Plaintiffs' counsel's argument that it would be
hard to find among the Fangman filings does not limit its status
as a matter of court record subject to judicial notice,
especially when the Plaintiffs do not challenge the document's
authenticity, accuracy, or admissibility under the rule against
hearsay.  The Judge says the Court's consideration of these
materials does not transform the pending motions to dismiss into
motions for summary judgment.

Next, the Judge finds that even if the Plaintiffs can establish
that they were pursuing their rights diligently, he cannot ignore
the role the Plaintiffs' counsel has played in determining the
timing of the action -- and the other pending cases related to
the Genuine Title kickback scheme.  In June 2015, the Plaintiffs'
counsel had access to Genuine Title's buyers' names, addresses,
telephone numbers, property addresses, settlement dates, lender
and in some cases mortgage broker information, information
sufficient to uncover the scheme in the case.  Even if their
counsel's knowledge is not relevant to the due diligence
analysis, the Judge says the counsel's in-depth investigation
into Genuine Title's records certainly bears heavily on the
question of whether extraordinary circumstances stood in the
Plaintiffs' way and prevented timely filing.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
fulfill the extraordinary circumstances element required to
equitably toll their RESPA claim.  They proffer no amendment to
the pleadings that could overcome this conclusion, and they fail
to show how any amount of discovery would aid the Court's
analysis.  The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs also
cannot seek equitable remedies for a cause of action that is
barred by statute, so the Court needs not wade into the fact-
sensitive analysis of whether to equitably pierce the corporate
veil to reach Health One or to track successor liability to NEFCU
by way of Health One.  He likewise declines to reach the
Defendants' alternative argument that the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim
against FMC is barred by Michigan's statute of repose for claims
against dissolved corporations.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Bennett granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.  A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/iIxgJt from Leagle.com.

John Ryman, Bobby Thomas, Thelma Thomas & Kimberly Thomas,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-
law.com -- Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Melissa Lynn English --
menglish@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea & Schmidt LLC & Sarah A.
Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt,
LLC.

First Mortgage Corporation & Health One Credit Union, Defendants,
represented by John M. Murdock -- jmurdock@pottermurdock.com --
Potter and Murdock PC, pro hac vice, Kathy C. Potter --
kpotter@pottermurdock.com -- Potter and Murdock PC, pro hac vice
& Rosanne Elyse Stafiej -- rstafiej@pottermurdock.com -- Benton,
Potter & Murdock, PC.

New England Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by John
Jay Range -- jrange@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP,
Laura T. Wagner -- lwagner@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP, pro hac vice & Neil Keith Gilman -- ngilman@HuntonAK.com --
Hunton and Williams LLP, pro hac vice.


FORSTER GARBUS: Bid to Amend "Heerema" FDCPA Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to amend the case, GEORGE E. HEEREMA,
Plaintiff, v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-7252 (ES) (MAH) (D. N.J.).

On Oct. 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant FG&G, a collection law firm, and John Does 1-
10.  The Defendant was assigned to the Plaintiff's account for
the purpose of collecting a past-due debt that the Plaintiff
allegedly owed to Discover Bank.  In its attempt to collect the
debt, the Defendant mailed a collection letter to the Plaintiff
on Oct. 2, 2014.

The initial Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending debt
collection letters to the Plaintiff and other New Jersey
consumers on law firm letterhead without an attorney first
exercising professional judgment by independently evaluating
collection demands and determining that the proceedings to
enforce collection are warranted, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 e(2), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 e(3) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f.  On Nov. 9, 2015, the
Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On June 9, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order which set
the close of all fact discovery for April 8, 2017, and Jan. 6,
2017 as the date by which the parties were required to move to
add new parties or amend pleadings.  By order entered by on Oct.
17, 2016, the Court extended the deadline by which to file a
motion to amend or add new parties to March 31, 2017.  On March
6, 2017, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order, extending
the close of fact discovery to July 8, 2017.  On June 22, 2017,
the Plaintiff deposed Glenn Garbus, one of the Defendant's
partners, both in his individual capacity and as the Rule
30(b)(6) deponent of FG& G.

On Sept. 22, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint,
alleging that additional facts were uncovered during Glenn
Garbus' deposition that necessitate Plaintiff's proposed
amendment to the Complaint.  Specifically, he maintains that he
should be permitted to add factual allegations to the FDCPA
claim, to include, in the alternative, that the Defendant's Oct.
2, 2014 letter to him was false and misleading because it was
confusing regarding whether and to what extent an attorney had
reviewed his file and the letter sent to him.

The Plaintiff asserts that the letter was particularly misleading
because one month after the letter was sent to him, the attorney
who reviewed his file and caused the letter to be sent to him
filed a lawsuit against him seeking to collect the alleged debt.
He also seeks to name individual Defendants, Glenn Garbus, Mark
Garbus and Ronald Forster, given that Mr. Garbus testified that
the firm is a general partnership and the three partners drafted
the letter and the confusing and contradictory language of the
letter at issue.

The Defendant opposes the amendment insofar as it would name
Forster and the Garbuses as individual Defendants.  It argues
that the three individuals will be prejudiced by the amendment at
this late date, and that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
good cause for amendment of the Complaint six months after the
Court's deadline for doing so.  The Defendant also argues that
the amendments fail to plead any factual allegations specific to
Forster or Mark Garbus.

While the Defendant does not explicitly consent to amending the
Complaint to add additional facts in support of the Plaintiff's
claims, its objection is not particularly strong either.
Instead, the Defendant states that insofar as such an amendment
would require only limited additional discovery, it believes the
case law weighs against it successfully opposing the amendment in
this regard.

On Jan. 18 2018, the Court held oral argument on the motion.
Magistrate Judge Hammer concludes that the Plaintiff exercised
reasonable diligence in avoiding unnecessary delays when it
sought leave to amend the Complaint shortly after the June 22,
2017 deposition.  While lack of prejudice to the nonmovant does
not show good cause, the Magistrate Judge finds that, when taken
in conjunction with the diligence demonstrated by the Plaintiff
in timely filing, there is sufficient "good cause" pursuant to
Rule 16(b)(4) for the Court to grant leave for the Plaintiffs to
amend.

The Magistrate Judge finds that it would be futile to permit the
Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add Ronald Forster and Mark
Garbus as Defendants.  However, the same cannot be said for
naming Glenn Garbus, as he has testified at length to his
involvement in reviewing the Plaintiff's file and sending the
letter to Plaintiff, as well as his involvement in initiating the
litigation against Plaintiff, a month later.  Similarly, he finds
that it would not be futile to permit the Plaintiff to amend the
Complaint to add additional facts in support of the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claim.

Lastly, the allegations against Glenn Garbus are essentially
based on the same set of circumstances that has existed from the
outset of this case.  The Magistrate Judge finds that the
Defendant does not indicate what new discovery Glenn Garbus would
require.  It is unclear to the Court what discovery he, or
Defendant FG&G, would require that has not already been covered.
Presumably, Glenn Garbus knows his own level of involvement in
this case, and his involvement is the type of information that is
uniquely within his knowledge.  Therefore, he finds that
Defendant FG&G and Glenn Garbus will not suffer prejudice by
permitting the Plaintiff to amend his Complaint at this time.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Hammer granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint.
The Court will issue an order consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/5vx5rB from Leagle.com.

GEORGE E. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BHARATI SHARMA PATEL --
bpatel@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC & YONGMOON KIM --
jhk@thekimlawfirm.com -- Kim Law Firm LLC.

FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, Defendant, represented by MITCHELL L.
WILLIAMSON -- mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger,
P.C.


GC SERVICES: Avina Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned FIDELA AVINA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:17-cv-06474 (N.D. Ill.), asks the
Court to certify that the claims set forth in her complaint may
proceed on behalf of this class:

     (1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
     from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
     consumer debt; (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter
     substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's Exhibit C;
     which (4) is the initial communication with the person; and
     which (5) states that the alleged debtor had thirty (30)
     days after the receipt of the Letter to exercise several
     rights, including the right to dispute the debt; and which
     (6) also states that the dispute must be in writing, unless
     the alleged debtor lives in New Jersey, Delaware, or
     Pennsylvania.

Ms. Avina brings this class action against GC for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  She
alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to
effectively state the amount of the alleged debt in its initial
communication with her, and in making deceptive and misleading
representations regarding that a dispute must be in writing.

Ms. Avina also asks the Court to name her as class
representative, to appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class
and allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after
taking class discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lDEUtgK5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


GLOBAL TRUST: Norton Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Norton moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned TROY NORTON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL TRUST
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00804-PP (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 to certify a class 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=DfdMso1I

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


GOPRO INC: Larkin Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TROY LARKIN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GOPRO, INC.,
NICHOLAS D. WOODMAN, BRIAN MCGEE and ANTHONY BATES, Case No.
4:16-cv-06654-CW (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of all persons and entities, who
      purchased GoPro, Inc. common stock between September 19,
      2016, and November 8, 2016, inclusive, at artificially
      inflated prices, and who were damaged thereby.  Excluded
      from the Class are the Defendants defined below, members of
      their immediate families, any firm, trust, partnership,
      corporation, officer, director or other individual or
      entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest or
      which is related to or affiliated with any of the
      Defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs,
      successors-in-interest or assigns of such excluded persons;

   2. appointing Troy Larkin as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 25, 2018, at 2:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
          Sherief Morsy, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  klenahan@faruqilaw.com
                  smorsy@faruqilaw.com


GREAT LAKES: Hicks Moves to Certify Class of Home Health Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hicks moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying
the case entitled LAURA HICKS, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated employees v. GREAT LAKES HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and
GREAT LAKES ACQUISITION CORP., d/b/a GREAT LAKES CARING, Case No.
2:17-cv-12674-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich.), as collective action and
authorizing her to send notice of the action to similarly
situated current and former employees of the Defendants pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify members of this
collective, who were paid pursuant to the same compensation
scheme as the Plaintiff -- namely a hybrid fee and hourly basis:

     All home health employees of Great Lakes at any time since
     October 30, 20151 who were paid on a hybrid fee and hourly
     basis.

Ms. Hicks also asks the Court to: (1) require Great Lakes to
produce the names, last known mailing addresses, last known e-
mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the members of the
collective; (2) authorize her to send the proposed Notice of
Pending Fair Labor Standards Act Lawsuit and Consent Form, via
U.S. Mail and e-mail, to all individuals identified by Great
Lakes, so that these potential Plaintiffs have an opportunity to
opt into this action; and, (3) order that potential opt-in
Plaintiffs have 60 days from the date notice is mailed to return
completed consent forms to Plaintiff's counsel for filing with
the Court.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Town Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-3000
          Facsimile: (248) 936-2138
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric J. Pelton, Esq.
          Thomas J. Davis, Esq.
          KIENBAUM OPPERWALL HARDY & PELTON, P.L.C.
          280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 645-0000
          Facsimile: (248) 645-1385
          E-mail: epelton@kohp.com
                  tdavis@kohp.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Garden Veggie Straw Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, JOHN SOLAK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., d/b/a SENSIBLE PORTIONS, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-CV-0704 (LEK/DEP) (N.D. N.Y) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

On April 17, 2018, Solak and Jim Figger commenced the class
action lawsuit against the Defendant, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, alleging (1) breach of an
express warranty; (2) deceptive acts or practices in violation of
New York General Business Law ("G.B.L."); (3) false advertising
in violation of G.B.L. Section 350 et seq.; (4) unfair and
deceptive acts and practices in violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (5) unlawful business acts
and practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (6) fraudulent business acts and practices in violation
of the UCL; and (7) misleading and deceptive advertising in
violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL").

Claim one is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all
persons within the United States who purchased Garden Veggie
Straws during the Class Period; claims two and three are brought
on behalf of a New York Subclass, comprised of all Class members
who purchased the Garden Veggie Straws in the state of New York;
and claims four through seven are brought on behalf of a
California Subclass, comprised of all Class members who purchased
the Garden Veggie Straws in the state of California.

The Defendant produces, markets, distributes, and sells Garden
Veggie Straws under its Sensible Portion brand to consumers
throughout the United States.  In addition to using the words
"garden" and "veggie" in the Product's name and logo -- which
itself includes a rendering of a "whole tomato" -- the Defendant
packages the Straws in a bag which labels them a "Vegetable and
Potato Snack."  Though the ingredient list, which is located on
the back of the Packaging, indicates that the Straws' five most
abundant ingredients by weight are potato starch, potato flour,
corn starch, tomato paste, and spinach powder, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Straws contain only "trace amounts" of the latter
two ingredients.  These vegetable byproducts completely lack the
nutritional value of their whole vegetable counterparts.

The Plaintiffs contend that the images and statements included on
the Packaging create the erroneous impression that the whole
vegetables depicted in the Defendant's Product's marketing and
labeling is present in an amount greater than is actually the
case.  The Plaintiffs purchased the Product "on multiple
occasions," and on all such occasions saw and relied upon the
Defendant's marketing and labeling both prior to and at the time
of purchase.  Had the Plaintiffs known the true nutritional and
health qualities of the Straws, they would not have purchased
them.  However, the Plaintiffs represent that they would purchase
the Straws in the future, so long as they could be assured that
the Defendant's Product's marketing and labeling was truthful and
not deceptive.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on Sept. 11, 2017
under Rules 12(b)(1)1 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  It argues, first, that the Plaintiffs' claims fail to
satisfy the requisite "reasonable consumer" standard because the
Packaging contains factually true images and statements that are
not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.  In addition, it
argues (1) that the Complaint fails to adequately identify the
source of the Plaintiffs' reliance on its Packaging and
marketing; (2) that the Plaintiffs failed to allege an actual
injury; (3) that the Plaintiffs failed to provide pre-suit notice
of any alleged breach of warranty; (4) that the Plaintiffs cannot
maintain a warranty claim on behalf of the Nationwide Class; and
(5) that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek
injunctive relief.

Judge Kahn finds that finds that the Plaintiffs' New York and
California consumer protection claims fail as a matter of law
because the challenged statements and images are not
misrepresentations and would not mislead a reasonable consumer.
He therefore dismisses without prejudice claims two through seven
in their entirety.

Next, the Judge finds that while the FDCA empowers the FDA to
protect the public health by ensuring that foods are safe,
wholesome, sanitary, and properly labeled, that statute
incorporates no private right of action.  Rather, the FDA
enforces the FDCA and its regulations through administrative
proceedings.  The Complaint accordingly does not bring any claims
under the FDCA directly.

As to the Plaintiffs' breach of an express warranty claims on
behalf of the individual Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class, the
Judge dismisses them without prejudice in their entirety.  He
finds that the Defendant's arguments with respect to the
deceptive qualities of the Healthfulness Representations under
New York's and California's consumer protection statutes apply
equally to the express warranty analysis.  And because those
three representations, even when considered collectively, are
insufficient as a matter of law to mislead a reasonable consumer,
they cannot be relied upon by the Plaintiffs as grounds for
asserting a breach of express warranty under either New York or
California law.

Finally, because Plaintiff Solak's and Plaintiff Figger's breach
of express warranty claims were dismissed, the express warranty
claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class must also be
dismissed without prejudice.  If the Plaintiffs can identify new
class representative(s) whose express warranty claims would not
be futile, they may replead an express breach of warranty claim
on behalf of the new class representative(s) and the Nationwide
Class.

Accordingly, Judge Kahn granted the Defendant's Motion and
dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Complaint.  If the
Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the action, he must file an
amended complaint as directed above within 30 days from the date
of the filing of this Decision and Order.  If he fails to file an
amended complaint within 30 days from the filing date of the
Decision and Order, the Clerk is directed to enter Judgment
indicating that this action is dismissed without prejudice,
without further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum-
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/S67bCO from
Leagle.com.

