CAR_Public/180620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, June 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 123



                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Civitares Files Product Liability Case in Mass.
A SCHULMAN INC: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to LyondellBasell
ACEBO ROOFING: "Coello" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ADP LLC: Henderson and Alston Sue over Biometric Data
ADVENTURE TIRES: "Diaz" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

AEGEAN MARINE: Artificially Inflates Share Price, Simco Claims
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Green" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
AMERICAN AIRLINES: O'Melveny Wins Summary Judgment in Pilot Case
AMERICAN DISPOSAL: Fails to Pay Wages and OT, Stitt et al. Say
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Holt Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Perron Balks at Eli Lilly Deal
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Gift Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Marquez" Suit
BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 14 Fairness Hearing on $29MM Settlement

BRICK NATION: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
C & V 77 ENTERPRISES: "Avilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CBE GROUP: Faces "Dwyer" Suit in E.D. New York
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Harvey" in District of New Jersey
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Blevins" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

CARE PROFESSIONALS: Polyakov Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CHINA AUTO: Vanderhoef Says Financial Report Misleading
CHINA CITY OF EAST: "De Jesus" Suit to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages
CONIFEX EL DORADO: Rhodes Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
DBI SERVICES: "Elton" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida

DEPT MANAGEMENT: Fabec Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "King" Says
DR PEPPER: Ct. Denies Bid to Junk Suit Over Canada Dry Ginger Ale
ECONOMIC RECOVERY: Accused by "Jones" Suit of Violating FDCPA
EDRIVING LLC: Glynn Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers

EPIC SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Batiste Says
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: "Baker" Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
ESTEE LAUDER: Can Compel Arbitration in "Sakyi" Labor Suit
ETS OILFIELD: Rios Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
FACEBOOK INC: Sanchez Suit Files Suit Over Date Breach

FBCS INC: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Carter" Suit Alleges
FBL FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Tronsgard" RICO Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Nelson Seeks to Overtime Pay under FLSA
FERMA GREENBOX: Perez Sues over Itemized Wage Statements
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gotel" Suit in E.D. New York

FRITO-LAY INC: Notice Procedures Order in "Chism" Deal Entered
GOHEALTH LLC: "Beck" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GOLD PROTECTION: Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: "Ayala" Suit Alleges NYLL Violations
HAIR BAR: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York

HALAL GUYS: "Elshamy" Suit Seeks Wages, Damages Under FLSA
HALLIBURTON CO: Deal in EPJ Fund Securities Suit Has Final OK
HANOVER INSURANCE: Ct. Won't Review Rulings in "Durand" Suit
HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Azroui Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
HEALTH CARE: "Saywer" Class Has Conditional Certification Bid

HERTZ EQUIPMENT: "Campos" Class Claims Dismissed
HSDC SECURITIES: Underpays Employees' Overtime Premium
HUMAN SERVICE: "Santos-Hunt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INVESCO LLC: Ramirezes Sue over Fraudulent Judgments vs. Tenants
INVESCO LTD: Cervantes Sues over 401(k) Plan

INVITATION HOME: "Rivera" Suit Moved to N.D. California
JMEP LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Munford Sues over Defective Talcum Powder
JTH TAX: Murrell Alleges Disability/Medical Condition Bias
KAISER FOUNDATION: Thomas Alleges Disability Discrimination

KARE MANAGEMENT: "Baker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KARPLUS WAREHOUSE: Fuller Sues over Illegal Termination
KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Arcuri" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
KONG TECH: Order on Payment of Claims With Missing Info Entered
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Faces "Horn" Suit in S.D. Florida

LONG BEACH, CA: Oct. 29 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 29 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
LYFT INC: Olson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under Labor Code
MAND MADE: "Bessey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MASTRO CONCRETE: Class in "Medrano" Suit Certified

MATHESON TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Straight Time & OT, Kuhns Says
MDL 2311: Sept. 26 Approval Hearing on $38MM Toyoda Settlement
MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Collier et al. Sue over WARN Act Violation
MINING MAX: Blancas Sues over Online Investment Scam
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN: "Waleski" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania

MOTHERHOOD CENTER: Doula Files Class Suit in Texas
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Dewick" Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fisher" Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL IMAGING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Mauthe" TCPA Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Bluming" Suit in E.D. New York

NEW PENN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in California Superior Court
NORTEK SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
NTT DATA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Adams" Suit Says
NUSTAR GP: Franchi Files Securities Class Suit in Del.
OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Cir. Denies Mandamus Bid in "Bozic" Suit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Puerto Rico Univ. Appeals to Eleventh Circuit
OLERO INC: Fails to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked, Brugers Say
OREGON: Enriquez Files Suit v. 36 Oregon Counties
OTB ACQUISITION: Rose Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
PEPE AUTO: "Gallagher" Suit Asserts Discrimination

PERLA MIXTECA: Toxqui Seek Overtime Compensation under FLSA
PITMAN FARMS: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Duran Says
PORTAGE COUNTY, OH: Faces "Lieberman" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
PRESIDIO BRANDS: "Shank" Injunctive Relief Claim Dismissal Nixed
RETAIL ASSISTANCE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Bello Says

RIGHT AT HOME: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Court Allows 2nd Amended "Weisheit" Suit
RXPEDITE PHARMACY: Advanced Dermatology Sues over Spam Fax
SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL: Peaks-Smith Sues over Biometric Data
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sold Defective Dryers, "DeFrank" Suit Says

SARAR USA: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Costello Says
SERVICOM LLC: Settlement in "Langdon" Suit Gets Approval
SOUTH CAROLINA: AAS Beneficiaries Class Certification Reversed
SOUTHERN & CARRIBEAN: "Barrios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

SP PLUS: 7th Cir. Vacates Removal of "Collier" From State Court
SRAH BAKERY: Accused by "Polanco" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
ST. NICKS ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Calderon Says
STAY LOKAL: Faces "Conner" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
STRIPPERS INC: "Bailey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

SUNRUN INC: Taylor Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SUNSET PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Retina Assoc. Over Junk Faxes
TRIDENT SOCIETY: "Quismundo" Voluntary Dismissal OK'd
U.S. SOCCER: Faces "Sherman" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Philip" Suit in E.D. New York

UNITED PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Martinez Says
UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies File Suit v. State Dept.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued over Sexual Harassment
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Getz Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
VISION QUEST: Mattson Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

VISION QUEST: Mattson Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Bohr Sues over Glutamine Product Labeling
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Clarification Bid in "Petrone" Suit Granted
WHITE PLAINS VETERINARY: Tucker Says Website Not Accessible

WINTHROP RADIOLOGY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Sypert Says
WIRELESS VISION: "Arteaga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime






                            *********


3M COMPANY: Civitares Files Product Liability Case in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Civitarese, Joann Crippin, Melissa Goss, Nancy Hagberg,
Gary Hagberg, Clayton Hendricks, Leslie Mathis, for themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The 3M Company,
fka Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-10747 (D. Mass., April 18, 2018), seeks damages for
negligence, medical monitoring, products liability - failure to
warn, defective design and private nuisance.

The Defendants manufactured and sold aqueous film forming foam
("AFFF"), a fire fighting agent used for fighting Class B fires.
Class B fires are fires whose fuel is flammable liquid. The AFFF
manufactured by the Defendants contain the fluorinated
surfactants PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) and PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acid) and/or contain the precursors of PFOS
and PFOA.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Hyannis, Massachusetts.  The
property receives water from the municipal wells of the Hyannis
Water System, operated by the Barnstable DPW's Water Supply
Division. PFCs have entered the property through the accumulation
of PFCs in the pipes, faucets, showerheads, and appliances, says
the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian Cuhna, Esq.
      311 Pine Street
      Fall River, MA 02720

          - and -

      Louise R. Caro, Esq.
      Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
      2665 South Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
      Coconut Grove, FL 33133


A SCHULMAN INC: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to LyondellBasell
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. A. SCHULMAN, INC., JOSEPH M. GINGO, ALLEN
A. SPIZZO, CAROL S. EICHER, EUGENE R. ALLSPACH, DAVID G. BIRNEY,
LEE D. MEYER, JAMES A. MITAROTONDA, ERNEST J. NOVAK, JR., and
KATHLEEN M. OSWAWLD, Case No. 5:18-cv-00992 (N.D. Ohio, April 30,
2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which the
Company will be acquired by LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
("Parent") and LYB Americas Holdco Inc.

On February 15, 2018, A. Schulman's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
LyondellBasell.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of A. Schulman will receive $42 in cash and one
contingent value right per share for a total consideration of
$2.25 billion.

A. Schulman is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Fairlawn, Ohio.  A. Schulman is an
international supplier of high-performance plastic compounds,
composites, and resins.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Non-party Parent is a company organized under the laws of The
Netherlands and is a party to the Merger Agreement.  Non-party
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.

LyondellBasell is one of the largest plastics, chemicals and
refining companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Camillus, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
          P.O. Box 141410
          Columbus, OH 43214
          Telephone: (614) 558-7254
          E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ACEBO ROOFING: "Coello" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Danilo Lopez Coello, and all others similarly situated v. Acebo
Roofing Corp., and Pedro L. Acebo, Case No. 1:18-cv-21574 (S.D.
Fla., April 20, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
overtime wage violations under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Danilo Lopez Coello worked for the Defendants as a driver from
March 5, 2004 through April 01, 2018. The Plaintiff is a resident
of Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant Acebo Roofing Corp., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.

The individual Defendant Pedro L. Acebo is a corporate officer
and owner and manager of the Defendant Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADP LLC: Henderson and Alston Sue over Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------
MAURICE HENDERSON and CHIQUITA ALSTON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, and KRONOS
INCORPORATED, a Massachusetts corporation, the Respondent In
Discovery, Case No. 2018-CH-07139 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June
5, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and
storage of Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's sensitive
biometric data.

To help make employee time and attendance tracking easier and
more accurate, ADP allegedly encourages its customers to use
biometric-based time clocks, which use employee fingerprints to
punch in and out of work, instead of key fobs, identification
numbers, or cards. While there are benefits to using biometric
time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks.
Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed
or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee.
This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

ADP is a provider of human resource management software and
services that's best known for helping hundreds of thousands of
businesses track employee time and process payroll.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC 350
          North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


ADVENTURE TIRES: "Diaz" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Torres Diaz, and all others similarly situated v.
Adventure Tires 3 LLC, and Luis Serrano, Case No. 1:18-cv-21552
(S.D. Fla., April 18, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a mechanic from March 1,
2015 through April 2, 2018.

The Defendants' services include but are not limited to axle and
cv joint repair, installation of belts and hoses, brake repair,
climate control systems maintenance and repair, cooling system
repair, diesel engine repair, exhaust system repair, lube, oil
and filter change, transmission repair, tire services and wheel
alignment. Per Defendants' website, Defendants sale of tires
include brands such as BFGoodrich, Cooper tires, General Tire,
Goodyear, and Michelin.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AEGEAN MARINE: Artificially Inflates Share Price, Simco Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICK SIMCO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK INC.,
E. NIKOLAS TAVLARIOS and SPYROS GIANNIOTIS, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04993 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2018), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Aegean common stock between April 28, 2016,
and June 4, 2018, inclusive. The Defendants allegedly carried out
a plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and,
throughout the Class Period, did: (1) deceive the investing
public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged
herein; and (2) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to
purchase Aegean common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The Defendants (a) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to
defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements
not misleading; and (c) engaged in acts, practices, and a course
of business that operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
purchasers of the Company's common stock in an effort to maintain
artificially high market prices for Aegean securities in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

Alcon Research, Ltd. operates as a research and development
laboratory which engages in the research of pharmaceutical
products. Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical
company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology,
medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Wolfman, Esq.
          GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
          600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 661 6582
          E-mail: wolfmanb@georgetown.edu

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 476 5056
          Facsimile: (312) 899 0420
          E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Paul F. Stibbe, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456 8400
          Facsimile: (312) 456 8435
          E-mail: Stibbep@gtlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: O'Melveny Wins Summary Judgment in Pilot Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12th, O'Melveny achieved a significant victory for
American Airlines when a New York bankruptcy judge granted
summary judgment to American in a lawsuit filed by a class of
former TWA pilots challenging American Airlines' pilot seniority
list.

Following American's 2001 acquisition of TWA, the former TWA
pilots were integrated into the American pilot seniority list but
did not receive full credit for their time at TWA.  They were,
however, awarded certain protections to allow them to maintain
their positions at the St. Louis base, the location of the
headquarters of TWA.  After American filed for bankruptcy, the
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted
American and its pilots union, the Allied Pilots Association
(APA), to reject their collective bargaining agreement, including
the protections for TWA pilots.  As a result, American and APA
agreed to participate in an interest arbitration to establish
non-economic protections for the former TWA pilots, but also
agreed that the arbitration panel could not modify the pilot
seniority list.  The arbitration took place in 2013, and the
former TWA pilots have filed three class action lawsuits against
American and APA challenging the manner in which the interest
arbitration was conducted and the results of the arbitration.

Last year, on April 14, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted
motions to dismiss filed by American and APA in one of the three
class actions (Adversary Proceeding No. 14-01920-SHL), in which
the plaintiffs complained that APA breached its duty of fair
representation by agreeing to maintain the seniority list without
the protections for TWA pilots, and that American colluded in
that breach.  Most recently, on June 12, 2018, the Bankruptcy
Court granted motions for summary judgment filed by American and
APA in another one of the class actions, Adversary Proceeding No.
13-01283-SHL, in a detailed 60-page opinion rejecting each of the
plaintiffs' arguments.