John Solak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Jim Figger, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Sergei Lemberg --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg Law, LLC.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., doing business as Sensible Portions,
Defendant, represented by Dean N. Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com --
Jenner, Block Law Firm, pro hac vice & Kenneth Kiyul Lee --
klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled SUSAN JOHNSON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HALSTED FINANCIAL
SERVICES LLC and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00838-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendants) 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 to certify a class 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=GjgiFJun

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


HEIN ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Cerveny" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CERVENY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. HEIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY, CO., Case No. 2:18-
cv-00870-PP (E.D. Wisc., June 7, 2018), alleges that Hein
willfully declined to compensate employees for their hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single work week, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hein Electric Supplies, Inc., is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located in West Allis, Wisconsin.
Hein is an independent distributor of electrical supplies, with
nine service centers located throughout Southeast Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Robert O'Reilly, 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: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  roreilly@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Smith Moves to Certify Hourly Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Smith, On behalf of herself
and other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Hillstone Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01075-JLG-
EPD (S.D. Ohio), files with the Court her second pre-discovery
motion for conditional class certification and court-supervised
notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Doniele Smith moves pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for
entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class as defined as:

       All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
       Defendants who received nondiscretionary bonus payments in
       addition to their normal hourly rate of pay during any
       workweek that they worked over 40 hours in any workweek
       beginning three years preceding the filing date of the
       First Amended Complaint and continuing through the date of
       final disposition of this case;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent to class members;

   (3) requiring the Defendants to identify all potential opt-in
       plaintiffs; and

   (4) finding that the Plaintiff has met her burden for
       conditional certification of the putative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pI7JT3Dn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Violates OT Provisions of FLSA, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bertha Diaz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC, CHS
Service Inc., and David L. Myers, Individually, Case No. 9:18-cv-
01574-BHH (D.S.C., June 8, 2018), arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC, is a for-profit
Delaware corporation, registered with the South Carolina
Secretary of State.  David L. Myers is the owner of Housekeeping
Services.

Housekeeping Services is a cleaning company providing resort
housekeeping, residential maid service, business janitorial
services, as well large scale commercial laundry and linens for
the area's hotels, resorts, restaurants, and property management
companies.

CHS Services Inc., is a for-profit North Carolina corporation,
registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State.  CHS
Services is a staffing agency that provides labor for local
businesses, including Housekeeping Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 104
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 588-5587
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


IMPERIAL MARBLE: Olson's Cert. Bid Cont'd; July 10 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2018, in the case
captioned Jennifer Olson v. Imperial Marble Corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-01914 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Iain D. Johnston.

The minute entry states that:

   -- by June 21, 2018, the parties shall file a proposed case
      management order using the order form located on Judge
      Johnston's Web page;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued;

   -- telephonic status hearing is set for July 10, 2018, at 2:00
      p.m.; and

   -- by July 6, 2018, counsel shall review the Court's standing
      order on telephonic status hearing and provide direct-dial
      numbers to the Court's operations specialist who will
      initiate the call.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1PsTeMHB


IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sobol Seeks TCPA Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DR. LOUIS L. SOBOL, M.D., a
Michigan resident, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-14339-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court
to certify this class:

     All persons who were successfully sent one or more alleged
     advertisements by facsimile from Imprimis Pharmaceuticals on
     any of the following dates: July 29, 2016, August 2, 2016,
     August 4, 2016, August 16, 2016, August 30, 2016, August 31,
     2016, September 6, 2016, September 12, 2016, September 13,
     2016, September 23, 2016, November 3, 2016, November 16,
     2016, February 23, 2017, March 1, 2017, March 13, 2017,
     March 16, 2017, March 22, 2017, March 28, 2017, April 7,
     2017, April 12, 2017, or June 15, 2017.

In its complaint, the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendant's advertisements were sent by fax
44,158 times to 15,613 unique fax numbers.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as the class
representative, and to appoint its attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1429
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@bockhatchllc.com


JDSA I LTD: Andrews Moves to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JDSA I,
LTD., a franchise d/b/a "Jason's Deli," and B. KYLE BECK, Case
No. 5:17-cv-01083-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), asks the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action and to issue opt-in
notices and consent forms to all of the Assistant Managers at
Jason's Deli's five locations during the three years preceding
the date this action was filed.

Mr. Andrews seeks an order conditionally certifying a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and authorizing him to
issue "opt-in" notices to similarly-situated Assistant Managers
below the level of "1A" manager and excluding Catering Managers
(collectively "AMs"), at five Jason's Deli franchises in San
Antonio owned by the same entities.  He alleges that these AMs
were all classified by the Defendants as "exempt" and, therefore,
not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 during the relevant
three-year FLSA period.

Mr. Andrews also asks the Court to direct Jason's Deli to produce
to his counsel in a usable electronic format no later than seven
days from the entry of the Court's order, the names, last known
personal and residential addresses, last known residential and
cell phone numbers, personal and work e-mail addresses, last four
digits of their Social Security Number, and dates of AM work of
all AMs at Jason's Deli's five locations during the three years
preceding the date the Court grants this Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gONyvC3c

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Inez M. McBride, Esq.
          Michael Lamoine Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HOLLAND, LLC
          North Frost Center
          1250 N. E. Loop 410, Suite 808
          San Antonio, TX 78209
          Telephone: (210) 824-8282
          Facsimile: (210) 824-8585
          E-mail: imcbride@hollandfirm.com
                  mholland@hollandfirm.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Fricia Challenges Conspiracy to Suppress Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONNY FRICIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK
AIR BRAKE LLC, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A., FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC.
and DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:18-cv-01674-TDC (D. Md., June 7, 2018),
challenges an alleged illegal conspiracy among the Defendants to
suppress the compensation of each company's employees.

Without the knowledge or consent of their employees, the
Defendants and senior executives at these companies entered into
express agreements to eliminate or reduce competition among them
for skilled labor, Mr. Fricia alleges.  He contends that this
conspiracy consists of at least three agreements -- between
Wabtec and Knorr Brake, between Knorr Brake and Faiveley North
America, and between Wabtec and Faiveley North America -- that
each company would not hire or attempt to hire employees from the
other company without prior consent from that company.

Knorr is a privately-owned German company with its headquarters
in Munich, Germany.  Knorr is a global leader in the development,
manufacture, and sale of rail and commercial vehicle equipment.
Knorr Brake and N.Y. Air Brake are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Knorr.

Knorr Brake is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Westminster, Maryland.  Knorr Brake manufactures train control,
braking, and door equipment used on passenger rail vehicles.
N.Y. Air Brake is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Watertown, New York.  N.Y. Air Brake manufactures railway air
brakes and other rail equipment used on freight trains.

Wabtec is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmerding,
Pennsylvania.  With over 100 subsidiaries, Wabtec is the world's
largest provider of rail equipment and services with global sales
of $3.9 billion in 2017. Wabtec is an industry leader in the
freight and passenger rail segments of the rail industry.  Wabtec
Passenger Transit, based in Spartanburg, South Carolina, is a
business unit of Wabtec that develops, manufactures, and sells
rail equipment and services for passenger rail applications.
Wabtec Global Services is a business unit of Wabtec that offers
maintenance, repair, and support services.  Wabtec Global
Services has several locations throughout the United States.

Faiveley had been a French societe anonyme based in
Gennevilliers, France.  On November 30, 2016, Wabtec acquired
Faiveley, making Faiveley a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wabtec.
Before the acquisition, Faiveley was the world's third-largest
rail equipment supplier behind Wabtec and Knorr.  Faiveley
developed, manufactured, and sold passenger and freight rail
equipment to customers in Europe, Asia, and North America,
including the United States.

Faiveley North America was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Faiveley
and a New York corporation headquartered in Greenville, South
Carolina.  In the United States, Faiveley conducted business
primarily through Faiveley North America.  The Plaintiff is
presently unaware of the true names and identities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD
          100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: bcarney@gwcfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 W. Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  jcamilleri@donahoo.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Wins Bid to Move "Collins" Suit to E.D. Wisc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Victor A. Bolden grants the motion to transfer venue
filed in the lawsuit captioned STACY COLLINS, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. KOHL'S
DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00065-VAB (D. Conn.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Stacy Collins, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, filed a Complaint in the Court against the
Defendants on January 11, 2018.  On March 15, 2018, Kohl's moved
to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, arguing that
the Eastern District of Wisconsin would be the most convenient
venue.  On April 5, 2018, Ms. Collins opposed the motion to
transfer.

According to the order, all other pending motions are denied
without prejudice to renewal after the case is transferred.
Specifically, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied without
prejudice; the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied
without prejudice; and the Defendant's motion to strike class and
collective action allegations is denied without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee Division and close the case in this District.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XG6ijPQQ


KOHN LAW FIRM: Rizzo Seeks Class Certification Under Rule 23(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Rizzo asks the court to certify her case entitled Sasha
Rizzo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Kohn Law Firm S.C., Case No. 3:17-cv-00408-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), as a
class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tvLuD4Fu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Christianson, Esq.
          CHRISTIANSON & FREUND, LLC
          920 So. Farwell St., Suite 1800
          P.O. Box 222
          Eau Claire, WI 54702-0222
          Telephone: (715) 832-1800
          Facsimile: (888) 979-8101
          E-mail: lawfirm@cf.legal


KPMG LLP: Gaynor Moves for Production of Docs Complying Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KENNETH GAYNOR, MARCIA
GOLDBERG, and CHRISTOPHER R. VORRATH, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. KPMG LLP, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00226 (E.D. Tenn.), move to compel third-party KPMG LLP to
produce documents responsive to a validly-served subpoena issued
in Gaynor v. Miller, No. 3:15-cv-545-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.).

Prior to filing the Motion, Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and
third-party KPMG conferred in good faith to resolve this
discovery dispute and were unable to reach agreement solely on
the timing of KPMG's production.

Through the underlying litigation, Lead Plaintiffs assert that
they will prove that the Individual Defendants and Underwriter
Defendants of certain publicly-offered preferred securities of
Miller Energy mislead the proposed Class of investors through the
issuance of the materially false and misleading SEC-filed
Registration Statement.  The Lead Plaintiffs allege the
Registration Statement included a false and misleading valuation
of certain oil and gas assets in Alaska acquired by Miller
Energy.

Miller Energy purchased the Alaska Assets in 2010 for total
consideration of about $4.25 million during a competitive bidding
process ($2.24 million in cash for the assets and $2 million
assumed liabilities) and reported those assets at an overstated
value of approximately $480 million about one month later, the
Lead Plaintiffs contend.  They note that KPMG was hired as Miller
Energy's independent auditor and issued unqualified audit reports
sanctioning Miller Energy's inflated Alaska Assets value.  They
add that KPMG remained as the Company's independent auditor
through the registration process involving the preferred
securities at issue here.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
          Bailie L. Heikkinen, Esq.
          Constantine P. Economides, 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: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                  sastley@csgrr.com
                  bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com
                  CEconomides@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

               - and -

          Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
          KRANENBURG
          80-83 Long Lane, London EC1A 9ET
          United Kingdom
          Telephone: (203) 174-0365
          E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com

The Plaintiffs' counsel certifies that a copy of the Motion was
sent to these individuals via e-mail or U.S. Mail:

          Paul S. Davidson, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          E-mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com

               - and -

          S. Lawrence Polk, Esq.
          Stacey McGavin Mohr, Esq.
          Melissa L. Fox, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND LLP
          999 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: larrypolk@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  staceymohr@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  melissafox@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          E-mail: bphillips@bassberry.com
                  jyarbro@bassberry.com

               - and -

          Shayne R. Clinton, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          1700 Riverview Tower
          900 South Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          E-mail: sclinton@bassberry.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Piazza, Esq.
          Perrie M. Weiner, Esq.
          Kirby Hsu, Esq.
          Edward Totino, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: mike.piazza@dlapiper.com
                  perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com
                  kirby.hsu@dlapiper.com
                  edward.totino@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Amanda Fitzsimmons, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          E-mail: amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Marcum, Esq.
          MARCUM & PETROFF, P.C.
          3 Courthouse Square
          P.O. Box 240
          Huntsville, TN 37756
          E-mail: smarcum@marcumlaw.net


LANSING, MI: Partial OK of Summary Disposition in "Ray" Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEANNA RAY and All Others Similarly Situated, a
Certified Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF LANSING,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 337058 (Mich. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Michigan affirmed the trial court's opinion and order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
summary disposition, but remanded for further proceedings.

On June 12 and 13, 2013, the City of Lansing experienced a severe
rainstorm.  Heavy rain fell for approximately six hours from 9:00
p.m. on June 12 to 3:00 a.m. on June 13.  The storm overwhelmed
parts of the Defendant's sewer system, and sewage, water, and
debris flooded the basements of the Plaintiffs' homes.

There was a dispute below regarding the severity of the June 12
and 13 rainstorm.  The Defendant's meteorologist, Linda Kozura,
asserted that the amount of rain varied throughout the Lansing
area, and that the area receiving the most significant rainfall
experienced a rainfall frequency of and in excess of a 100 year
rain event.  In contrast, the Plaintiffs' meteorologist, Bryan
Rappolt, asserted that, based on the rain event that occurred
throughout Lansing, the rainfall for the June 12 and 13 storm
constituted less than a 25-year rain event.

On Nov. 8, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
and jury demand.  They set forth a claim solely under MCL
691.1416 et seq.  The Plaintiffs alleged that on June 12 to 13,
2013, the Defendant's sewer system backed up into their homes,
flooding the homes with sewage and water and causing significant
property damage.  The complaint alleged that the Defendant's
sewer system had a construction, maintenance, design, and/or
operation defect that caused the sewer system to backup into the
Plaintiffs' homes.

The Defendant filed an answer generally denying the allegations
and claiming governmental immunity.  The Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a motion for certification as a class action, which the
trial court granted.

On May 15, 2015, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10).  Relevant to
the appeal, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs' claim
failed as a matter of law because the latter failed to establish
a question of fact for the elements of MCL 691.1417(3).
Specifically, it contended that the Plaintiffs could not
establish a genuine issue of material fact (1) that a defect
existed in the Defendant's sanitary sewer system which defendant
failed to take reasonable steps to correct, and/or (2) that the
defect was a substantial proximate cause of the
surcharging/flooding in the Plaintiffs' basements.  The Defendant
concluded that the Plaintiffs' failure to create a question of
fact for issues under MCL 691.1417(3) entitled it to governmental
immunity.

After a hearing on the Defendant's motion, the trial court
eventually issued a written opinion.  With respect to the
Defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7),
the trial court found that MCL 691.1417(2) is the sole regulator
of governmental immunity in the matter.  It held that, because
the Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of MCL 691.1417(2), the
Defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity.
Accordingly, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion under
MCR 2.116(C)(7).

With respect to the Defendant's motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10),
the trial court found that it needed to show that the Plaintiff
failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for at least
one of the elements under MCL 691.1417(3).  The trial court held
that the Defendant failed.  Accordingly, the trial court denied
its motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by
denying its motion for summary disposition.

The Appellate Court disagrees.  It holds that despite the
Defendant's efforts to comply with the 2004 ACO, the Plaintiffs
presented evidence that the Defendant knew of capacity
bottlenecks in its sewer system before the 2004 ACO, and
reasonable minds could differ whether it was reasonable for the
Defendant to wait until it entered into the ACO before it began
addressing the known bottlenecks.  The Plaintiffs also presented
sufficient evidence to establish a question of fact whether the
Defendant's actions since entering the ACO, specifically its
failure to address the "low hanging fruit" nine years after the
ACO, were reasonable.  Because the Plaintiffs established a
question of fact with regard to each element of MCL 691.1417(3),
the trial court properly precluded summary disposition in favor
of the Defendant.

However, the trial court ordered that the remaining factual
issues were questions for a jury.  The Judge explains that
although MCL 691.1417(3) clearly provides the Plaintiffs a
potential cause of action, the sewage-disposal-system-event
exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2)
and (3).  Therefore, the remaining factual issues to be resolved
in the case deal with an exception to governmental immunity under
MCR 2.116(C)(7).  As the Court explained in Dextrom v Wexford Co,
a trial is not the proper remedial avenue to take in resolving
the factual questions under MCR 2.116(C)(7) dealing with
governmental immunity.  Instead, because the sewage-disposal-
system-event exception to governmental immunity remains a
question of law for the court, a remand for an evidentiary
hearing is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court instructs the trial court to
hold an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of obtaining such
factual development as is necessary to determine whether the
Defendant is subject to the sewage-disposal-system-event
exception to governmental immunity in MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).
On the basis of the further factual development presented at that
hearing, if the trial court determines that the Defendant is
subject to the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to
governmental immunity as a matter of law, then it should deny the
Defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

However, if the trial court determines that the Defendant is not
subject to the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to
governmental immunity as a matter of law, then the trial court
should grant the Defendant's summary disposition motion under MCR
2.116(C)(7).

The Appellate Court affirmed but remanded for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.  No taxable costs pursuant to MCR
7.219, neither party having prevailed in full.  It does not
retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/XR29IJ from Leagle.com.

STEVEN D. LIDDLE -- info@LDclassaction.com -- NICHOLAS ALEXANDER
COULSON, for DEANNA RAY, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee.

CHARLES E. BARBIERI, for CITY OF LANSING, Defendant-Appellant.


LEE N' EDDIES: Urban's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Reset to July 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 5, 2018, in the case titled
Urban Elevator Service, LLC v. Lee N' Eddies LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- given the notice of settlement on an individual basis,
      motion to certify class is denied as moot; and

   -- the status hearing set for June 6, 2018, is stricken and
      re-set for July 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

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


LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Bencomo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Modesta Bencomo moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled MODESTA BENCOMO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
L.J. ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00806-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court 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. Bencomo 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. Bencomo says she is obligated to move for class certification
to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion to certify a class 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. Bencomo 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=ROcECN61

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


LJ ROSS: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Bencomo" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit styled MODESTA BENCOMO v. LJ
ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00806-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On May 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In
this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

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

Hence, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings, and the parties are relieved from the
automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b)
and (c).  Moreover, for administrative purposes, Judge Duffin
says it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  "However, this motion will be
regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under
Damasco," Judge Duffin adds.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gN5f2hMU


LVEB LLC: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES GOMEZ, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LVEB, LLC d/b/a PIERRE'S OF BRIDGEHAMPTON and PIERRE
WEBER, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:18-cv-03356 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the
Plaintiff and the class pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

LVEB, LLC, doing business as Pierre's of Bridgehampton, is an
active New York Corporation with its principal place of business
at 2468 Main Street, in Bridgehampton, New York.  Pierre Weber is
the sole owner, operator and manager of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants are in the restaurant and food service business.
According to the Defendants' Web site, Pierre's restaurant "is
open for breakfast, lunch or brunch and dinner, 7 days a week,
365 days a year."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


MAINES PAPER: "McCuen" Suit Alleges NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Michael McCuen, for himself and all others similarly situated v.
Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc., Case No. 3:02-at-06000 (M.D.
Pa., April 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident and citizen of Brackney,
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Driver's
Helper from November 2015 through March 2018.  During this time,
the majority of Plaintiff's work involved reporting to work at
Defendant's Conklin, New York warehouse and making deliveries in
New York State.

The Defendant is an independent foodservice distributor.
Defendant is incorporated under New York law and maintains its
principal place of business in Conklin, New York.
Defendant is registered to do business in Pennsylvania as a
foreign corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 873-4836
      E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com


MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement in "Bowens" Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Phillips granted the motion for preliminary
approval of a Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of July
19, 2017, in the lawsuit captioned JOY L. BOWENS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAZUMA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:15-cv-00758-BP (W.D. Mo.).

The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the class as defined
in the Settlement Agreement meets all of the requirements for
certification of a settlement class under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and applicable case law.  Accordingly, the Court
provisionally certifies the Settlement Class, which is composed
of:

     any member of Defendant who, between the implementation of
     Defendant's automated overdraft program in April 1, 2011 and
     September 30, 2015, was assessed an overdraft fee when the
     member had sufficient money in his or her "current balance,"
     but insufficient money in his or her available balance to
     complete the transaction that caused the fee.

The Court provisionally appoints Joy L. Bowens as the Class
Representative of the Settlement Class.  The Court further
provisionally finds that counsel for the Settlement Class,
Richard McCune, Esq., of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Taras
Kick, Esq., of The Kick Law Firm, APC, are qualified,
experienced, and skilled attorneys capable of adequately
representing the Settlement Class, and they are provisionally
approved as Class Counsel.

The Court sets these dates and deadlines:

   a. Notice to the class members will be sent within ten days
      after issuance of this Order;

   b. The deadline for opt outs is thirty days after the notice
      administrator sends notice;

   c. The deadline for filing any motions for final approval and
      attorneys' fees is thirty-five days after notice is sent;

   d. The deadline for class members to object to the Settlement
      Agreement is fifteen days after the filing of the motion
      for final approval;

   e. The deadline for class counsel or defendant's counsel to
      file responses to any objections and to provide list of opt
      outs is ten days after the deadline to object;

   f. The hearing on final approval shall occur on October 23,
      2018, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District
      Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri; and

   g. The preliminary deadline for filing of Final Accounting is
      thirty days after the time to cash checks has expired.

The Court also approves and adopts the procedures, deadlines, and
manner governing all requests to be excluded from the Class, or
for objecting to the proposed settlement, as provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JzYj8euj


MEGGITT-USA SERVICES: Settlement in "Trout" Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BROOK TROUT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEGGITT-USA SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07520-ODW(AJW)(C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis
D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Collective Action Settlement.

The Plaintiff initiated the action against Meggitt for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a
collective action, and under the California Labor Code, as a
class action.

On Feb. 28, 2017, the parties mediated the dispute and came to a
Settlement Agreement for both the FLSA and California Labor Code
claims.  The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March
29, 2017, and the parties thereafter executed the Joint
Stipulation of Settlement, which defined the terms of the
settlement.

The parties settled the class action and collective action claims
separately.  Meggitt agreed to pay the following amounts to
settle both types of claims, including fees and costs to the
class counsel:

   Collective Action              Class Action
     Total Payment                Total Payment
   -----------------              -------------
   $850,000                       $260,000

   Reduction Amount:              Reduction Amount:

   Attys' Fees - $277,200 (33%)   Attys' Fees - $85,800 (33%)
   Attys' Costs - $7,500          Attys' Costs - $2,500
   Incentive Award - $7,500       Incentive Award  - $2,500
   Admin. Fee - $7,500            Admin. Fee - $2,500
   Taxes Approx. 30%              Taxes Approx. 30%

   Net Payment - $550,300         Net Payment - $166,700
   (before taxes)                 (before taxes)

The total settlement in the collective action, not including back
wages already paid, is $850,000.  Each collective action member
that has already received a back wage payment will receive a
further payment equal to approximately 47% of the back wage
payment.  The total amount of the class action settlement is
$260,000.

On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement.  The Court denied the Plaintiff's
request for conditional certification of the class action,
granted conditional certification of the collective action, and
denied preliminary approval of the collective action settlement.

In addition, the Court pointed to these three deficiencies in the
Prior Motion that had to be cured in order for the Court to
preliminarily approve the collective action settlement: (1) the
Settlement's release of claims provision must be adjusted to
reflect waiver regarding an opt-in Collective Action Member's
FLSA rights only; (2) the portion of the FLSA Settlement that
remains unclaimed cannot revert to Meggitt -- the parties must
remove the reversion entirely or name an appropriate cy pres
recipient for unclaimed funds; and (3) the Settlement must reduce
the Attorneys' Fees to reflect a maximum of 25% of the Gross
Settlement Amount.

The Plaintiff now amends the Prior Motion and requests the Court
preliminarily approves the collective action settlement.

In response to the Court's prior Order, the parties have agreed
to amend Paragraph 31 of the Settlement Agreement to read: "All
individuals who opt-in to the FLSA settlement release only claims
under the FLSA asserted in the [First] Amended Complaint.  Judge
Wright finds that this amended provision limits the previously
overbroad release of claims by specifying that an opt-in
collecting action member is waiving FLSA rights only.  Therefore,
this amended provision satisfies the Court's first requirement
for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

In Plaintiff's Amended Motion, the Plaintiff declares that the
parties have agreed to amend Paragraph 16 of the Settlement
Agreement to read: "The FLSA Attorney's Fees approved for the
FLSA Settlement are not to exceed $212,500"  The total settlement
amount for the FLSA settlement is $850,000.  Thus, the Judge
finds that the parties' amended provision reduces the Attorneys'
Fees to a maximum of 25% of the total FLSA settlement amount.
Therefore, this amended provision satisfies the second deficiency
in the Settlement Agreement.

As to the reversion of the unclaimed settlement funds, the
parties have now provided adequate explanation as to why
reversion is appropriate, and the Judge now approves of the
reversion provision.  Thus, with the mentioned modifications to
Paragraphs 31 and 16 of the Settlement Agreement, he granted
preliminary approval of the Collective Action Settlement.

The Judge concludes that the Attorneys' Fees awarded to the
counsel for the collective action are reasonable.  In the Amended
Motion, the proposed Attorneys' Fees are limited to 25% of the
total settlement payout.  Because the Attorneys' Fees equal the
'benchmark' for a reasonable fee award, he granted the
Plaintiff's requested Attorneys' Fees.

Finally, the Judge finds that the class representative
enhancement is not disproportionate to the other class member's
claims and holds that the incentive award is reasonable and
appropriate.  Thus, he granted the Plaintiff's request for $7,500
class representative enhancement for the FLSA Settlement.

For these reasons, Judge Wright granted the Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Collective Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ENthVI from Leagle.com.

Brook Trout, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Tracy --
questions@michaeltracylaw.com -- Law Offices of Michael Tracy.

Meggitt-USA Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Pietro Antonio Deserio -- pdeserio@proskauer.com -
- Proskauer Rose LLP & Anthony J. Oncidi -- aoncidi@proskauer.com
-- Proskauer Rose LLP.


METRO SECURITY: Post Supervisors Class Certified in "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eldon C. Fallon grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify
the class in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Smith v. Metro Security,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00953-EEF-JVM (E.D. La.).

Daniel Smith brings this Fair Labor Standards Act action against
his employer on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
"Post Supervisors" performing security guard work.  He further
alleges that he worked 60 hours per week on average and over 63
hours a week regularly.  He claims that he was a non-exempt
employee under the FLSA and brings claims against the Defendants
for 1) failure to pay overtime and 2) failure to pay minimum
wage.

According to the Court's order & reasons, the Defendant must
produce a list of Post Supervisors and within 10 days the parties
will meet and confer to work out appropriate notice before
submitting notice for Court approval.

A telephone status conference will be held on June 26, 2018, at
1:30 p.m., to discuss the parties' progress in perfecting notice,
a time table for discovery and motion practice, and other aspects
of the case.  The Court will revisit the issue should the
Defendant choose to file a motion to decertify following a
discovery period.

A copy of the Order & Reasons is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Oynr2Duw


MILWAUKEE, LA: Certification of Detainees Class in "Hall" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF
MILWAUKEE and RICHARD R. SCHMIDT, in his Official Capacity as
Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-LA (E.D.
Wisc.).

According to the Court's decision and order, the Sheriff of
Milwaukee County runs the Milwaukee County Jail and maintains a
policy under which all detainees must be shackled to their beds
while they are receiving medical treatment at a hospital.  Until
recently, the Sheriff applied this policy to pregnant detainees,
who were hospitalized for childbirth.

Melissa Hall was a detainee at the Milwaukee County Jail during
the time when this policy was in force.  She was shackled to her
hospital bed during labor, delivery, and post-partum treatment.
She filed this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against
Milwaukee County and its sheriff, alleging that the Sheriff's
policy, as applied to pregnant women during childbirth, violated
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Ms. Hall
proposes to represent a class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, of all women, who were confined in the
jail while the policy was in force and who were shackled during
childbirth.

"For the plaintiff to prevail on her claim, then, she must show
that the jail did not have sufficient reason to believe that she
would attempt to escape or to harm herself or others if she was
not shackled during childbirth.  But here we immediately
encounter a problem that prevents me from certifying the
plaintiff's claim as a class action: each inmate is different,
and thus, at least in theory, the sheriff could have had
sufficient reason for shackling some inmates but not others.
Some inmates may be more dangerous or likely to attempt an escape
than others.  Perhaps the vast majority of inmates will not try
to escape or to harm themselves or others while they are in the
hospital for childbirth," Judge Adelman opines.

"Although I must deny the plaintiff's motion for class
certification, I note that this does not mean that the plaintiff
and the other inmates who were shackled during childbirth cannot
litigate their claims simultaneously as part of a single legal
proceeding. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, persons
having similar claims against a defendant may join in one action
as plaintiffs," Judge Adelman notes.  "Thus, the plaintiff and
the other women who were injured by the sheriff's policy may wish
to consider pursuing joinder under Rule 20 or consolidation under
Rule 42."

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


MODESTO AREA: Court Allows Filing of Amended "Berry" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California has issued a screening
order granting the Plaintiff leave to file the amended case,
DEBRA BERRY, Plaintiff, v. MODESTO AREA EXPRESS REGIONAL TRANSIT,
et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00022-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action.  Her complaint, filed on Jan. 4, 2018, is
currently before the Court for screening.

At all times relevant to the action, the Plaintiff was a
California resident and one-time passenger of the Modesto Area
Regional Express, a federally-funded public transportation
system.  The Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1)
Modesto Express; (2) Shelly Reid, Modesto Express bus driver; and
(3) Michael Keith, Modesto Express manager/supervisor.  She
states her intent to bring the action as a class action on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated.

In relevant part, the Plaintiff alleges that on May 18, 2016, at
approximately 5:15 p.m., while she was waiting to board the
Modesto Express bus, she was subjected to a discriminatory policy
by a group of passengers that demanded first preference on the
bus due to having monthly bus passes over the Plaintiff and
others that chose to deposit bus fare into the fare box.  The
Plaintiff contends that this conduct was sanction by Defendants
Reid and Keith.  While she was digesting the allegedly
discriminatory policy, the Plaintiff allegedly was oppressed by
another group of passengers demanding to exercise their privilege
rights and enter the bus first over Plaintiff and other
passengers that were paying for their fare and did not have
monthly passes in spite of the Plaintiff and the other passengers
waiting their place in line.

As Plaintiff stood in line to pay her bus fare, she excused
herself to walk to a store and get change to pay the bus fare.
When she resumed her place in line, she allegedly was oppressed
by another passenger that demanded to be first on the bus in
spite of being in line behind the Plaintiff due to having a
monthly bus pass.  After she deposited the $16 fare, all of the
passengers with monthly passes began yelling at her that they had
a right to get on the bus before Plaintiff due to having monthly
passes.  The Plaintiff alleges that this agitated all of the
other passengers and created hostility, which was compounded by
Defendant Reid.

She alleges that Defendant Reid stated to the Plaintiff that the
passengers with bus passes have first priority to get on the bus.
She explained to Defendant Reid that she stood in line like every
other passenger, was paying for her bus fare with cash, and
should not be discriminated against due to not having a monthly
pass.  Defendant Reid also stated that she had only deposited $8
into the fare box.  The Plaintiff told Defendant Reid that she
was incorrect because she had just received change for $20-bill,
had only $4 left and knew for certain that she had deposited $16
into the fare box.

Defendant Reid became agitated and irate, stating that she would
have the Plaintiff forcefully removed from her bus if the
Plaintiff did not deposit more money.  At this point, the
Plaintiff requested a refund of the money she had deposited in
order to have a receipt for the exact amount and to prove that
she had deposited the correct amount.  Defendant Reid refused to
provide a refund. The Plaintiff then requested a travel receipt
so that she could take another bus.

After Defendant Reid refused to refund the Plaintiff her money or
provide a travel receipt, Defendant Reid got off of the bus and
made a call on her cell phone.  A female police officer later
walked up to Defendant Reid and they had a discussion.  Defendant
Reid came back on the bus and took her seat behind the wheel.
The Plaintiff again asked for a refund and a travel receipt, and
Defendant Reid again refused.