The plaintiffs claimed that APA breached its duty of fair
representation in connection with the conduct of the arbitration,
specifically in the manner in which the arbitrators, the members
of the committees that represented the pilot groups, and the
attorneys for those committees were selected, and because APA
objected to the position taken by the former TWA pilots in that
arbitration.  The plaintiffs also alleged that American colluded
with APA in that breach.

The Bankruptcy Court held that a reasonable juror could not find
that APA breached its duty and that the plaintiffs "have also
failed to present an issue for trial with respect to their
collusion claim against American given the failure of their
breach of fiduciary duty against APA and because there is not
affirmative action that would constitute collusion by American
under applicable law."  In so holding, the decision adopts a
strenuous standard that plaintiffs must satisfy to prevail in
collusion claims, making it yet another in a line of cases around
the country defended by O'Melveny that sets forth this standard.
Indeed, this strenuous standard for collusion claims has been
developed almost exclusively in cases that O'Melveny has handled
around the country for airlines beginning with a case against
United Airlines in 1991.

O'Melveny counsel Sloane Ackerman, Esq. -- sackerman@omm.com --
took the lead on the winning brief, and partner Mark Robertson,
Esq. -- mrobertson@omm.com -- argued the motion for summary
judgment.  The O'Melveny team also included partner Robert
Siegel, Esq. -- rsiegel@omm.com -- associate Stephanie Drotar,
Esq. -- sdrotar@omm.com -- and case manager Andrew Eveleth (DC).


AMERICAN DISPOSAL: Fails to Pay Wages and OT, Stitt et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL STITT, DARYL HARRIS, FLOYD LITTLE, DANIEL MORRISON,
JEROME PALMER, PAUL PETERSON, HANS REID, and BENTLEY SIMPSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02516-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 24, 2018),
alleges that American Disposal failed to pay regular and overtime
wages to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for hours
worked over 40 hours per work week.

According to complaint, the Plaintiffs were each employed as
Drivers for American Disposal. The Plaintiffs' job duties
consisted of driving waste disposal trucks to customer locations,
picking up customers' garbage and waste or containers holding
customers' garbage and waste, and dumping the garbage and waste
at specified locations. At all times that Plaintiffs were
employed by American Disposal, the Defendant was Plaintiffs'
employer for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Travis Foust, Esq.
          J. Daniel Cole, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873 8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873 8050
          E-mail: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
                  dcole@pcwlawfirm.com


ALPHA AND OMEGA: Holt Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
TAMBRA HOLT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ALPHA AND OMEGA SERVICES, INC., and
FRANK KELLER, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00034-TWP-CHS (E.D.
Tenn., May 25, 2018), seeks payment for unpaid overtime and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
within a workweek in excess of 40 hours.

The Plaintiff was given the job title of a "trooper." The job
duties of Plaintiff and those similarly situated consisted of
providing horse mounted safety/security patrol for large outdoor
events including Bonnaroo and other festivals across the country,
assisting and interacting with attendees to maintain safety,
enforce event rules and report potential hazards or incidents to
event staff. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not
paid at the proper overtime rate of one and one-half (1.5) times
their standard hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a standard work week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

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


ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Perron Balks at Eli Lilly Deal
------------------------------------------------
ALBERT PERRON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC., PETER VAN
VLASSELAER, XIANGMIN CUI, CARL GORDON, PIERRE LEGAULT, NAIYER
RIZVI, BETH SEIDENBERG, and STELLA XU, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-03335 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from closing a tender offer or taking any steps to
consummate a proposed transaction, unless and until material
information is disclosed to ARMO stockholders or, in the event
the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of ARMO
BioSciences, Inc. against ARMO and the members of the Company's
board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the
tender offer by Eli Lilly and Company through its subsidiaries to
acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of ARMO.

On May 9, 2018, ARMO allegedly entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger, whereby each shareholder of ARMO
common stock will receive $50.00 per share. On May 23, in order
to convince ARMO stockholders to tender their shares, the Board
authorized the filing of a 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: ARMO's financial projections;
the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Centerview Partners LLC; and information related to the
background of the Proposed Transaction.

The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at one-minute-past 11:59
p.m., eastern time, on June 21, 2018. It is imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the
Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company's
stockholders prior to the forthcoming Expiration Date so they can
properly determine whether to tender their shares.

ARMO, an immuno-oncology company, develops a pipeline of novel
product candidates that activate the immune system of cancer
patients.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity,
Plaintiff, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign profit
corporation, Defendant. MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a
Delaware entity, Plaintiff, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a
foreign profit corporation, Defendant. MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiff, v. OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation, Defendant. MSP RECOVERY
CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN-
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation,
Defendant, Case Nos. 1:17-cv-23841-PAS, 1:17-cv-24069-PAS, 1:17-
cv-24066-PAS, 1:17-cv-24068-PAS (S.D. Fla.), Judge Patricia A.
Seitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, granted with prejudice the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint.

The Plaintiff is an entity whose business model involves
obtaining assignments from Medicare Advantage Organizations,
first-tier entities and downstream entities to recover
reimbursement for payments made for the medical expenses of
Medicare beneficiaries that should have been made by a private
insurer pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSPA").
It filed the class action as the assignee of two entities --
Health First Administrative Plans, Inc. ("HFAP") and Verimed IPA,
LLC -- to seek reimbursement from the Defendants pursuant to the
MSPA.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are primary payers
which failed to perform their statutory obligation pursuant to
the MSPA to reimburse the Plaintiff's assignors for medical
payments made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

The relevant alleged facts as to the Plaintiff's HFAP and Verimed
claims are:

     1. HFAP: As assignee of HFAP, the Plaintiff brings three
representative claims.  Medicare beneficiaries J.L, J.W and P.G.
were each enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan issued and
managed by HFAP, an MAO.  The medical providers issued bills to
HFAP for the medical expenses of J.L, J.W. and P.G. which HFAP
paid.

     2. Verimed: As assignee of Verimed, the Plaintiff brings two
representative claims.  Medicare beneficiaries S.H. and P.L. were
each enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan issued and managed by
Optimum HealthCare, Inc., a MAO.  Optimum contracted with a
first-tier entity, Verimed, to provide services to S.H. and P.L.,
in exchange for a fixed fee.  Under its contract with Optimum,
Verimed: (1) incurred the cost of S.H.'s medical services
provided by Springhill Regional Hospital and SDI Diagnostic
Imaging; and (2) reimbursed Optimum for services P.L. received at
Polk County, Central Florida Imaging Associates, and Publix.

The Plaintiff alleges HFAP and Verimed assigned their rights to
recover conditional payments made on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries.  Both assignment agreements contain identical
boilerplate language describing HFAP and Verimed broadly as a
Health Maintenance Organization, Maintenance Service
Organization, Independent Practice Association, Medical Center,
and/or other health care organization and/or provider.

For each representative claim, the Plaintiff contends HFAP and
Verimed conditionally paid for medical services that the
Defendants should have paid as primary payers under the MSPA.  It
seeks double damages under Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), as well as a
reimbursement of damages under 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e)6
because of the Defendants' alleged failure to properly reimburse
its assignors.