While she stood in front of Defendant Reid, a passenger came up
to the Plaintiff and stated that he wanted to speak with her.  As
she turned to address the passenger, the passenger pushed her
down the steps and Defendant Reid closed the door, partly
trapping the Plaintiff's body in the door while driving away and
pulling the Plaintiff.  Defendant Reid eventually stopped the bus
after allegedly causing further injury to the Plaintiff.

One of the passengers reported the incident to the Modesto
Express office and called the BART police department.  Officers
Kassandra Watts and Cassandra Rinnert arrived on the scene and
created an Incident Report (#1605-1216).  The Plaintiff alleges
that when Officer Watts arrived on the scene, she disregarded the
Plaintiff and started a conversation with Defendant Reid.  The
paramedics arrived and evaluated the Plaintiff's medical
injuries.  She was transported to Valley Care Hospital for a
follow-up examination.  An ace bandage wrap was placed on her arm
and leg and she was discharged from the hospital the same day.

On May 18, 2016, Officer Watts attempted to call Defendant Reid
to discuss the incident and Defendant Reid did not answer.  On
May 22, 2016, Officer Watts called Defendant Reid to discuss the
incident, but Defendant Reid stated that it was not a good time.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Modesto Express office
and spoke with Defendant Keith about the incident.  She also
inquired about his training and supervision of Defendant Reid and
the allegedly discriminatory policy of privilege for passengers
with monthly passes versus cash-paying citizens.  Defendant Keith
merely stated that this was Modesto Express' policy and he was in
support of Defendant Reid's position.

As relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants
violated her rights to nondiscriminatory treatment under the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983 and 2000d
et seq.  She also pursues a claim for intentional physical harm
against Defendant Reid.

Magistrate Judge McAullife finds that the Plaintiff's complaint
fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief.  As the
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she will grant the Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies to
the extent she is able to do so in good faith.

She says the Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief, but
it must state what each named Defendant did that led to the
deprivation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Additionally, the Plaintiff may not change the nature of this
suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended
complaint.  Finally, the Plaintiff is advised that an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge McAullife directed the
Clerk's Office to send the Plaintiff a complaint form.  Within 30
days from the date of service of the order, the Plaintiff will
file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified
by the Court in the Order (or file a notice of voluntary
dismissal).  If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
in compliance with this order, the Court will recommend dismissal
of the action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order
and for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/dudM1l from Leagle.com.

Debra Berry, on behalf of its members and all other similarly
situated citizens, Plaintiff, pro se.


MONTE R LEE: Sued by Arredondo for Not Paying OT to Installers
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK ARREDONDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MONTE R. LEE & COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00037 (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
misclassified its cable installers/inspectors as independent
contractors and only paid them a straight hourly rate, failing to
pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40.

Monte R. Lee & Company is involved in the business of
installation of broadband telecommunications and telephone
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORAN TOWING: "Clevenger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
John Clevenger, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Moran Towing Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01263 (D. Md., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

John Clevenger is a resident of Baltimore County, Maryland. The
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dispatcher from
April 2016 until February 2018. The Defendant employs dispatchers
to assist with its transportation services.  A dispatcher's role
is to coordinate Defendant's tugboat fleets in order to
facilitate the transport of goods on large ships.

The Defendant provides ship docking, marine transportation and
offshore towing services. The Defendant operates out of various
ports across the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and Puerto Rico.
The Defendant's principal office is in New Canaan, Connecticut.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com


MOSES CONE: Dismissal of Amended "Chambers" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wanda G. Bryant of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case, CHRISTOPHER
CHAMBERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; THE MOSES H.
CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION d/b/a MOSES CONE
HEALTH SYSTEM and d/b/a CONE HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. COA17-686 (N.C. App.).

On Aug. 23, 2011, before receiving treatment for an emergency
procedure at Moses Cone, Chambers signed Moses Cone's Patient
Consent form.  Moses Cone billed Chambers $14,578.14 for services
rendered and materials provided during his stay at the hospital.
When the bill went uncollected, Moses Cone sued Chambers and his
wife in Guilford County District Court.

Chambers filed a class action complaint against Moses Cone in
Guilford County Superior Court.  Chambers alleged that Moses Cone
charged inflated prices for emergency care services provided to
uninsured patients.  Within the hospital industry, a hospital's
list of gross billing rates for products and services is referred
to as a "chargemaster" list.  However, these rates can be
negotiated by insurance companies, managed care organizations,
and uninsured patients seeking elective treatments.

Chambers alleged that uninsured patients seeking emergency care
procedures were charged the chargemaster price for products and
services.  He argued that the Moses Cone emergency room Patient
Consent Form's reference to "regular rates and terms" could not
be made certain and were, therefore, governed by contract
principles allowing Moses Cone to recover no more than
"reasonable value" for its services and materials.  Chambers
contended that the reasonable value of the services he received
was less than one-half of the amount Moses Cone charged.

Chambers sought relief from Moses Cone under several theories,
including: breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, constructive trust, declaratory judgment,
restitution, and injunction.

Moses Cone answered Chambers' class action complaint and counter
claimed against Chambers and his wife, as well as the putative
class, seeking relief for unrecovered balances for the cost of
services rendered.

On April 1, 2016, Chambers filed an amended class action
complaint seeking only a declaratory judgment that Moses Cone's
Patient Consent form, obligating a patient to pay Moses Cone "in
accordance with the regular rates and terms" applicable at the
time of the patient's treatment, entitled Moses Cone to no more
than the reasonable value of the treatment or services provided.
Moses Cone subsequently dismissed with prejudice its
counterclaims against Chambers and his wife and also dismissed
its district court action against Chambers and his wife.  Moses
Cone then moved to dismiss Chambers' amended class action
complaint with prejudice on the basis of Rule 12(b)(1).

Per the Amended Class Action Complaint, Chambers brought the
action on behalf of himself and a class of all persons similarly
situated, as defined as all individuals (or their guardians or
representatives) who within four years of the date of the filing
of the Complaint in the action and through the date that the
Court certifies the action as a class action (a) received
emergency care medical treatment at Moses Cone; (b) whose bills
were not paid in whole or in part by commercial insurance or a
governmental healthcare program; and (c) who were not granted a
full discount or waiver under Moses Cone's charity policies or
otherwise had their bills permanently waived or written off in
full by Moses Cone.

In an order entered March 16, 2017, the trial court dismissed
Chambers' amended complaint on the basis of mootness: There was
no longer a controversy between the parties, and the case did not
fit within an exception that allowed a moot claim to proceed.
Chambers appeals.

On appeal, Chambers argues that the trial court erred by
concluding that Moses Cone's dismissal of its counterclaims
defeated Chambers' right to continue prosecuting the putative
class action.

Judge Bryant disagrees.  She explains that Chambers alleged that
on Aug. 23, 2011, he went to the emergency room at Moses Cone for
an emergency medical procedure; at the time, he was uninsured.
Chambers was subject to Moses Cone's standard contract terms and
provisions, which stated that he was obligated to pay the
hospital's bill in accordance with the regular rates and terms of
Moses Cone.  Chambers alleged that his claims are typical of the
claims of the proposed Class and that he is a member of the
proposed Class as defined.  Furthermore, he alleged that he will
fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the
Class.  He shares the same interests as all Class members in
having the Contract interpreted and in preventing Moses Cone from
pursuing collection of accounts based on billing at its
chargemaster rates.

However, after Chambers amended the proposed class complaint on
April 1, 2016 to assert only one cause of action -- declaratory
judgment as to the interpretation of an open price term contained
in Moses Cone's Patient Consent form signed by self-pay emergency
care patients -- and removed all other previous claims, such as
breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, constructive trust, restitution, and injunction, the
Judge finds that Moses Cone ceased its efforts to collect
Chambers's outstanding balance.

On May 18, 2016, Moses Cone dismissed with prejudice all
counterclaims against Chambers and his wife filed in response to
the proposed class action complaint as well as the District Court
action against Chambers and his wife for recovery of Chambers'
$14,358.14 outstanding balance due Moses Cone.  Thus, according
to the Judge, Chambers no longer has an individual claim against
Moses Cone, and neither Chambers nor his wife is subject to suit
by Moses Cone for recovery of the outstanding balance owed for
emergency medical services provided Aug. 23, 2011.  Chambers'
bill has effectively been permanently waived or written off, and
thus, Chambers is no longer a member of the proposed class he
seeks to represent.

As to the remaining grounds raised as exceptions to the basis for
holding Chambers's action moot, Judge Bryant notes that each is
an exception to holding the class action moot.  Furthermore,
Chambers has provided no authority which would allow the class
action to proceed despite his lack of individual standing as
class representative.  Accordingly, she affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of Chambers' amended class action complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bNPrOf from Leagle.com.

Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by John F. Bloss --
jbloss@greensborolaw.com -- and Barry L. Kramer Law Offices, by
Barry L. Kramer, Esq., admitted pro hac vice, for plaintiff-
appellant.

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, by Philip J. Mohr --
philip.mohr@wbd-us.com -- and Brent F. Powell --
brent.powell@wbd-us.com -- for defendant-appellees The Moses Cone
Memorial Hospital and The Moses Cone Memorial Hospital
Corporation.


MTGOX INC: Greene's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Report Due on June 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 7, 2018, in the case
captioned Gregory Greene, et al. v. MtGox Inc., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-01437 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
      Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification is denied as to Plaintiff Motto's effort to
      serve as class representative of the Deposit Subclass;

   -- given the dismissal of their individual claims, the motion
      is denied as moot as to Plaintiff Lack's and Plaintiff
      Pearce's efforts to serve as class representatives of,
      respectively, the Deposit and Withdrawal Subclasses;

   -- Defendant Mizuho Bank's motion to exclude Henderson as an
      expert is denied as moot;

   -- by June 25, 2018, the parties shall file a status report
      presenting their joint or competing perspectives on what
      remains to be done in this case.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UsnPh18A


NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Briefing Schedule in "De Angelis" Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley entered an order in these cases,
which are all designated as related:

   -- STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS v. NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC,
      Case No. 2:17-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio);

   -- STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS v. NOLAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No.
      2:17-cv-00926-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio);

   -- STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS v. ICON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., et
      al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00927-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio); and

   -- STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS v. C G Consulting LLC, et al., Case
      No. 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

On April 16, 2018, the Court granted a stay in two of the cases,
2:17-cv-927 and 2:17-cv-985, pending the Supreme Court's decision
in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP et al v.
Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc.  The Supreme Court issued a decision in Epic Systems on May
21, 2018.  See Epic Systems v. Lewis, --- S. Ct. -- -- (2018),
2018 WL 2292444.  The Court, therefore, lifts the stay in cases
2:17-cv-927 and 2:17-cv-985.

The Court sets a briefing schedule.  The Defendants in Case No.
2:17-cv-927 against ICON Entertainment Group Inc., et al., had
until June 6, 2018, to file any motion to stay or dismiss in
favor of arbitration.  The responses in opposition and replies in
support of such motions will follow the briefing schedule (June
19, 2018 for responses in opposition and July 3, 2018 for replies
in support).

Any response in opposition to any motion to dismiss, motion for
judgment on the pleadings, motion to strike, and/or motion to
compel arbitration in any of the cases must be filed on or before
June 19, 2018.  This includes any responses in opposition to the
following docket numbers (if not already filed): ECF Nos. 6 and
11 in Case No. 2:17-cv-924; ECF No. 15 in Case No. 2:17-cv-926;
ECF Nos. 28, 29, 30, 34, and 43 in Case No. 2:17-cv-985; and any
motion to dismiss or similar pleading filed by June 6 in Case No.
2:17-cv-927.

Any replies in support of the motions to dismiss, motions for
judgment on the pleadings, motion to strike, and/or motions to
compel listed in subsection two above must be filed on or before
July 3, 2018.

The Court determines it will be most efficient and in the
interest of judicial economy to consider the pending dispositive
motions before considering the pending motions to conditionally
certify a class.  Therefore, the Court hereby vacates the
hearings on the class certification motions currently scheduled
for July 30, 2018, in cases 2:17-cv-924 and 2:17-cv-926.

All pending class certification motions are hereby dismissed
without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs are free to re-file the
motions at any time after the Court rules on the dispositive
motions.  In light of this ruling, ECF Nos. 12 and 16 in Case No.
2:17-cv-926 are moot.

Copies of the Order filed in the cases are available at no charge
at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kEOQqIXG
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uCFIfvNO
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zxcUVAYV
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y6k3p5TS


NCB MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Fleenor" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fleenor and Crystal Bartz move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ROBERT
FLEENOR and CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 2:18-cv-00882-JPS Filed (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiffs (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 Plaintiffs assert, 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 Plaintiffs tell 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 Plaintiffs
assert 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 Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class 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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, 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=2uFgUUrU

The Plaintiffs are 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


NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SETI JOHNSON and SHAREE
SMOOT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
TORRE JESSUP, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467
(M.D.N.C.), move for certification of two classes.

Mr. Johnson moves for certification of and seeks to represent a
class referred to as the Future Revocation Class, which is
proposed to be defined as:

     All individuals whose drivers' licenses will be revoked in
     the future by the DMV due to their failure to pay fines,
     penalties, or court costs assessed by a court for a traffic
     offense.

Ms. Smoot moves for certification of and seeks to represent a
class referred to as the Revoked Class, which is proposed to be
defined as:

     All individuals whose drivers' licenses have been revoked by
     the DMV due to their failure to pay fines, penalties, or
     court costs assessed by a court for a traffic offense.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7NNnM1cP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Brook, Esq.
          Cristina Becker, Esq.
          Sneha Shah, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA
          LEGAL FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 28004
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 834-3466
          E-mail: cbrook@acluofnc.org
                  cbecker@acluofnc.org
                  sshah@acluofnc.org

               - and -

          Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
          Emily C.R. Early, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 340
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 221-4036
          E-mail: kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
                  emily.early@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          Danielle Davis, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  danielle.davis@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq.
          R. Orion Danjuma, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 519-7876
          E-mail: nchoudhury@aclu.org
                  odanjuma@aclu.org

               - and -

          Laura Holland, Esq.
          SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
          1415 W. NC Hwy. 54, Suite 101
          Durham, NC 27707
          Telephone: (919) 323-3380
          Facsimile: (919) 323-3942
          E-mail: lauraholland@southerncoalition.org


OCLARO INC: "Karri" Class Suit Challenges Acquisition by Lumentum
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAISRAVAN BHARADWAJ KARRI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. OCLARO, INC., MARISSA PETERSON,
EDWARD COLLINS, GREG DOUGHERTY, KENDALL COWAN, DENISE HAYLOR, IAN
SMALL, BILL SMITH, and JOEL A. SMITH III, Case No. 3:18-cv-03435-
JD (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2018), arises from the proposed
acquisition of Oclaro by Lumentum Holdings Inc.

On March 11, 2018, Oclaro, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum,
and Prota Merger, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum, entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lumentum will acquire
Oclaro in a two-step merger transaction.  First, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Oclaro with Oclaro surviving the First Step
Merger.  As soon as reasonably practicable following the First
Step Merger, Oclaro will merge with and into Merger Sub LLC with
Merger Sub LLC continuing as the surviving entity.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding
share of Oclaro will be converted into the right to receive $5.60
in cash and 0.0636 shares of Lumentum common stock.  Based on the
closing price of Lumentum's stock on March 9, 2018, of $68.98
(the last trading day before the Oclaro and Lumentum announced
the execution of the Merger Agreement), the per share value of
Oclaro common stock implied by the Merger Consideration was
$9.99, or approximately $1.8 billion in value.  However, based on
the closing stock price of Lumentum common stock on May 29, 2018
(the most recent practicable date prior to the date of the
Proxy), the per share value of Oclaro common stock implied by the
Merger Consideration was $9.60, the Plaintiff asserts.

The special meeting of Oclaro stockholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is scheduled for July 10, 2018.

Oclaro is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in San Jose, California.  The Company is a
leader in optical components, modules, and subsystems for optical
transport and metro networks, enterprise networks, and data
centers.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
Oclaro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, 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
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Technicians Class Certified in "Ross"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Orlando L. Garcia grants the Parties' Joint Motion for
Conditional Certification in the lawsuit styled CASEY ROSS,
individually and for others similarly situated v. OILFIELD
INSTRUMENTATION, USA, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00312-OLG (W.D.
Tex.).

The Court conditionally certifies a class of similarly situated
persons, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for purposes
of this case:

     Current and former Service Technicians employed by Defendant
     during the last three years from the date of this order, and
     who did not receive overtime pay for hours worked over forty
     (40) hours in a workweek.

Judge Garcia approves the Parties' proposed forms for notice to
putative class members and consent to join and e-mail
notification.  The Parties have further agreed to and propose
this schedule:

   -- 14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members -- OIUSA to provide to Ross's Counsel in Excel
      (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
      Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es)
      with city state, and zip Code; any last known e-mail
      address(es), to the extent Defendant is able to locate
      email addresses after a reasonable search of its personnel
      records;); beginning date(s) of employment; and ending
      date(s) of employment (if applicable);

   -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members -- Ross's Counsel shall send a single copy of the
      Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
      Class Members once by First Class U.S. Mail and once by
      e-mail, to the extent an e-mail address is located by
      Defendant; and

   -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
      Potential Class Members -- The Putative Class Members shall
      have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to Ross's
      Counsel for filing with the Court.  Ross's counsel shall
      file all consent forms into the record within five (5)
      business days of the date they are received from the
      Putative Class Members.

The names and contact information produced for the Putative Class
Members pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the parties'
agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order, and shall not be
used for any purpose other than to send a copy of the Court-
approved Notice and Consent Forms to the Putative Class Members,
as provided in this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F1xjf8p3


OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motels Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01781-VAB (D. Conn.), seeks an order certifying
this class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile from August 12, 2015, to August 15, 2015, stating:
     "Otis Elevator Company services all brands of elevators,"
     and has "160+ years of experience and counting," and "[t]o
     opt-out of future faxes, email strategic.sourcing@wyn.com or
     call this toll-free number: (877) 764-4212."

The case arises out of several thousand facsimiles sent on August
13, 2015, advertising the commercial services of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Fax violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing it as class
representative and appointing Ryan M. Kelly, Esq., of Anderson +
Wanca and Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq., of Bellin & Associates as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b8oFmRLr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


PANERA LLC: Meyer Renews Bid to Certify FLSA & DCMWA Collectives
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALAN MEYER, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PANERA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02565-EGS-GMH (D.D.C.), file with
the Court their Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
       Act collective;

   (2) conditionally certifying the proposed D.C. Minimum Wage
       Act collective;

   (3) tolling the statute of limitations from January 30, 2018
       through the pendency of the Motion;

   (4) directing the Defendants to produce a computer-readable
       list of the names, last known mailing addresses, last
       known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses,
       dates of work, and work locations for all Collective
       Members, and the Social Security numbers of those
       Collective Members whose notices are returned
       undeliverable; and

   (5) authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective
       members, as well as a reminder notice during the opt-in
       period, and the creation of a standalone Web site.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Lucy B. Bansal, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 60601
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
                  lbansal@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


PEACEHEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Echlin"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE ECHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEACEHEALTH, DBA
PeaceHealth Southwest Medical Center; COMPUTER CREDIT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-35324 (9th Cir.), Judge
Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
granting Computer Credit, Inc. (CCI)'s and PeaceHealth's motions
for summary judgment.

Echlin is a former patient of PeaceHealth Southwest Medical
Center (PeaceHealth) in Vancouver, Washington.  She received
treatment at PeaceHealth on two different occasions but never
paid the nearly $1,000 in medical bills she incurred as a result.
After Echlin ignored multiple requests for payment, PeaceHealth
referred her delinquent accounts to CCI, a purported collection
agency, for further action.

In early April 2013, PeaceHealth sent Echlin's information to CCI
for assistance in collecting the debt from her first treatment at
PeaceHealth.  On April 4, CCI assigned Echlin's debt a CCI
account number and screened it for barriers to collection.  The
next day, CCI sent an initial collection letter to Echlin
demanding payment.  Echlin neither responded nor paid the debt,
and CCI returned the account to PeaceHealth on May 5.

CCI later sent Echlin another initial collection letter, seeking
payment from her second visit to PeaceHealth.  This time, Echlin
sent a letter to CCI disputing the debt.  CCI never responded to
Echlin's letter but instead marked the account disputed,
determined that all further collection activity should stop, and
returned the account along with Echlin's letter to PeaceHealth.

On March 11, 2014, Echlin filed a putative class action3 against
CCI and PeaceHealth, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), including but not limited to
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692j.  Specifically, Echlin alleged
that the letters she received created a false or misleading
belief that Defendant CCI was meaningfully involved in the
collection of a debt prior to the debt actually being sent to
collections -- a practice commonly known as flat-rating.  She
sought statutory damages, actual damages, and attorneys fees.

CCI and PeaceHealth moved for summary judgment.  In response to
CCI's motion, Echlin continued to press her flat-rating claims
but also argued that, even if such claims failed, CCI's practices
violate the statute in other ways.

The district court granted CCI's and PeaceHealth's motions for
summary judgment.  It ruled that the undisputed evidence showed
that CCI indeed did meaningfully participate in the collection of
Echlin's debt, thereby precluding any flat-rating claim.  The
court also struck the Section 1692e(5) claim Echlin argued at
summary judgment, explaining that Echlin had not fairly raised
such a claim in her complaint and thus the Defendants had no
notice of the claim and would have been substantially prejudiced
if she were allowed to add the new claim so far into litigation.
Although Echlin did not formally move to amend her complaint, the
court further determined that any amendment would be futile,
because at that point the new claim would have been barred by the
FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations.

Echlin timely appealed and challenges the district court's
rejection of both her flat-rating claims and her Section 1692e(5)
claim for CCI's allegedly false threats to take further
collection action against her.  She also argues that she has a
viable claim under Section 1692e(10) for CCI's allegedly
deceptive inclusion of both its and PeaceHealth's contact
information in the letters it sent her.

Judge O'Scannlain finds that although CCI could not negotiate,
process, or seek to compel repayments, it participated in the
attempts to collect debts owed to PeaceHealth in a variety of
other ways.  CCI's assistance in facilitating those efforts went
beyond acting simply as a mailing house for PeaceHealth.  The
Judge is persuaded that CCI's efforts were enough to have
participated meaningfully in the attempts to collect debts like
Echlin's.

The Judge disagrees with Echlin's argument that the district
court's conclusion is inconsistent with two out-of-circuit cases
in which attorneys who mailed collection notices on a creditor's
behalf were deemed not to have participated meaningfully in the
collection process.  In sum, he finds that Echlin has not pointed
to any case in which a company has been held liable for flat-
rating where its services include (among other things): screening
referred debtors for barriers to collection, independently
composing and mailing collection letters, inviting and responding
to customer questions on a variety of details about the
collection process, and maintaining a website that allows
customers to access individualized information about their debts
and to submit electronic files to the company.  The Judge agrees
with the district court that these activities are enough to show
that CCI meaningfully participated in the attempts to collect
Echlin's debts.

The district court did not err in concluding that Echlin's
complaint and its focus on flat-rating failed to give CCI fair
notice of her later-argued Section 1692e(5) claim, Judge
O'Scannlain holds.  Echlin's attempt to add such a claim at the
summary judgment stage is impermissible.  The district court did
not err also in concluding that CCI would have been substantially
prejudiced by undertaking an entirely new course of defense based
on these Section 1692e(5) allegations so far into litigation.
The Judge finds that any amendment to add Echlin's materially
different Section 1692e(5) claim would not relate back to the
date of Echlin's original complaint, and would therefore be time-
barred.

Finally, Echlin failed to raise her argument that CCI also
violated Section 1692e(10), because its letters deceptively
included contact information for both CCI and PeaceHealth and
failed to clarify whether she should communicate with and pay CCI
or PeaceHealth, at any point prior to the appeal.  Such a claim
is nowhere to be found in Echlin's complaint, and she did not
even bother to argue it when opposing the motions for summary
judgment.  The issue is therefore waived.

For these reasons, Judge O'Scannlain affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UMYPXN from Leagle.com.

Brendan W. Donckers -- bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- (argued) and
Daniel F. Johnson, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Seattle,
Washington; Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Consumer Justice Center PA,
Vadnais Heights, Minnesota; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bradley L. Fisher -- bradfisher@dwt.com -- (argued), Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendant-Appellee
PeaceHealth. Cassandra L. Crawford --
cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- (argued) and Mark A.
Stafford -- mark.stafford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Jeffrey
I. Hasson, Davenport & Hasson LLP, Portland, Oregon; for
Defendant-Appellee Computer Credit, Inc.


PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Claim 7 in "Bango" Recommended for Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD BANGO, SCOTT BAILEY, Plaintiffs, v. PIERCE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-06002-RBL-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma,
adopted Magistrate Judge David W. Christel's recommendation that
the Defendants' Motion for 12(b)(1) Dismissal Regarding
Administration of Psychiatric Medication to Outgoing Inmates be
granted and the claim be dismissed.

Bango and Bailey, individuals incarcerated at the Pierce County
Jail at the time the Complaint was filed, allege the Defendants
are failing to provide adequate mental health treatment in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants are: (1)
failing to provide adequate mental health screenings ("Claim 1");
(2) ignoring clear signs of mental illness and requests for
treatment ("Claim 2"); (3) refusing to provide necessary
treatment for mental illnesses ("Claim 3"); (4) delaying and
denying basic mental health care, including medications ("Claim
4"); (5) punishing the Plaintiffs for non-violent behaviors
caused by their mental illnesses ("Claim 5"); (6) housing the
Plaintiffs in solitary confinement despite clinically proven
negative impacts of isolation on individuals with mental illness
("Claim 6"); and (7) refusing to provide needed psychiatric
medications upon release from the Jail ("Claim 7").

The only claim at issue in the Motion to Dismiss is Claim 7.  On
Feb. 2, 2018, the Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss
asserting the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring Claim 7.
The Plaintiffs filed a Response on Feb. 26, 2018, and the
Defendants filed a Reply on March 2, 2018.  The Court heard oral
argument on March 29, 2018.

In support of the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants filed copies
of portions of the Plaintiffs' state court criminal records.  In
their Response, the Plaintiffs included a single sentence
requesting the Court strike the state court criminal records.
The Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs provide no
argument explaining why the state court records submitted by the
Defendants or the Defendants' arguments are based on speculation
and conjecture.  Further, the Plaintiffs provide no legal
authority supporting their request to strike the records.  He
also notes that, during oral argument, the Plaintiffs cited to
the state court records submitted by Defendants.  As such, he
finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown it is appropriate to
strike the state court records provided by Defendants.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed
to allege facts sufficient to show a concrete and particularized
injury as to Claim 7.  The Complaint contains factual allegations
stemming from Plaintiff Bailey's lack of mental health treatment
during his most recent incarceration at the Jail.  There are no
allegations showing his release from Jail is imminent or that
Plaintiff Bailey faces the possibility of being released from the
Jail at all.  The Plaintiffs have also failed to allege facts
showing Plaintiff Bailey faces a risk of decompensation if he is
released from the Jail without medication.  Furthermore, even if
the Plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to show the three
elements they asserted, the alleged injury is not real, imminent,
or concrete.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Christel, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any,
and the remaining record, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation.  Therefore, it (i) granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants are refusing
to provide needed psychiatric medications to them upon release
from the Jail is dismissed for lack of standing.  The Court
denied the Plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint.
However, it noted that the Plaintiffs may file a motion to amend
consistent with local and federal rules.  The Clerk is directed
to send copies of the Order to the Plaintiff, the counsel for
Defendants, and to Magistrate Judge Christel.

A full-text copy of the April 17, 2018 Report and Recommendation
Order is available at https://is.gd/gfJwQn from Leagle.com.

Donald Bango & Scott Bailey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Antoinette
Marie Davis , ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Janelle Ellen Chase Fazio --
jchasefazio@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP, Jessica
Wolfe, ACLU OF WASHINGTON & Sal Mungia -- smungia@gth-law.com --
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP.

Pierce County, Washington & Pierce County Sheriff's Department,
Defendants, represented by Frank Cornelius, PIERCE COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION & Michelle Luna-
Green, PIERCE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL
DIVISION.


PORT PIPE: Kostmayer Moves to Certify Class of Phone Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION, LLC
v. PORT PIPE & TUBE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01012-UDJ-KK (W.D.
La.), asks the Court to certify the case as a class action for
this class of similarly situated persons:

     All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone
     numbers to which within four years of the filing of this
     Complaint, Defendant sent facsimile transmissions with
     content that discusses, describes, promotes products and/or
     services offered by Defendant, and does not contain the
     opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C. Section
     227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E), (d)(2) or 47 C.F.R.
     Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)-(vii).

Kostmayer also asks the Court to appoint it as class
representative, and to appoint Chehardy, Sherman, Williams,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CPKjR4fU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE,
          STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613-4528
          E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com
                  plh@chehardy.com
                  rpm@chehardy.com
                  mas@chehardy.com
                  prf@chehardy.com


QUALCOMM INC: Sued by Camp for Vexing Broadcom's Buyout Attempt
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAREY CAMP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, STEVEN M. MOLLENKOPF and
GEORGE S. DAVIS, Case No. 3:18-cv-01208-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., June
8, 2018), is a federal class action brought on behalf of all
persons, who purchased Qualcomm securities between January 31,
2018, and March 12, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Qualcomm and
certain of its senior officers.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose to investors that Qualcomm had secretly filed
a unilateral notice with Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States ("CFIUS") in order to frustrate Broadcom's attempt
to acquire the Company.

The CFIUS is "an inter-agency committee authorized to review
transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a
foreign person ('covered transactions'), in order to determine
the effect of such transactions on the national security of the
United States."

Qualcomm is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices in San Diego, California.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Qualcomm develops and commercializes "foundational technologies
and products used in mobile devices and other wireless products."
According to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with
the SEC on November 1, 2017, Qualcomm is "a pioneer in 3G (third
generation) and 4G (fourth generation) wireless technologies, and
[is] a leader in 5G (fifth generation) wireless technologies to
empower a new era of intelligent, connected devices."  The
Company derives revenues principally from the sale of integrated
circuit products and the licensing of intellectual property.

Broadcom Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of
a broad range of semiconductor devices, with a focus on complex
digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor
based devices and analog III-V based products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Luke O. Brooks, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  lukeb@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          Christopher A. Reese, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@sbtklaw.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com
                  creese@ktmc.com


RENDEZVOUS CAFE: Chocolatl Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR CHOCOLATL, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated v. RENDEZVOUS CAFE, INC., doing business as SAVOR CAFE,
and IGOR SAIAG, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-03372 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 8, 2018), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1)
unpaid wages and minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation;
(3) liquidated damages; (4) prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

Rendezvous Cafe, Inc., doing business as Savor Cafe, is a
domestic business corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business
in Brooklyn, New York.  Igor Saiag is the owner, officer,
director and/or managing agent of Savor Cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
                  jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Faces "Henthorn" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL HENTHORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ROYAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:18-
cv-01742-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., June 8, 2018), alleges that Royal
Admin used automatic telephone dialing systems to initiate calls
to wireless cellular telephone lines of the Plaintiff and Class
members using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without prior express consent of the called party in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Based in Hanover, Massachusetts, Royal Admin is a Florida
Corporation that regularly transacts business in the state of
Indiana.