The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Consolidated Complaint.  In the Consolidated Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleges it is entitled to reimbursement from the
Defendants for payments made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries
pursuant to the MSPA.  They move to dismiss for lack of standing
and for failing to state a claim.

The Plaintiff filed a response to which the Defendants replied.
The Plaintiff also filed an Affidavit of Michael Keeler which the
Defendants moved to strike as an unauthorized sur-reply.

Judge Seitz finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege its
original assignors have standing under Section 1395y(b)(3)(A).
Its theory is that Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), by virtue of providing
a private cause of action, provides standing to all private
parties.  However, the Judge says Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) is not a
qui tam statute; only Medicare beneficiaries, MAOs, and providers
that directly treated the Medicare beneficiaries have standing to
bring a claim under Section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Despite its 14th attempt at pleading its claims, she says the
Plaintiff has still failed to allege that any of its assignors
are Medicare beneficiaries, MAOs or medical providers that
directly treated the Medicare beneficiaries in these claims.  As
the evidence shows, this fatal defect cannot be cured.  The
Plaintiff's assignors simply are not within the purview of
parties who can bring a claim under Section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Therefore, because the Plaintiff's own evidence confirms that it
cannot allege facts to show standing, the Court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction to hear the case.  The Judge needs not allow
an amendment when there has been repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by previously allowed amendments.  Therefore, Judge
Seitz finds it is in the best interest of judicial economy to
grant the motion with prejudice. Accordingly, she granted the
Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.  She denied as moot all pending
motions and closed the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/p5Q1zl from Leagle.com.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiff,
represented by Frank Carlos Quesada, MSP Recovery Law Firm, John
Hasan Ruiz, MSP Recovery Law Firm, Alan H. Rolnick --
arolnick@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP, Andres Rivero --
arivero@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP, Natalia Marrero --
nmarrero@armaslaw.com -- Armas Bertran Pieri & Francesco Antonio
Zincone, III -- fzincone@armaslaw.com -- Armas Bertran Pieri.

Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a foreign profit corporation,
Defendant, represented by Francisco Ramos, Jr. --
framos@cspalaw.com -- Clarke Silverglate Williams & Montgomery,
Lori McAllister -- lmcallister@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC,
pro hac vice & Spencer Hal Silverglate --
ssilverglate@cspalaw.com -- Clarke Silverglate, P.A.

Owners Insurance Company & Southern-Owners Insurance Company,
Consol Defendants, represented by Francisco Ramos, Jr., Clarke
Silverglate Williams & Montgomery, Lori McAllister, Dykema
Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice & Spencer Hal Silverglate, Clarke
Silverglate, P.A.


BANK OF AMERICA: Gift Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GIFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1
17 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC706927 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to
permit paid rest breaks, provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the
United States by assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashifhaque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Marquez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00555-CW (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted BOA's motion for partial
summary judgment.

Marquez brings the putative class action lawsuit against
Defendants BOA, Business Information Group, Inc. ("BIG"), and
TALX Corporation, doing business as Equifax Workforces Solutions
("TALX").

In October 2016, the Plaintiff applied for employment with BOA as
a Mortgage Loan Officer.  During the application process, he
reviewed and electronically signed forms as part of an online
background check.  The Plaintiff signed an "FCRA Disclosure and
Authorization" form.  He executed the Disclosure Form and
Authorization on Oct. 29, 2016.

After signing the Authorization, the Plaintiff clicked
"Continue," which brought up another page entitled "Other
Background Check Information."  This page also allowed him to
select an option to indicate if he would like a copy of his
consumer report free of charge.  The Plaintiff selected this
option.

After submitting his application, on Oct. 31, 2016, Plaintiff was
offered a position with BOA, which was contingent upon a
satisfactory background check.  Ultimately, after conducting a
background check and interviewing him about his employment
history, BOA decided not to hire him.

On Feb. 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the suit.  On Sept. 22,
2017, he filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against the
Defendants, asserting claims under the Federal Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"); the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
("ICRA"), California Civil Code section 1786, et seq.; and the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRA").

On Jan. 9, 2018, BOA brought a motion for partial summary
judgment on the Plaintiff's First, Third, and Fifth Causes of
Action.  The Plaintiff filed an opposition and BOA filed a reply.
On March 20, 2018, the parties appeared for a hearing.

In his First Cause of Action, the Plaintiff alleges that BOA
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) because the Disclosure
Form was not a stand-alone document in that it contained: (1)
extraneous information such as state law disclosures and (2) a
liability waiver.  Judge finds that both arguments lack merit.
BOA has provided a screenshot showing that the Disclosure Form
and Authorization appeared as a stand-alone electronic page.
Because the Disclosure Form was a stand-alone document that
contained no extraneous information or liability waiver, it
complies with Section 1681b(b)(2)(A).

In his Third Cause of Action, the Plaintiff asserts that the
Disclosure Form violates the ICRA in two respects: (1) the
disclosure was not provided in a document consisting "solely" of
the disclosure, and (2) the disclosure did not identify the
investigative consumer reporting agency conducting the
investigation, as identified in subsection (iv).

The Judge finds that the plain language of section
178616(a)(2)(iv) only requires that BOA identify the
investigative consumer reporting agency conducting the
investigation.  Here, BIG is the investigative consumer reporting
agency conducting the investigation.  That BIG obtained
information from several different repositories, such as
Fieldprint, Transunion, and the FBI, does not take away from this
fact.  BOA was only obliged to disclose BIG, the agency it
engaged to provide a report, and not the various sources that BIG
used in conducting its investigation.

In his Fifth Cause of Action, the Plaintiff asserts that BOA
violated this section because it did not disclose that a consumer
credit report would be used, why it would be used, and who would
issue the report.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's arguments
that the Disclosure Form does not comply with the CCRA lack
merit.  The Disclosure Form disclosed that a consumer credit
report would be used.  It also disclosed the source of the
consumer credit report requested by BOA.

Again, Plaintiff's argument that BIG pulled information from
other sources in compiling its consumer credit report goes too
far.  The statute requires BOA to disclose the source of the
report it requested, not all of the various repositories of
information that the source used in compiling its report.  BOA
was not required to disclose why it requested the report.  Nor
was BOA required to disclose which basis provided in section
1024.5(a) applied, because BOA is exempt under section 1024.5(b),
which the Plaintiff does not contest.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Court defers ruling on
BOA's summary judgment motion, arguing that additional discovery
is needed.  Because the Plaintiff has not explained why the
requested discovery is essential to his defense, the Judge denied
his request.

For these reasons, Judge Wilken granted BOA's motion for summary
judgment on the Plaintiff's First, Third, and Fifth Causes of
Action.  The Plaintiff's Second and Fourth Causes of Action
against BOA remain in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jXkr0D from Leagle.com.