Royal Admin operates as a service contract administrator of
automotive service plans.  The Company offers automotive service
plans for new and used vehicles that provide protection against
repair costs.  The Company also oversees various aspects of
customer services, contract services, and claims
adjudication.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          Colin E. Flora, Esq.
          PAVLACK LAW, LLC
          9011 N. Meridian St., Suite 203
          Indianapolis, IN 46260
          Telephone: (317) 251-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 252-0352
          E-mail: Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com
                  Colin@PavlackLawFirm.com

               - and -

          G. John Cento, Esq.
          CENTO LAW, LLC
          5915 N. College Ave.
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Telephone: (317) 908-0678
          E-mail: Cento@CentoLaw.com


RPX CORPORATION: "Barrington" Class Suit Challenges Sale to HGGC
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE BARRINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RPX CORPORATION, SHELBY W. BONNIE, STEVEN
L. FINGERHOOD, SANFORD R. ROBERTSON, MARTIN E. ROBERTS, MALLUN
YEN, FRANK E. DANGEARD, GILBERT S. PALTER, ANDREW D. AFRICK, and
MAGDALENA YESIL, Case No. 4:18-cv-03415-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 8,
2018), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the tender offer by HGGC, LLC, through its
affiliates, to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares
of RPX.

On April 30, 2018, RPX entered into a definitive agreement and
plan of merger, whereby each stockholder of RPX common stock will
receive $10.50 per share.  On May 21, 2018, in order to convince
RPX stockholders to tender their shares, the Company's Board of
Directors authorized the filing of an alleged materially
incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  In particular, the Recommendation Statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) RPX's financial projections; and (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
GCA Advisors, LLC, the Plaintiff asserts.

RPX is a Delaware corporation and maintains its headquarters in
San Francisco, California.  RPX is a provider of patent risk and
discovery management solutions.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.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


RPX CORPORATION: Carmean Seeks to Block HGGC Acquisition Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOB CARMEAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. RPX CORPORATION, SHELBY W. BONNIE, STEVEN L.
FINGERHOOD, SANFORD R. ROBERTSON, MARTIN E. ROBERTS, MALLUN YEN,
FRANK E. DANGEARD, GILBERT S. PALTER, ANDREW D. AFRICK, and
MAGDALENA YESIL, Case No. 4:18-cv-03365-JSW (N.D. Cal., June 7,
2018), seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which RPX will be acquired by
HGGC, LLC, through Riptide Parent, LLC, and Riptide Purchaser,
Inc.

On May 1, 2018, RPX issued a press release announcing it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Parent and
Purchaser dated April 30, 2018 to sell RPX to HGGC.  Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding shares of RPX common stock for
$10.50 per share.  The Offer commenced on May 21, 2018, and was
to expire one minute after 11:59 p.m. New York City Time, on June
18, 2018.

Mr. Carmean alleges that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest RPX's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders.

RPX is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in San Francisco, California.  RPX is a provider
of patent risk and discovery management solutions.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


SATELLITE COUNTRY: "Prejean" Class Has Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Prejean et al, v. Satellite Country Inc., Civil
Action No. 6:17-cv-01170 (W.D. La.), Judge Carol B. Whitehurst of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification.

The case involves claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiff states he was hired by Satellite
Country, an authorized contractor for Dish TV, and worked as a
satellite technician and/or installation and repair technician.
He alleges that Satellite Country failed to pay him and other
satellite technicians overtime as required by the FLSA.  The
Plaintiff contends the Putative Class Members consist of
Satellite Technicians employed by Satellite Country.

The Plaintiff further states that Satellite Country pays their
technicians based upon a "point" system.  Specifically, Satellite
Country assigns a numerical point for each job completed by one
of its satellite technicians.  Each technician is paid based upon
the total number of points obtained, without taking into
consideration the actual time it took for the technician to
complete the job.  The Plaintiff contends that Satellite Country
did not pay Prejean or the other technicians for all hours
worked, has actual and constructive knowledge of this off-the-
clock work, and therefore, "has made the conscious election not
to pay their technicians for this work.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the other satellite
technicians are similarly situated in that Satellite Country's
wage policies are the same and apply to all satellite technicians
as follows: (1) the first thing they have to do every morning is
to drive to Satellite Country's warehouse to pick up the supplies
and equipment they will require for the day as well as a list (or
route) of customers they will service that day -- without
compensation for this time spent; (2) they are subject to
deductions from their wages for customer chargebacks, which often
cause them to earn less than the statutory minimum wage; and, (3)
they are improperly treated as independent contractors, and as
such, are not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of
40 in a work week.

The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and that judicially-
approved notice be sent by first class mail, e-mail and text
message to all individuals who were classified as satellite
technicians by Satellite Country at any time during the past
three years.

If granted conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), the Plaintiff requests that Satellite Country be required
to produce in Excel format the names of all potential collective
action members, along with their last known mailing address, e-
mail address, telephone number and social security numbers, and
dates of employment.  He further requests posting of the Notice
of this action along with the consent forms in conspicuous
locations at all of Satellite Country's locations.  Finally, he
moves the Court for an order prohibiting retaliation by Satellite
Country or its managers against individuals who opt-in to the
lawsuit.

Satellite Country denies the Plaintiff's allegations and opposes
collective action certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Its primary position is that the Plaintiff "performed various
functions on behalf of Satellite Country including satellite
installation and repair services, but he also performed "handy
man work" on behalf of "I Can Do It" Handyman Services, LLC for
Satellite Country.

The Defendant contends that Satellite Country paid the Plaintiff
for his handy man work based upon his own bids.  It contends that
these "side jobs" which the Plaintiff voluntarily undertook as a
contractor are outside the scope of his FLSA claims and there is
not a putative class of individuals who are "similarly situated"
for purposes of maintaining a collective action.  It further
contends that the Plaintiff's declaration that he worked at least
60 hours almost every week and often put in 70 hour weeks is
unclear as to whether these hours include his work as a satellite
technician only or also include his "side jobs."  Satellite
Country argues that the Plaintiff cannot be a proper
representative for the putative Plaintiffs who performed only in
the role as a contract satellite technician, without the "side
jobs."

Thus, the issues raised by the pending motion are whether a
collective action is properly certified and, if so, how the class
should be defined and whether notice should issue.

Judge Whitehurst finds that the Plaintiff's declaration provides
the Court a reasonable assurance that the class members were
subject to common employment policies and, thus, share an
employment status for FLSA purposes.  She finds that at this
time, the Plaintiff has satisfied his lenient burden and has
demonstrated a reasonable basis for the allegation that a class
of similarly situated persons may exist.  Thus, the Plaintiff has
provided enough evidentiary support for his allegations to
justify the issuance of notice to members of the putative class.

Because Satellite Country requests that the Court gives the
parties a brief amount of time to negotiate a suitable notice and
to submit any differences on the notice to the Court, the Judge
directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the proposed
notice and attempt to resolve any disputes in good faith as
ordered.

or the foregoing reasons, Judge Whitehurst granted Prejean's
Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and to
Facilitate Notice Pursuant To 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)as set
forth, and conditionally certified the matter as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S .C. Section 216(b).

The Defendant will have until May 4, 2018, to provide the
Plaintiff with a computer-readable database that includes the
names of all potential members of the FLSA Collective Class,
along with their current or last known mailing address, email
address and telephone number.

The parties meet, confer, and thereafter submit to the Court a
joint proposal of notice by May 11, 2018.  If they're unable to
agree on the proposed notice, the parties will file the
appropriate motion(s) with their objections no later than May 17,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pgRdOA from Leagle.com.

Christopher Prejean, Plaintiff, represented by George B. Recile,
Chehardy Sherman Williams, Matthew Arthur Sherman, Chehardy
Sherman Williams, Preston Lee Hayes, Chehardy Sherman Williams &
Ryan Paul Monsour, Chehardy Sherman Williams.

Satellite Country Inc, Pamela McCue & Lynn Jenkins, Defendants,
represented by Brad E. Harrigan -- bharrigan@nolaipa.com -- Tolar
Harrigan & Morris & Jesse B. Hearin, Hearin Law Office.


SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses "Hine" Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to the case, STEPHEN HINE, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SCOTTRADE, INC., and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17 CV 2803
RWS (E.D. Mo.).

Scottrade moves to dismiss the putative class action on the
grounds that Martin's complaint is barred by res judicata.
Martin alleges that Scottrade breached its brokerage agreement
with her and other customers by failing to prevent a data breach
in 2013.

In 2013, hackers breached Scottrade's computer security system
and stole Angela Martin's and other customers' personal
identifiable information.  The hackers later used that
information for a stock price manipulation scheme, illegal
gambling websites, and a Bitcoin exchange.  The Federal Bureau of
Investigation notified Scottrade of the breach in late August
2015.  After receiving FBI approval in September 2015, Scottrade
sent a letter to its customers notifying them of the breach and
offering free enrollment in identity repair protection services.

Between October and December 2015, Hine and three other named
Plaintiffs filed separate, but largely identical, putative class
actions complaints in U.S. District Courts in California,
Missouri, and Florida.  Their complaints allege that Scottrade
breached its brokerage agreement with them, breached an implied
contract, acted negligently, was unjustly enriched, and violated
state consumer laws.  Hine and Martin agreed to transfer their
cases to the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidate with
Kuhns' and Duqum's claims in one complaint.

Once the cases were consolidated, the magistrate judge dismissed
the complaint, with prejudice, for lack of standing.  The
magistrate judge found that the Plaintiffs had not pleaded any
injury in fact under various legal theories.  Hine himself did
not appeal the district court's decision.  Instead, he litigated
his case in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  Kuhns, however, appealed the district court's dismissal.
While his appeal was pending, Kuhns also filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss his appeal and to dismiss Scottrade's cross-
appeal.  Kuhns wanted the litigation to proceed in California
state court through Hine's action.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit denied that motion, because it was untimely.

The Eighth Circuit ultimately reversed the magistrate judge's
holding on standing, but it affirmed the dismissal with prejudice
because the Consolidated Complaint did not state claims upon
which relief can be granted.  Following the Eighth Circuit's
ruling that the Plaintiffs had Article III standing, Scottrade
removed Hine's complaint to the Southern District of California.
The Southern District of California then granted Scottrade's
motion to transfer the case -- again -- to the Eastern District
of Missouri.

Scottrade argues that Judge Sippel should dismiss Martin's
complaint because it is barred by res judicata and, as the Eighth
Circuit found in Kuhns, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.  Hine argues that, because the Eighth Circuit did
not rule on her Florida State Law claims, his claims have never
been adjudicated and res judicata does not apply.

The Judge rejects Hine's argument.  First, the cause of action,
and the relief sought, in Hine's case and in Kuhns are identical.
They arise from the same language in the brokerage agreements and
the same 2013 security breach that constitute the operative facts
in the case.  Both complaints seek damages and declaratory relief
that allegedly arise from Scottrade's failure to protect its
customers' personal identifiable information.  No different
facts, transactions, occurrences, or events serve as a separate
basis for Martin's claim.  Hine's complaint adds Florida state
law claims.  Accordingly, Hine's complaint states the same cause
of action and the same thing sued for as the complaint in Kuhns.

As to the third and fourth identities, Hine was a party to the
consolidated complaint that was dismissed with prejudice in
Duqum.  Although he did not appeal himself, his case was
extinguished when the Eighth Circuit affirmed under Rule
12(b)(6).  Because Hine's complaint satisfies the four identities
and the ruling in Kuhns is final, the Judge holds that res
judicata bars Hine's cause of action arising from the 2013 data
breach.

Accordingly, Judge Sippel granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  An Order of Dismissal will accompany the Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LODa9z from Leagle.com.

Stephen Hine, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP, Thomas Joseph
O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP,
Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP,
James Jason Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- COHELAN AND KHOURY,
Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC, pro hac vice
& Timothy D. Cohelan -- tcohelan@ck-lawfirm.com -- Cohelan Khoury
& Singer.

Scottrade, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Brandi Lynne Burke -- bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Brandi Lynne Burke , Thompson Coburn
LLP, Christopher M. Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Mangian --
dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Helen
Byungsun Kim -- hkim@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP &
Thomas E. Douglass -- tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP.


SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses "Martin" Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, ANGELA LYNN MARTIN, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
SCOTTRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17 CV 2948 RWS (E.D. Mo.).

Scottrade moves to dismiss the putative class action on the
grounds that Martin's complaint is barred by res judicata.
Martin alleges that Scottrade breached its brokerage agreement
with her and other customers by failing to prevent a data breach
in 2013.

In 2013, hackers breached Scottrade's computer security system
and stole Angela Martin's and other customers' personal
identifiable information.  The hackers later used that
information for a stock price manipulation scheme, illegal
gambling websites, and a Bitcoin exchange.  The Federal Bureau of
Investigation notified Scottrade of the breach in late August
2015.  After receiving FBI approval in September 2015, Scottrade
sent a letter to its customers notifying them of the breach and
offering free enrollment in identity repair protection services.

Between October and December 2015, Martin and three other named
Plaintiffs filed separate, but largely identical, putative class
actions complaints in U.S. District Courts in Florida,
California, and Missouri.  Their complaints allege that Scottrade
breached its brokerage agreement with them, breached an implied
contract, acted negligently, was unjustly enriched, and violated
state consumer laws.  Martin and Hine agreed to transfer their
cases to the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidate with
Kuhns' and Duqum's claims in one complaint.

Once the cases were consolidated, the magistrate judge dismissed
the complaint, with prejudice, for lack of standing.  The
magistrate judge found that the Plaintiffs had not pleaded any
injury in fact under various legal theories. Martin herself did
not appeal the district court's decision.  Instead, she litigated
her case in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pasco County, Florida.
Kuhns, however, appealed the district court's dismissal.  While
his appeal was pending, Kuhns also filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss his appeal and to dismiss Scottrade's cross-appeal.
Kuhns wanted the litigation to proceed in California state court
through Plaintiff Hine's action.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit denied that motion, because it was untimely.

The Eighth Circuit ultimately reversed the magistrate judge's
holding on standing, but it affirmed the dismissal with prejudice
because the Consolidated Complaint did not state claims upon
which relief can be granted.  On May 3, 2017, Scottrade removed
Martin's complaint to the Middle District of Florida.  On Dec.
28, 2017, the Middle District of Florida granted Scottrade's
motion to transfer the case -- again -- to the Eastern District
of Missouri.

Scottrade argues that Judge Sippel should dismiss Martin's
complaint because it is barred by res judicata and, as the Eighth
Circuit found in Kuhns, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.  Martin argues that, because the Eighth Circuit
did not rule on her Florida State Law claims, her claims have
never been adjudicated and res judicata does not apply.

The Judge rejects Martin's argument.  First, the cause of action,
and the relief sought, in Martin's case and in Kuhns are
identical.  They arise from the same language in the brokerage
agreements and the same 2013 security breach that constitute the
operative facts in the case.  Both complaints seek damages and
declaratory relief that allegedly arise from Scottrade's failure
to protect its customers' personal identifiable information.  No
different facts, transactions, occurrences, or events serve as a
separate basis for Martin's claim.  Martin's complaint adds
Florida state law claims.  Accordingly, Martin's complaint states
the same cause of action and the same thing sued for as the
complaint in Kuhns.

As to the third and fourth identities, Martin was a party to the
consolidated complaint that was dismissed with prejudice in
Duqum.  Although she did not appeal herself, her case was
extinguished when the Eighth Circuit affirmed under Rule
12(b)(6).  Because Martin's complaint satisfies the four
identities and the ruling in Kuhns is final, the Judge holds that
res judicata bars Martin's cause of action arising from the 2013
data breach.

Accordingly, Judge Sippel granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  An Order of Dismissal will accompany the Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/zn4zzs from Leagle.com.

Angela Lynn Martin, On Behalf of Heself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Anderson Benton
Dogali -- adogali@dogalilaw.com -- Dogali Law Group, PA, Geoffrey
E. Parmer  -- gparmer@dogalilaw.com, The Consumer Protection
Firm, PLLC, Geoffrey Joseph Spreter -- Spreter Law Firm, APC, pro
hac vice, James Jason Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury
& Singer, pro hac vice, Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Paula R. Brown -- pbrown@bholaw.com --
Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard L. Miller,
II -- rmiller@siprut.com -- Siprut, PC, pro hac vice, Richard S.
Wilson -- rwilson@rwlex.com -- Siprut, PC, pro hac vice, Thomas
J. O'Reardon II  -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood, Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, pro hac vice
& Timothy Douglas Cohelan, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer, pro hac
vice.

Scottrade, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Lea Drushal --
drushal@trenam.com -- Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye,
O'Neill & Mullis,, Brandi L. Burke -- bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -
- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Hohn --
chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice,
Thomas E. Douglass, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice & William
Albert McBride -- bmcbride@trenam.com -- Trenam, Kemker, Scharf,
Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis.


SOUTHWEST GAS: Howard Seeks to Recover OT Pay for CS Dispatchers
----------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-01035-
JAD-VCF (D. Nev., June 7, 2018), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated customer service dispatchers, who are employed
by the Defendants, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Southwest Gas is engaged in the business of purchasing,
transporting and distributing natural gas.  As the largest
distributor of natural gas in Nevada and Arizona, it serves more
than 1.9 million customers in the Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson
metropolitan areas.  In addition, it transports and distributes
natural gas in large portions of California.

Southwest Gas is a company based in Victorville, California, and
Las Vegas, Nevada.  Southwest Gas operates and has operated "call
centers" in Las Vegas and other locations where telephone-
dedicated employees -- customer service Dispatchers -- handle
phone calls with homeowners and technicians on a daily basis to
resolve gas issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Wins Final OK of $5.6-Mil. Deal in "Fronda"
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James approves the motion for
final approval of settlement and certification of settlement
class and grants in part the motion for attorneys' fees and
enhancement award in the lawsuit titled EARL FRONDA v. STAFFMARK
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02315-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

The parties' Settlement is finally approved a fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  The Settlement Class is defined as:

    "any and all individuals employed by the CBS Defendants at
     CEVA Freight, LLC, CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. and/or any
     other location of CEVA, CEVA's parents or any CEVA-related
     entity operating in California during the Class Period
     (April 17, 2011 through the date of preliminary approval of
     this Settlement by the Court)."

The Settling Defendants agree to pay a maximum Settlement Sum of
$5,600,000.   This figure includes (1) payments to Class Members,
(2) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, (3) administration
costs, (4) any enhancement award to Plaintiff, and (5) payment to
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").

Payment to all Settlement Class Members shall be issued pursuant
to the terms of the Agreement.  Class Members, who did not submit
a timely and valid written request to be excluded from the
Settlement, are bound by the terms of the Agreement.  Settlement
Class Members who did not timely object to the settlement set
forth in the Agreement are barred from prosecuting or pursuing
any appeal of this Order.

Shaun Setareh, Esq., and H. Scott Leviant, Esq., of the Setareh
Law Group are confirmed as Class Counsel.  Class Counsel are
awarded $1,866,666 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Earl Fronda is confirmed as the class representative
and shall receive a $5,000 enhancement award, to be paid in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

KCC, LLC, is confirmed as Settlement Administrator.  Settlement
administration costs are awarded in the amount of $24,750.

The Settlement does not resolve the matter as to Defendant CEVA
LOGISTICS, U.S., INC., though it does resolve claims by the
Settlement Class against any joint employers of the CBS
Defendants, including CEVA Freight, LLC and CEVA Logistics U.S.,
Inc., to the extent that any of the claims settled as to the CBS
Defendants would apply to any CEVA defendant.

No later than September 28, 2018, the parties shall file a joint
status report indicating (1) the number of Class Members who have
cashed their settlement checks, (2) the amount of uncashed funds,
(3) any issues the parties believe should be addressed, and (4) a
proposed course of action for remedying such issues, if any.

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


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Weisberg Moves to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ALAN WEISBERG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00784-PA-JC (C.D.
Cal.), moves for an order certifying these proposed classes:

   * California Class:

     All persons who, at any time during the Class Period,
     activated a Trintellix Savings Program Card and then used or
     attempted to use the card at a pharmacy within the State of
     California and were charged more than $10.00 for a 30-day
     supply for Trintellix or more than $30.00 for a 90-day
     supply of Trintellix; and

   * Nationwide Class:

     All persons who, at any time during the Class Period,
     activated a Trintellix Savings Program Card and then used or
     attempted to use the card at a pharmacy in the United States
     and were charged more than $10.00 for a 30-day supply for
     Trintellix or more than $30.00 for a 90-day supply of
     Trintellix.

The "Class Period" for both classes is the three years preceding
the filing of the initial complaint and continues through the
present and the date of judgment.  Alternatively, the "Class
Period" dates back the length of the longest applicable statute
of limitations for any claim asserted on behalf of that Class
from the date this action was commenced and continues through the
present and the date of judgment.

Specifically, excluded from both the Nationwide Class and
California Class are: (a) any Defendant, person, firm, trust,
corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in
which any Defendant has a controlling interest or which is
related to or affiliated with any Defendant, and any current
employee of any Defendant; (b) all persons who make a timely
election to be excluded from the proposed Class; (c) the judge(s)
to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family members
thereof; and (d) the legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-
interest or assigns of any excluded party.

Mr. Weisberg also asks the Court to name him as class
representative, and to appoint Christopher P. Ridout, Esq., of
Zimmerman Reed LLP as class counsel.

To the extent the Court disagrees with any of the proposed
definitions for the Classes or any Class Period, Mr. Weisberg
moves the Court to redefine or modify those definitions, as such
determinations are within the Court's discretion.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 16, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
          Hannah Fernandez, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  ben.gubernick@zimmreed.com
                  hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Lackawanna Seeks to Stop Sending of Unwanted Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LACKAWANNA CHIROPRACTIC P.C., a New York professional
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIVITY HEALTH SUPPORT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00649 (W.D.N.Y., June 7,
2018), wants to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Tivity Health Support, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.  Tivity is a
provider of fitness and wellness program networks through which
members obtain services, including acupuncture, chiropracty, and
massage at a discounted rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26TH Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GORDON AND MARY FELLER, et
al. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01378-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), move for certification of these
classes:

   * National Subclass:

     All persons who owned a Policy: (i) for which Transamerica
     sent notification of a Monthly Deduction increase beginning
     on or after August 15, 2015; and (ii) that terminated
     thereafter;

   * California Subclass:

     All California residents who owned a Policy: (i) for which
     Transamerica sent notification of a Monthly Deduction
     increase beginning on or after August 15, 2015; and (ii)
     that terminated thereafter; and

   * California Senior Subclass:

     All California residents who were 65 years old or older who
     owned a Policy: (i) for which Transamerica sent notification
     of imposition of a Monthly Deduction increase beginning on
     or after August 15, 2015; and (ii) that terminated
     thereafter.

The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Gerald R. Lyons
as class representative of the National Subclass, California
Subclass, and the California Senior Subclass.  They further move
for the appointment of Andrew S. Friedman, Esq., of Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC; Harvey Rosenfield, Esq., of
Consumer Watchdog; and Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq., of The Moskowitz
Law Firm as Lead Counsel for the Classes and these firms as
additional class counsel: Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley LLP;
Barrack Rodos & Bacine; Emerson Scott, LLP; Johnson Vines PLLC;
Patterson Law Group; Merlin Law Group, PA; and, Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 27, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
          Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
          CONSUMER WATCHDOG
          2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522
          Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
          E-mail: Harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
                  jerry@consumerwatchdog.org

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Gail M. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Howard Bushman, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 479-5508
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  gail@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          William M. Shernoff, Esq.
          Travis M. Corby, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
          301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 246-0503
          Facsimile: (310) 246-0380
          E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com
                  tcorby@shernoff.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com
                  mrosen@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          David G. Scott, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON VINES PLLC
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Catherine S. Wicker, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  catherine@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Chip Merlin, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Denise H. Sze, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-5961
          Facsimile: (310) 229-5763
          E-mail: deniseszelaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Gunther's Placeholder Bid to Certify Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled GUNTHER WELL AND PUMP
SERVICE, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, and MICHAEL
GUNTHER, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-08475-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.), stipulate and
agree that the Plaintiffs agree to withdraw without prejudice
their "Placeholder" Motion for Class Certification.

Hence, the Hon. Freda L. Wolfson terminated the "Placeholder"
Motion per the Parties' stipulation.

According to the Stipulation, the Plaintiffs filed their
Complaint and the Placeholder Motion on October 17, 2017.  The
Placeholder Motion was filed to protect against individual
settlement offers that potentially could moot Plaintiffs' claim
for class-wide relief (citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662
F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

To prevent the Motion from pending for an extended period of
time, and to facilitate briefing at the appropriate time, the
Parties agreed to the Stipulation.

Transamerica intended to oppose class certification at the
appropriate time after the Plaintiffs' filed their supporting
brief.  Transamerica agrees not to make any individual settlement
offer or Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to the named Plaintiffs from
the date of this stipulation until such time as the named the
Plaintiffs file a renewed motion for class certification, or
notify the Court that they will not pursue their class claims
under Rule 23.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Nicholas Fiorovanti, Esq.
          Michael J. Canning, Esq.
          GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA PC
          125 Half Mile Rd., Suite 300
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 741-3900
          Facsimile: (732) 224-6599
          E-mail: mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com
                  mcanning@ghclaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (247) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 400 West
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8189
          Facsimile: (202) 965-2104
          E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Moss Seeks to Certify Three Classes of Pilots
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MOSS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED CONTINENTAL
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08496 (N.D. Ill.), seeks class
certification of these classes:

   * Sick Time Accrual Class:

     All past and present pilots employed by the Company from
     April 1, 2005, to the present, who did not accrue sick time
     while on periods of military leave;

   * Vacation Time Accrual Class:

     All past and present pilots employed by the Company from
     April 1, 2005, to the present, who did not accrue vacation
     time while on periods of military leave; and

   * LOA 38 Class:

     Those furloughed pilots employed by the Company whose
     longevity was capped under UP A LOA 25, and who performed
     military service during the period from December 1, 2012 to
     January 31, 2016, and whose retroactive pension payments
     under LOA 38 were lower than they should have been in
     accordance with USERRA.

Mr. Moss also asks the Court to appoint Stonebarger Law APC and
Pilot Law, P.C., as class counsel.

The class action is brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.  The Plaintiff
seeks certification of nationwide Classes of all current and
former employees of United Airlines, Inc., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, United Air Lines, Inc. and
Continental Airlines, Inc., who were or are currently serving in
the United States Armed Services or National Guard.  The case
challenges the Company's implementation of three policies that
discriminates against pilots absent from employment due to
military leave.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hqy8SlDs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW, P.C.
          850 Beech Street, Suite 713
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 255-2398
          Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


UNITED STATES: Class of Detainees Certified in "Gonzalez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order in the lawsuit
styled ESTEBAN ALEMAN GONZALEZ, et al. v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01869-JSC (N.D. Cal.):

   -- granting as to their statutory claims, the Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification of 8 U.S.C.
      Section 1231(a)(6) detainees in the Ninth Circuit;

   -- appointing Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP,
      Centro Legal De La Raza, Matthew Green, ACLU-SC, ACLU-NC,
      and ACLU-SD as class counsel;

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction under the Immigration and Nationality Act and
      Administrative Procedure Act; and

   -- enjoining the Government from detaining the Plaintiffs and
      the class members pursuant to Section 1231(a)(6) for more
      than 180 days without a providing each a bond hearing
      before an immigration judge as required by Diouff II.

In Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011)
("Diouf II"), the Ninth Circuit held that an individual facing
prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(6) "is
entitled to release on bond unless the government establishes
that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community," according
to the Order.  The Government has detained Plaintiffs Esteban
Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez pursuant to 8
U.S.C. Section 1231(a)(6) for more than six months without an
individualized bond hearing.  Accordingly, they filed the suit on
behalf of themselves and a putative class seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify as a class "all
individuals who are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section
1231(a)(6) in the Ninth Circuit by, or pursuant to the authority
of, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and who
have reached or will reach six months in detention, and have been
or will be denied a prolonged detention bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge."

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


UNITED STATES: Must File Info on Parole Applications in D.A. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Esther Salas entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
D.A., S.K., and L.M., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-
09214-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), directing the Defendants to provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel, and file with the Court, no later than June
18, 2018, certain information relating to individuals detained
under the authority of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's
Newark Field Office, including information showing the grants and
denials of all parole applications from December 2016 through the
most current month available, and the basis for each denial.

Should the Defendants attempt to withhold any such ICE Directive
11002.1 worksheets, the Court rules that (i) the Defendants shall
submit a letter (no longer than five double-spaced pages)
explaining the legal and factual bases for withholding any such
worksheets; and (ii) Plaintiffs shall submit a letter (no longer
than five double-spaced pages) responding to the Defendants'
arguments regarding the worksheets.

Judge Salas also rules that:

   -- the Defendants shall submit a brief (no longer than ten
      double-spaced pages) raising all challenges to the Court's
      subject-matter jurisdiction by June 18, 2018;

   -- the Plaintiffs shall submit a brief (no longer than ten
      double-spaced pages) responding to Defendants' challenges
      to jurisdiction by June 25, 2018;

   -- unless the Court notifies the parties otherwise, Counsel
      shall appear in person before the Court on July 10, 2018,
      at 12:00 p.m., for oral argument on whether the Court has
      subject-matter jurisdiction;

   -- the Court will revisit the Plaintiffs' application for an
      order to show cause pending the Court's determination on
      subject-matter jurisdiction;

   -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is HELD IN ABEYANCE
      pending the Court's determination on subject-matter
      jurisdiction; and

   -- the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed anonymously is granted.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0idfO7Qc


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Cost-Sharing Reduction Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff, v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 17-877C (Fed. Cl.), Judge
Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted
the Plaintiff's motions, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), to certify a
class and for the appointment of the class counsel.

On Feb. 24, 2016, Health Republic Insurance Co. filed a putative
class action in the Court in which it alleged that the government
had not fully paid the risk corridors payments to which it and
other insurers were entitled for 2014 and 2015.  Subsequently, a
number of other insurers filed similar lawsuits, and Health
Republic moved to certify its case as a class action.  After the
Defendant indicated that it did not dispute that Health Republic
had satisfied the requirements of RCFC 23, the Court granted
Health Republic's motion, certified a class of insurers who were
owed risk corridors payments for 2014 and 2015, and appointed the
law firm representing Health Republic -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP -- as the class counsel.

The Plaintiff, who is represented by the same attorney who
represents Health Republic, opted into the certified class in the
Health Republic case.  Then, on June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed its own putative class action in the Court to recover, for
itself and other insurers, unpaid risk corridors payments for
2016.

Several months later, on Nov. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint to add a claim to recover, for itself and other
insurers, the cost-sharing reduction payments that the government
has not made since October 2017.  Thereafter, several other
insurers sought to recover unpaid cost-sharing reduction payments
in the Court by filing suit or, like the Plaintiff, adding claims
to their existing complaints.

On Dec. 14, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to certify two classes -- a
risk corridors class and a cost-sharing reduction class -- and
for the appointment of Quinn Emanuel as the class counsel.  The
Defendant responded shortly thereafter, indicating that it did
not dispute that the Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of
RCFC 23 with respect to the risk corridors class and that it did
not oppose the Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of class
counsel with respect to either class.

After receiving the Defendant's response, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a risk corridors class, certified a
class of insurers who were owed risk corridors payments for 2016,
and appointed Quinn Emanuel as the class counsel.

The Defendant subsequently filed a response in opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a cost-sharing reduction class, and
the Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion.

In its class certification motion, the Plaintiff seeks the
certification of a cost-sharing reduction class described as all
persons or entities offering Qualified Health Plans under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the 2017 or 2018
benefit year, and who made cost-sharing reductions for eligible
insureds pursuant to Section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, but did not receive a timely and periodic
payment from the Government of an amount equal to the value of
the reductions provided to its insureds.

Because the Plaintiff has satisfied all of the requirements set
forth in RCFC 23 for maintaining a class action, Judge Sweeney
granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify a cost-sharing
reduction class.