Sergio Marquez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick
Nathaniel Keegan -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- Keegan & Baker,
LLP, Walter Lewis Haines -- walter@whaines.com -- United
Employees Law Group, P.C. & James Michael Treglio, Keegan &
Baker, LLP.

Bank of America, National Association, a National Association
with its principle place of business in North Carolina,
Defendant, represented by Michael David Mandel --
mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Bryan Alan Fratkin
-- bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Heidi Elizabeth
Siegmund -- hsiegmund@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Sylvia Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP.

TALX Corporation, doing business as Equifax Workforces Solutions,
Defendant, represented by Matthew H. Dawson -- mdawson@kslaw.com
-- King Spalding LLP, Allison Hill White -- awhite@kslaw.com --
King and Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Meryl Weisshaut Roper --
mroper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding & Zachary Andrew McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP, pro hac vice.


BARCLAYS BANK: Sept. 14 Fairness Hearing on $29MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Held Any Physical or Financial Contract Which Settled
Against the Intercontinental Exchange or Dow Jones Corporation
Published Daily Index Prices for Peak or Off Peak Electricity at
either the Mid-Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15 or North Path
15 Electricity Trading Hubs Between November 1, 2006 and December
31, 2008, You Could be Affected by a Proposed Class Action
Settlement.

Case Summary
A $29,000,000 settlement has been proposed in a class action
lawsuit entitled Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04878-VM-GWG (the "Action"), which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The entity which brought the lawsuit, Merced Irrigation
District, is called the "Plaintiff" or "Merced"; the company it
sued, Barclays Bank PLC, is called the "Defendant" or "Barclays."

Plaintiff claims that, during the period November 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2008, Barclays engaged in a coordinated scheme,
through certain of its energy traders, to unlawfully monopolize,
or attempt to unlawfully monopolize, and thereby manipulate the
markets for setting certain electricity-related daily index
prices at four major western U.S. electricity trading hubs - Mid-
Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15 and North Path 15. Plaintiff
alleges that Barclays manipulated the daily index prices
published by the Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE") and by Dow
Jones Corporation ("Dow Jones") for these same hubs (collectively
"Daily Index Prices"), and in doing so violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Act and California state law. Plaintiff alleges that, as
a result of Barclays' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and
other members of the Settlement Class paid more under contracts
for the purchase of physical electricity and under financial
contracts that were based on these Daily Index Prices during the
periods Barclays manipulated the prices upward than they
otherwise would have paid, or received less under contracts for
the sale of physical electricity and under financial contracts
that were based on these Daily Index Prices during the periods
Barclays manipulated the prices downward than they otherwise
would have received, absent the anticompetitive conduct. Barclays
denies all of Plaintiff's claims and has asserted a number of
defenses to those claims. The Court has not made any decision as
to the merits of Plaintiff's claims.

Solely for purposes of effectuating this settlement, the Court
has certified the following settlement class:

Any individual or entity that held any physical or financial
contract which settled against the ICE or Dow Jones published
daily index prices for peak or off-peak electricity at either
Mid-Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15 or North Path 15 between
November 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, and was damaged by
movements in such index prices allegedly caused by Barclays.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are Barclays and any present
or former parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent or employee of
Barclays.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 3:00 p.m. on September
14, 2018, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, to decide whether to approve the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Request for Fees,
Expenses and Incentive Award.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

DO NOTHING

You do not have to take any action to remain part of the
Settlement Class. If you do nothing, you will be bound by the
terms of the Settlement and you will give up any and all Released
Claims.

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
DEADLINE: OCTOBER 18, 2018

If you wish to make a claim against the settlement funds, you
will need to complete and submit a Claim Form in order to receive
money from the Settlement.


GO TO THE COURT'S HEARING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 AT 3:00PM

Ask the Court for permission to speak about the fairness of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Request for Fees,
Expenses and Incentive Award.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
DEADLINE: AUGUST 25, 2018

Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation, or the Request for Fees, Expenses and
Incentive Award.
You cannot object to the Settlement if you have excluded yourself
from the Settlement Class.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
DEADLINE: JULY 5, 2018

Get no payment from the Settlement.

SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL

          Solomon B. Cera
          Cera LLP
          www.cerallp.com

          Jeffrey A. Klafter
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          www.klafterolsen.com

www.WesternHubElectricitySettlement.com


BRICK NATION: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brick Nation LLC.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brick Nation LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05276 (S.D. N.Y., June 12, 2018).

Brick Nation offers a selection of programs including CrossFit,
Yoga, Kickboxing, and More.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C & V 77 ENTERPRISES: "Avilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Avilla, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
v. C & V 77 Enterprises, LLC dba Green Kitchen, Constantine
Kasimis, Vasili Karabatsos and Gaspar Costa, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03526 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Jose Avila was hired by the Defendants as waiter on October 1,
2016. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants' restaurant located at
1477 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10075.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBE GROUP: Faces "Dwyer" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Kaitlin Dwyer, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated as assignee of Kaitlin Vazquez,
Plaintiff v. The CBE Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03433 (E.D. N.Y., June 12, 2018).

The CBE Group, Inc. operates as a credit information and accounts
receivable management company in the United States. The company
offers a range of debt collection services that include first-
party services consisting of early-out self pay recovery,
insurance follow-up, payment monitoring, pre-disconnect and pre-
charge off, third-party services comprising primary bad debt
collection, secondary bad debt collection, tertiary bad debt
collection, default aversion and prevention and litigation
support. It serves guaranty agencies, colleges and universities,
healthcare organizations, financial institutions, satellite and
telecommunications companies, government agencies and
utilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Harvey" in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Cellco Partnership. The suit is
captioned as Kismet Harvey, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, doing
business as: VERIZON WIRELESS, Case Case No. 3:18-cv-09633-BRM-
TJB (D.N.J., May 24, 2018).

Cellco Partnership is an American telecommunications company
which offers wireless products and services. It is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Verizon Communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew G. Finkelstein, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP
          60 Park Place, 10th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643 2707
          E-mail: afinkelstein@lawampm.com


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Blevins" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Blevins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capital Alliance Group, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00364 (S.D. Ohio, April 20, 2018), seeks damages and other legal
and equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant has been, a resident
of the State of Ohio.

Capital Alliance Group is a nationwide provider of business
financing services, primarily in the form of short-term loans.
Capital Alliance Group is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place
of business in Santa Ana, California. Capital Alliance Group
provides its services in the State of Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARE PROFESSIONALS: Polyakov Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
YEVGENIY POLYAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARE PROFESSIONALS, INC., and CARE
PROFESSIONAL R.N., P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 510962/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a Certified Home Health Aide, providing full-time patient care
that included more than 20% of general household work. The
Defendants required Plaintiff to work 24 hour shifts where
Plaintiff was unable to leave the patient's house. Likewise,
during a 24-hour shift, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain 5
hours of uninterrupted sleep or 3 uninterrupted mealtime hours
due to his duties.

The Defendants allegedly failed to properly compensate Plaintiff
for all hours worked, and failed to pay him the statutory rate of
one-and-one-half times his hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to
furnish the Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage
statements as required under the NYLL on each payday.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227 5700
          Facsimile: (212) 406 6890


CHINA AUTO: Vanderhoef Says Financial Report Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------
TRACY VANDERHOEF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS INC.,
TONG SHIPING, and WANG XINWEI, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
10174 (D.N.J., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of China Auto between March
28, 2017 and April 13, 2018, inclusive.

On March 28, 2017, China Auto filed an annual report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 with the SEC, which
provided the Company's annual financial statements and position.
The 2016 10-K was signed by Defendants Shiping and Xinwei. The
2016 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Shiping and Xinwei
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure
of any material changes to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

In the 2016 10-K, the Company identified a material weakness in
its internal controls over financial reporting relating to a
"lack of sufficient accounting personnel with an appropriate
understanding of US GAAP and SEC reporting requirements." The
statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that China Auto failed to maintain
adequate internal controls over identifying and reporting certain
relationships and related transactions; and, as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

China Auto sells luxury imported automobiles.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313 1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CHINA CITY OF EAST: "De Jesus" Suit to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERSON DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHINA CITY OF EAST 188TH STREET INC. (D/B/A CHINA
CITY RESTAURANT), YOUYI HE, and XIAO YING HUANG, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03734 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

China City of East 188th Street Inc. is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York.
The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese Restaurant,
located at 308 East 188th Street, in Bronx, New York, under the
name "China City Restaurant."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONIFEX EL DORADO: Rhodes Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWUITA RHODES, Individually and on behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONIFEX EL DORADO, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01029-SOH (W.D. Ark., May 25,
2018), seeks declaratory judgement, monetary damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-
paid forestry and bioenergy plant employees lawful minimum wages
and overtime compensation for hours works in excess of 40 hours
per week, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA and AMWA. The
Defendant failed and continues to fail to accurately record all
of the time worked by the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees and has failed to properly compensate them for all of
hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DBI SERVICES: "Elton" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David L. Elton, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DBi Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CA-
882, was removed from the 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Marion
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for Middle District
of Florida (Ocala) on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00255-JSM-PRL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr.

DBi Services provides infrastructure maintenance, operations, and
management solutions for government agencies, utilities, private
industries, railways, retailers, and other infrastructure owners
in North America and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine E. Howard, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd Ste. 2350
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769 7500
          Facsimile: (813) 769 7501
          E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com


DEPT MANAGEMENT: Fabec Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FABEC, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
Consumers 17785 Whitney Road, Apt No. 226 Strongsville, OH 44136,
the Plaintiff, v. DEPT MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC c/o Zdarsky,
Sawicki & Agostinelli LLP 350 Main Street - Suite 1600
Buffalo, NY 14202, and CAPITAL MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, LLC
15 Nelson Ave No. 80325, Staten Island, NY 10308, the Defendants,
Case No. CV 18 898852 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct. Cuyahoga Cty., June
5, 2018), seeks to recover statutory and actual damages caused by
the Defendants to redress a persistent pattern of violations of
consumer and collection laws, including Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, within the past year, Ms. Fabec
received calls on her cell telephone from Capital Management
and/or its agents, demanding money in connection with an
allegedly outstanding debt. Capital Management initiated these
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or by
employing the use of an electronic or prerecorded voice. Ms.
Fabec believes this to be true, because she could hear delay when
she would pick up a call and/or an electronic or prerecorded
voice on messages. Ms. Fabec never authorized Capital Management
to call her on her cell phone. Furthermore, Ms. Fabec requested
the calls to cease. Nonetheless, Capital Management continued to
call and made at least 30 unauthorized calls to Ms. Fabec's cell
phone.

Debt Management is in the management services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, Ohio 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502 1055
          Facsimile: (216) 609 0750
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "King" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Recovery Bureau, LLC, Debt Management
Partners, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-02287-SHL-cgc
(W.D. Tenn., April 30, 2018), alleges that the Defendants' debt
collection efforts attempted and directed towards the Plaintiff
violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Diversified and DMP are companies that uses the mail, telephone,
and facsimile and regularly engage in business the principal
purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due
another.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


DR PEPPER: Ct. Denies Bid to Junk Suit Over Canada Dry Ginger Ale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Western Division, denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case, ARNOLD E. WEBB,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;
Plaintiff, v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., DR. PEPPER/SEVEN
UP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-00624-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action lawsuit alleging
the Defendants engaged in false and misleading business practices
regarding the marketing and sale of its Canada Dry Ginger Ale.
Specifically, he alleges that the Defendants labeled, packaged,
and marketed the Product as being Made from Real Ginger,
indicating that the Product contains ginger.  According to the
Plaintiff, laboratory tests concluded that the Product does not
contain a detectable amount of ginger.  He alleges that he and
other consumers purchased the Product, reasonably relying on the
Defendants' deceptive representation about the Product, and
believing that the Product contained a detectable amount of
ginger.  The Plaintiff further alleges that has he and other
consumers known that the Product did not contain a detectable
amount of ginger, they would not have purchased the Product or
would have paid significantly less for the Product.

The Plaintiff brings the following claims against the Defendants:
violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA")
(Count I); breach of express warranty (Count II); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Count III); common law fraud
(Count IV); intentional misrepresentation (Count V); negligent
misrepresentation (Count VI); and quasi contract/unjust
enrichment restitution (Count VII).  He seeks damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiff's Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 9(b), and
12(b)(1).  They argue the Plaintiff has failed to plead an
actionable claim that the Product's label "Made From Real Ginger"
was false, misleading, or unfair.  They contend that the
Plaintiff's conclusion regarding the misrepresentation on the
label is not supported by his allegations that the lab test
results showed no "detectable amount of ginger" contained in the
Product.  The Defendants contend the Plaintiff's conclusion is
false because: (1) his interpretation of the representation is
unreasonable, and (2) he has not pled the falsity of the
representation with particularized details about the lab testing.
The Defendants therefore argue that the Plaintiff's failure to
plead a "cogent factual pleading" that the Product is not, in
fact, "made from" ginger, disposes of the entire case.

Because the Plaintiff alleges independent laboratory testing
revealed that the Product does not contain a detectable amount of
ginger and a reasonable consumer would be misled into believing
that the Product contains at least some detectable amount of
ginger, Judge Ketchmark finds the representation "Made from Real
Ginger" could be false or misleading to a reasonable consume.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a claim that
is plausible on its face and satisfied Rule 9(b) particularity
requirements.  Here, the Plaintiff has sufficiently presented the
"who", "what", "where", "when", and "how" of his claims to
survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. 9(b) with respect
to the laboratory testing and the television advertising
campaigns.  Consequently, she finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled actionable misrepresentation.