Specifically, she certified the cost-sharing reduction class of
all persons or entities offering Qualified Health Plans under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the 2017 or 2018
benefit year, and who made cost-sharing reductions for eligible
insureds pursuant to Section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, but did not receive a timely and periodic
payment from the Government of an amount equal to the value of
the reductions provided to its insureds.

The cost-sharing reduction class claim is for amounts allegedly
owed to the class by the United States pursuant to section 1402
of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. Section 18071) and 45
C.F.R. Section 156.430 for the 2017 and 2018 benefit years.

The Judge ordered that the parties may later move for
decertification or move for the class to be divided into
subclasses if, as the case develops, the circumstances warrant
such a motion.

Judge Sweeney designated the Plaintiff as the class
representative, and appointed Quinn Emanuel as the counsel for
the cost-sharing reduction class.

She directed that no later than May 18, 2018, the Defendant will
provide to plaintiff a list of potential class members, which
will include all entities that offered qualified health plans
under the Affordable Care Act in the 2017 and 2018 benefit years,
and who made cost-sharing reductions for eligible insureds
pursuant to section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act, but did not
receive a timely and periodic payment from the government of an
amount equal to the value of the reductions provided to its
insureds.

The list will include the name of the individual or entity that
is a potential class member, the current or last known
electronic-mail address of the individual or entity (providing
the name and electronic-mail address of the person responsible
for cost-sharing reduction receivables, if known), and the
current or last known mailing address of the individual or
entity.

If, after May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff discovers the identity of
additional potential class members to whom it believes that
notice should be provided, the Plaintiff will promptly inform the
Defendant.  The Defendant will have an opportunity to object to
any additional potential class members within seven calendar days
from the date that the Plaintiff identifies the newly discovered
potential class members by forwarding its objections to the
Plaintiff via electronic mail.  If the parties are unable to
resolve any of the Defendant's objections to the newly discovered
potential class members, they will file a joint motion setting
out in separate sections their respective positions for
resolution by the court.

The Judge also directed the class counsel to submit to the Court
a proposed notice plan and opt-in schedule that complies with the
requirements of RCFC 23 (c)(2)(B).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/jHyvFe from Leagle.com.

COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen
Andrew Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn,
Emanuel, et al., LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Marcus Scott Sacks, U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: USCIS Can Supplement Admin Record in EADs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case
No. C15-0813JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Lobart of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
supplement the administrative record, and (ii) granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to supplement the
administrative record.

Through the injunctive class action, the Plaintiffs seek to
compel USCIS to abide by regulatory deadlines for adjudicating
applications for employment authorization documents ("EADs")
filed by asylum applicants.  The Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants have failed to adjudicate EADs within the regulatory
timeframe, which constitutes unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed agency action.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on May 22, 2015,
because the Defendants failed to adjudicate I-765 forms within
the regulatory deadline.  On Nov. 4, 2016, they Plaintiffs filed
a third motion for class certification, and the Defendants
subsequently filed a third motion to dismiss.  The Court denied
and dismissed the Plaintiffs' proposed "90-Day" subclass, but
certified their "30-Day" subclass.

The "30-Day" class is defined as noncitizens who have filed or
will file applications for employment authorization that were not
or will not be adjudicated within 30 days and who have not or
will not be granted interim employment authorization.  This class
consists of only those applicants for whom 30 days has accrued or
will accrue under the applicable regulations.

The court appointed A.A., Mr. Machic Yac, and W.H. as the class
representatives.  The current administrative record consists of
documents related to individual EAD applications within the "30-
Day" subclass.

The parties filed their motions to supplement the administrative
record following class certification.  The Defendants seek to add
six documents to the administrative record.  These documents
describe the I-765 adjudication and asylum application
procedures.  Three of the documents are data sheets showing
"various factors and considerations" as to why USCIS is unable to
comply with the 30-day regulatory deadline.  The Defendants argue
the documents provide key background information and historical
context relevant to USCIS's inaction on EAD applications.

Plaintiffs seek to supplement the administrative record with a
March 31, 2017 Memorandum entitled, "Jurisdiction and EAD Clock
Procedures for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs)."  The
Plaintiffs also request to supplement the administrative record
with materials already submitted to the court, such as
declarations and exhibits.  These documents detail the harm to
class members resulting from delayed adjudications by Defendants.

In addition, the Plaintiffs argue that Exhibits B, C, and E are
not relevant to the cause of action and therefore oppose adding
them to the record.  They also object to including Exhibit F, the
declaration of Donald W. Neufeld, the Associate Director for
Service Center Operations at USCIS, because they contend the
declaration provides unwarranted post-hoc rationalizations for
USCIS's inaction.  However, if the Court supplements the record
with the declaration, the Plaintiffs request an opportunity to
depose Mr. Neufeld and request that the Defendants produce the
data underlying his assertions.

Judge Lobart grants the Defendants' motion as to Exhibits A-E and
denies their motion as to Exhibit F.  He grants the Plaintiffs'
motion in regards to the March 31, 2017 Memorandum and denies
their remaining requests.

The Judge allows supplementation of the administrative record
with Exhibits A-E because they provide relevant background
information given the certified class definition and the relief
the Plaintiffs request.  He therefore also grants the Plaintiffs'
request to supplement with the March 31, 2017 Memorandum
entitled, "Jurisdiction and EAD Clock Procedures for
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs)."  The Defendants' Exhibit A
mentions the Memorandum, which is directly relevant to the
procedures they describe.

However, the Judge denies the Plaintiffs' request to supplement
the administrative record with materials already submitted to the
Court.  He finds that these materials detail the harm to the
class members from delayed adjudications and do not provide an
answer regarding why the delay has occurred.   Supplementing with
these documents would impermissibly expand the record, even in
this "failure-to-act" case.

Regardless of whether Mr. Neufeld's declaration represents an
impermissible post-hoc rationalization, the Judge declines to
supplement the administrative record with Mr. Neufeld's
declaration.  Although the Court may permit parties to supplement
the administrative record, the Judge holds that the "failure-to-
act" exception is not an invitation for "unlimited discovery,"
which would be required if the Court allowed Mr. Neufeld's
opinions to become part of the record.

Finally, because the Plaintiffs' discovery requests on a number
of points Mr. Neufeld raised, if the Court permits the
declaration to become part of the record, hinge upon the
admissibility of Mr. Neufeld's declaration, he denies as moot the
rest of the Plaintiffs' requests that pertain to the declaration.

Based on his foregoing analysis, Judge Lobart granted in part and
denied in part (i) the Defendants' motion to supplement the
administrative record; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to
supplement the administrative record.  The Judge granted the
Defendants' motion in regards to Exhibits A-E and denied their
motion in regards to Exhibit F.  He granted the Plaintiffs'
cross-motion in regards to the March 31, 2017 Memorandum,
"Jurisdiction and EAD Clock Procedures," and denied the
Plaintiffs' remaining requests.  Lastly, the Judge directed the
clerk to substitute L. Francis Cissna for former Acting Director
of USCIS James McCament and Kirstjen Nielsen for former Secretary
of DHS John Kelly.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0QncBY from Leagle.com.

W. H., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christina J. Murdoch --
cm@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac
vice, Kathryn R. Weber -- kw@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK &
ASSOCIATES PC, pro hac vice, Leslie K. Dellon, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Marc Van Der Hout, VANDERHOUT
BRIGAGLIANO AND NIGHTINGALE, pro hac vice, Scott D. Pollock --
sdp@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac
vice, Trina Realmuto , AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice
& Christopher Strawn -- strawn@uw.edu -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT.

Wilman Gonzalez Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by Christina J.
Murdoch, SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice,
Christopher Strawn , NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Devin T.
Theriot-Orr, SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Kathryn R. Weber, SCOTT D. POLLOCK
& ASSOCIATES PC, pro hac vice, Leslie K. Dellon, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Marc Van Der Hout, VANDERHOUT
BRIGAGLIANO AND NIGHTINGALE, pro hac vice, Robert H. Gibbs, GIBBS
HOUSTON PAUW, Robert Pauw, GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW, Scott D. Pollock,
SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice & Trina Realmuto,
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice.

L. S., K. T., A. A., Karla Diaz Marin, Antonio Machic Yac, Faridy
Salmon & Jaimin Shah, Plaintiffs, represented by Devin T.
Theriot-Orr, SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Robert H. Gibbs, GIBBS HOUSTON
PAUW, Robert Pauw, GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW & Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services & United
States Department of Homeland Security, Defendants, represented
by Adrienne Zack, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Jeffrey S. Robins, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & John Joseph William Inkeles, US DEPT OF
JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION.

L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS & Kirstjen Nielsen,
Secretary of DHS, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Robins,
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


VIVINT SOLAR: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vivint Solar, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-02555 (E.D.
N.Y., April 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the Eastern District of New York.

The Defendant, Vivint Solar, Inc., is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware, and has a principal place of
business at 1800 West Ashton Boulevard, Lehi, Utah 84043. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      119-40 Union Turnpike Fourth Floor
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Tel: (718) 520-7125


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Fleenor" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fleenor moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled ROBERT FLEENOR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WEBCOLLEX LLC
d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00797-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant him (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).

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

As the Motion to certify a class 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, Mr. Fleenor points out.

Mr. Fleenor also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint 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=RVvr1XhW

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


WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Royal Park Securities Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, No. 14 Civ. 9764 (KPF) (SN) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Katherine Folk Failla of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York adopted the Jan. 10, 2018
Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Sarah
Netburn recommending the denial of Royal Park's motion for class
certification.

The case involves two residential mortgage-backed security
("RMBS") trusts for which Wells Fargo serves as trustee.  In May
2009, Royal Park acquired collateralized debt obligations
("CDOs") that included those two trusts, which acquisition
entitled Royal Park to beneficial interests in RMBS certificates.

Thousands of mortgage loans contained in the trusts operate as
collateral for the Certificates, and certificateholders like
Royal Park are entitled to the cash flow from the loans.
Institutional entities known as "Depositors" transferred the
loans to the trusts after acquiring the loans from "Sponsors" or
"Sellers," which, as their names suggest, either originated the
loans or acquired the loans from originating lenders.  Although
the CDOs were liquidated in February 2010, Royal Park asserts
that it retains the litigation rights that the initial purchasers
of the CDOs had against Wells Fargo.

Royal Park grounds its claims in the agreements that govern the
responsibilities between and among Wells Fargo as trustee; the
Depositors, Sponsors, and Sellers; and other interested parties.
In particular, Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs")
contained Representations and Warranties ("R&Ws") requiring the
Sponsor, the Seller, or other entity that originated or
transferred one of the underlying loans to the trusts to warrant
the credit quality and characteristics of those loans.

Royal Park alleges that Wells Fargo failed to satisfy the PSAs'
requirements -- thereby breaching both the PSAs and Wells Fargo's
common law duty of trust to avoid conflicts of interest with
trust beneficiaries -- because it discovered R&W breaches and
Servicer Events of Termination in the underlying trusts but took
virtually no action to enforce Seller obligations to repurchase
defective loans and Servicer obligations to cure defaults and
reimburse the Trusts for damages.  At present, only Royal Park's
breach of contract and breach of trust claims remain, the Court
having previously dismissed claims under the Trust Indenture Act
and the Streit Act.

In pursuit of these remaining claims, Royal Park seeks to certify
the class of all persons and entities who held Certificates in
the Covered Trusts at any time between the date of issuance to no
later than 60 days after notice of class certification and
opportunity to opt out is issued and were damaged as a result of
Wells Fargo's conduct alleged in the Complaint.

On Jan. 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued the R&R on
Royal Park's class certification motion, recommending that the
Court denies certification.  Judge Netburn found that Royal Park
had established that membership in the putative class was
ascertainable and that the class satisfied Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequate representation.  The certification
motion failed, in Judge Netburn's view, because Royal Park did
not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that common questions
predominate over individual issues and that a class action be
superior to other methods of adjudication.  Judge Netburn also
declined to recommend certifying a class under Rule 23(c)(4) for
the limited purpose of determining liability, finding that
certifying a limited class would implicate the same problems as
certifying a class to adjudicate the entirety of Royal Park's
claims.

On Feb. 7, 2018, Royal Park filed objections to the R&R, thereby
challenging Judge Netburn's recommendation that the putative
class be denied for failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).  On March 8, 2018, Wells Fargo opposed Royal Park's
objections, and on March 21, 2018, Royal Park replied to Wells
Fargo's opposition.

Along with its objections, Royal Park submitted to the Court
materials that it had not submitted to Judge Netburn.  By letter
dated March 23, 2018, Royal Park requested an evidentiary hearing
on the matter.  The Court denied the request, noting, in relevant
part, that the materials in issue had not been presented to Judge
Netburn and that no request had been made to her for an
evidentiary hearing.

Among other things, Judge Failla finds that even if Wells Fargo
committed breaches, its liability to investors would depend on a
variety of factors that would be idiosyncratic to each putative
class member.  Although these issues individually might not
predominate over any issues common to the putative class members,
taken together, they overwhelm any common issues.

The Judge also finds that the difficulty in determining standing
for members of the class is a consequence of the chain of
beneficial ownership of the trust certificates.  But even if it
turns out that all of the investors within Royal Park's proposed
class have retained the litigation rights linked to their
certificates under the law of the relevant jurisdiction, that
determination would still require an individualized inquiry for
each investor.  Identifying certificateholders is unlikely
without the record of each transfer, as the certificates are only
identifiable by a CUSIP number that is common to all other
holdings in a given tranche within a trust.  Royal Park has not
shown that it will be able to determine all of the beneficial
owners -- nor, more importantly, that these documents reveal the
chain of ownership necessary to determine whether a given
certificateholder owns the litigation rights associated with
their certificates.

The Judge further finds that in addition to predominance, Rule
23(b)(3) requires a movant to show that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.  Finally, for many of the same
reasons that individual issues would predominate over common
issues, a class action would not be a superior method of
resolving the claims at issue.

Given this, Judge Failla overruled Royal Park's objections to the
R&R and denied its motion for class certification.  The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate the motion appearing at docket
entry 453.  The parties are directed to submit a joint letter
within 30 days of the date of the Opinion advising the Court as
to how they wish to proceed; whether the stay in the action
should remain in effect; and, in light of the Opinion, whether
Royal Park will continue to pursue its remaining objections to
Judge Netburn's orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/1QKfpp from Leagle.com.

Amherst Advisory & Management, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Gayle Rosenstein Klein -- gklein@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith
& Elisa Lee -- elee@mckoolsmith.com -- New York City Law
Department.

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, Defendant, represented by
Clay J. Pierce -- clay.pierce@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath,
LLP, Jayant W. Tambe -- jtambe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Eric
Peter Stephens -- epstephens@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Harold
Keith Gordon -- hkgordon@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Howard
Fredrick Sidman -- hfsidman@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Jason
Jurgens -- jjurgens@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joseph James
Boylan -- jboylan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Kurt Michael
Gosselin -- kgosselin@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Michael O.
Thayer -- mothayer@jonesday.com  --  Jones Day, Paul Bartholomew
Green -- bartgreen@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Rebekah B.
Kcehowski -- rbkcehowski@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Traci Leigh
Lovitt -- tlovitt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Tracy V. Schaffer -
- tschaffer@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


YAHOO! INC: Bid to Reconsider Decertification in "Johnson" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Manish S. Shah denied the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, or in the alternative, to certify amended
classes in the lawsuit captioned RACHEL JOHNSON v. YAHOO!, INC.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02028 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff has sought reconsideration of the Court's decision
to decertify the class in the lawsuit.

Judge Shah noted that the parties should be prepared to discuss
whether to brief the application of ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d
687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), to the preexisting summary judgment record.

In his order, Judge Shah opined that the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that her new amended class definitions satisfy Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Hence, the Motion to
reconsider, or in the alternative, to certify amended classes is
denied.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NDM1JJxP





                            *********


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  * * *