The Judge also rejects the Defendants' contention that the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails because he did not
sufficiently allege that their label was false or misleading for
the same reasons discussed.  Consequently, the Plaintiff has pled
sufficient facts to state a claim for unjust enrichment.

And because the Plaintiff stated he would buy the Product in the
future if the Product contained ginger, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a claim that is
plausible on its face and survives a motion to dismiss for lack
of Article III standing individually and as a putative class.

After carefully reviewing the parties' briefs, and for the
reasons she stated, Judge Ketchmark denied the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bUPOXj from Leagle.com.

Arnold E Webb, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- pro hac vice, Timothy J. Peter --
tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- pro hac vice & Tim Eugene Dollar --
timd@dollar-law.com -- Dollar, Burns & Becker.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. & Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jessica E. Underwood --
jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- pro hac vice, Jonathan A.
Shapiro -- jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, pro
hac vice, Monica Hughes Smith -- monica.smith@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts, pro hac vice, Stacey R. Gilman --
SGILMAN@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver LLP & Van H.
Beckwith -- van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, pro hac
vice.

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell & Robin Dale, interested partys,
represented by Jeffrey S. Lawrence -- jeff@smithlawrence.com --
Smith Lawrence, LLC & Marie McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com --
pro hac vice.


ECONOMIC RECOVERY: Accused by "Jones" Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Jones aka Heather Dempsey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Economic Recovery Consultants,
Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-01025-SOH (W.D. Ark.,
April 27, 2018), seeks damages and relief over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Economic Recovery is a debt collector with an address in Searcy,
Arkansas.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


EDRIVING LLC: Glynn Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK GLYNN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. eDRIVING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2018CH07116 (Ill. Circuit Court, Cook Cty., June 5, 2018), seeks
to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use, and storage of
individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects its students'
unique voiceprints immediately upon registration without
complying with BIPA's requirements.

eDriving LLC provides online driving courses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com


EPIC SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Batiste Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Batiste, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. Epic Security Corp. and
Mark Lemer, jointly and severally, the Defendant(s), Case No.
155242/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover
withheld regular wages, withheld overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and notice and recordkeeping damages under
the New York Labor Law.

Batiste was formerly employed by Defendants to work as a security
officer in and around New York City. From on or about February
27, 2014, to July 5, 2016, the Defendants allegedly failed to
provide Batiste with wage statements that accurately listed the
hours he worked, in violation of NYLL. The Defendants also
willfully paid Batiste below the minimum wage rate.

Epic Security offers professional security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lamadrid, Esq.
          Timothy Batiste, Esq.
          EISNER & DICTOR, P.C.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1540
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 473 8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473 8705
          E-mail: Thomas@eisnerdlctor.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: "Baker" Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rachelle Baker and Jason
Dittmann, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equity Residential Management,
L.L.C. and EQR-Walden Park, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No.
13-03630, was removed from the Middlesex Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on
June 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
11175 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Equity Residential Management, L.L.C. and EQR-
Walden Park, L.L.C.:

          Thomas H. Wintner, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
          GLOVSKY AND POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center, 42nd Flr.
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 348 1625
          E-mail twintner@mintz.com


ESTEE LAUDER: Can Compel Arbitration in "Sakyi" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRINCESS SAKYI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1863 (BAH) (D.
D.C.), Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted (i) Defendant BBI's Motion to
Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, and (ii) Defendants ELC and
Aveda's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in the
Alternative, to Stay.

The Plaintiff was a former cosmetology student at the Aveda
Institute in Washington, D.C.  On July 30, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a three-count class action complaint against Aveda
Institute, Inc. ("AII"), and Estee Lauder in the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia, alleging unlawful and deceptive
trade practices in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer
Protection Procedures Act, failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act),
and failure to pay all wages earned in a timely manner in
violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection
Act.  She brought the complaint on behalf of herself and all
cosmetology students who have enrolled at the Aveda Institute in
Washington D.C.

Regarding the class claims, the complaint alleges that the
critical questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class
that will materially advance the litigation are whether
Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts about the
cosmetology program to Plaintiffs and the class and whether
applicable law required the Defendants to pay wages to the
Plaintiffs and the class for work that they performed at the
Aveda salon.  The Plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction
ordering the Defendants to pay students for work performed in the
Aveda salon and change their marketing practices to accurately
reflect the nature of work performed in the cosmetology program.

The Defendants removed the action to federal court on Sept. 12,
2017.  Approximately three weeks later, AII moved to dismiss the
claims against it based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.  AII
noted that it does not manage, operate, or have an ownership
interest in the Aveda Institute in Washington, D.C., or any
school in the District of Columbia, and that the company instead
owns and operates two cosmetology schools in the United States,
which do business as the Aveda Institute of New York and Aveda
Institute of Minneapolis, which schools are located in New York
and Minnesota, respectively.  AII merely has a licensing
agreement with Aveda Corp. to use Aveda Institute curriculum and
the school name "Aveda Institute."  According to AII, the
Plaintiff had sued the wrong company.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint,
substituting Aveda Corp. as a Defendant in place of AII and also
adding BBI as a Defendant, but otherwise leaving the substantive
allegations of the complaint unchanged.  Accordingly, AII's
motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

In February 2018, the Plaintiff successfully moved, over the
Defendants' objections, for an extension of time in which to seek
the class certification.  The next day, on Feb. 7, 2018, BBI
requested that the Plaintiff arbitrate her claims, but the
Plaintiff refused.  BBI then moved to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims, invoking the Arbitration Agreement signed by
the Plaintiff upon her enrollment in the cosmetology program.

Two weeks later, ELC and Aveda Corp. similarly moved to compel
arbitration, contending that the Arbitration Agreement also
encompassed the Plaintiff's claims against them, despite the fact
that they are not signatories to the Arbitration Agreement.

Judge Howell finds that the Plaintiff does not dispute that she
and BBI agreed to arbitration.  Rather, she asserts that the
Agreement's class arbitration waiver is unlawful under the
National Labor Relations Act, and the Norris-La Guardia Act.
This issue, according to the Judge, is a question of
arbitrability -- one that the parties, by incorporating the rules
of the AAA, clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate.  Thus,
BBI's motion to compel arbitration is granted.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's claims against ELC and
Aveda also must be arbitrated.  She holds that ELC and Aveda have
not waived or forfeited their rights to compel arbitration, are
not third-party beneficiaries to the Arbitration Agreement, and
can compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel.

Finally, the Judge finds that there is presently a circuit split
on the question whether, when a motion to compel arbitration is
granted, the case should be stayed pending the resolution of
arbitration or rather dismissed in favor of arbitration.  The
case does not require consideration of that circuit split because
the parties expressly agreed, in the Arbitration Agreement, that
neither party would file any lawsuit against the other in any
Court and that any suit filed in violation of this provision will
be promptly dismissed in favor of arbitration.  Thus, she finds
the Plaintiff's claims will be referred to arbitration and the
case will be dismissed without prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Howell granted BBI's Motion to Dismiss
and Compel Arbitration, and Defendants ELC and Aveda's Motion to
Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Stay.
Accordingly, the court referred the matter to arbitration and
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/flxpEE from Leagle.com.

PRINCESS SAKYI, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public of the District of
Columbia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Samuel Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A.
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP.

ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by Matthew
F. Nieman -- NiemanM@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. &
Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro -- Amanda.Vaccaro@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

BEAUTY BASICS, INC., agent of AVEDA INSTITUTES SOUTH, Defendant,
represented by Michael J. Schrier -- mjschrier@duanemorris.com --
DUANE MORRIS, LLP.

AVEDA CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Matthew F. Nieman,
JACKSON LEWIS P.C..


ETS OILFIELD: Rios Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
BOBBY RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ETS OILFIELD SERVICES, L.P.,
ETS SERVICES MANAGEMENT, LLC and YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD SERVICES,
L.L.C. Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00157 (S.D. Tex., June 5,
2018), seeks to recover all available relief, including
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members overtime of at least one and one-half their regular
rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

ETSO performs various services in the oil and gas industry, such
as testing pumps, hydraulic wrenches, completion fluid services,
water transfers, mulching and land clearing, hydraulic power
chokes, downhole motors, and rig wash. ETSM is the General
Partner for ETSO. Yellowjacket is an oilfield services company
providing a variety of services to the oilfield industry, such as
completion fluid services, wireline services, and fishing
services.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sanchez Suit Files Suit Over Date Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Diaz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Cambridge Analytica LLC,
and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-02381 (N.D. Calif., April 20,
2018), seeks damages against the Defendants for violations of the
Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and
California Unfair Competition Law.

This is a class action arising from Defendants' unauthorized
disclosure and misuse of the personal information of at least 87
million Facebook users. Facebook permitted this unauthorized
disclosure to Cambridge Analytica, a political marketing company
that uses social media data for commercial purposes.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Santa Barbara, California, who
opened her Facebook account 2007. On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff
received a notice from Facebook that her Personal Information was
disclosed without her authorization to Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people
to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.
Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of
information, photographs, website links, and videos.  Facebook
users have the ability to share and restrict information based on
their own specific criteria.  By the end of 2017, Facebook had
more than 2.1 billion monthly active users.  Founded in 2004, the
Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California.  The
Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market
under the ticker symbol "FB."

Cambridge Analytica is a Delaware limited liability company with
offices in New York and Washington, DC. Cambridge Analytica's
business is focused on data-driven marketing and political
campaigns, combining data mining and data analysis to find voters
and induce action. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com


FBCS INC: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Carter" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FBCS, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01785-CDJ (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2018), alleges
that the Defendants' debt collection efforts attempted and
directed towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

FBCS, Inc., is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined and
used in the FDCPA, with an address in Hatboro, Pennsylvania.
LVNV Funding, LLC is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined
and used in the FDCPA, with an address Charleston, South
Carolina.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


FBL FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Tronsgard" RICO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case, STEVE TRONSGARD & MEDBOR
CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FBL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-2393-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs Tronsgard and Chavez are former insurance agents for
the Defendants -- a group of entities that the Plaintiffs call
"the Farm Bureau family of companies."  The four Defendants named
in the Plaintiffs' Complaint are: (1) FBL Financial Group, Inc.;
(2) Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co.; (3) Farm
Bureau Life Insurance; and (4) Western Agricultural Insurance
Company.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants improperly classified
them during their employment as independent contractors instead
of employees.  And the Plaintiffs, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the lawsuit
asserting claims arising from the Defendants' alleged
misclassification.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that the Defendants'
misclassification gives rise to six causes of action: (1)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO")
violations under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341, 1343, 1962(c); (2)
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") violations
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (3) Kansas Wage Payment
Act ("KWPA") violations under Kan. Stat. Ann. Sections 44-313 et
seq.; (4) quantum meruit/rescission; (5) unjust enrichment; and
(6) declaratory relief.

The Defendants assert that none of these claims states a
plausible cause of action.  They've responded to the lawsuit by
filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), asserting that the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class
Action Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

The Defendants ask the court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims
for four reasons.  First, they argue that the statute of
limitations bars each of Plaintiff Tronsgard's claims.  Second,
they assert that Plaintiffs' ERISA claims fail as a matter of law
because the Plaintiffs have not pleaded exhaustion of
administrative remedies.  Third, the Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a plausible RICO claim.
Finally, they argue, the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a
plausible claim for quantum meruit/rescission.

The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to that motion and the
Defendants submitted a Reply.  After the briefing closed, the
Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to file a surreply and also
permitted the Defendant to file a sur-surreply.  On Jan. 23,
2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Surreply.  And on Jan. 31, 2018,
the Defendants filed their Sur-surreply.

Judge Crabtree agrees that the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to
state a plausible RICO claim for at least three of these reasons.
Each one of the three provides an independent basis for the Court
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
First, the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege facts capable of
supporting a finding or inference that defendants committed a
RICO predicate act.  Second, the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to
allege a RICO "enterprise" distinct from the Defendant "person."
Third, the Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficiently that the
enterprise's members associated together for a common fraudulent
purpose.

The Judge refuses to dismiss Mr. Tronsgard's ERISA claim based on
the statute of limitations.  He finds persuasive two decisions
from other federal district courts (Ferro v. Metro. Ctr. for
Mental Health and Jammal v. Am. Family Ins.) that have denied
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss ERISA claims in
misclassification cases because the Plaintiffs' Complaint
presented a factual question about when they discovered or should
have discovered the alleged ERISA violation.  He concludes that
the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently plead futility to
survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Finally, the Judge dismisses the request for rescission as a form
of relief.  But he does not dismiss the quantum meruit claim.  He
finds that Plaintiff Chavez has stated a claim for quantum meruit
that seeks relief -- not in the form of rescission -- but in the
form of damages for lost business expenses and the quantum meruit
value of services.

For these reasons, Judge Crabtree granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  He dismissed the
following claims from the action: the Plaintiffs' RICO (Count I)
and declaratory relief (Count VI) claims, and Plaintiff
Tronsgard's KWPA, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment claims.

The following claims remain in the case: Plaintiffs' ERISA claim
(Count II), and Plaintiff Chavez's KWPA (Count III), quantum
meruit (Count IV), and unjust enrichment (Count V) claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/85OjSV from Leagle.com.

Steve Tronsgard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Medbor Chavez, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron L.
Kite -- aaron@rbr3.com -- Rebein Bangerter Rebein PA, David J.
Rebein -- Dave@rbr3.com -- Rebein Bangerter Rebein PA, Larkin E.
Walsh -- lwalsh@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Paul H. Mose
-- Pablo@moselaw.com -- Mose Law, LLC, Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

FBL Financial Group, Inc., Farm Bureau Property & Casualty
Insurance Company, Western Agricultural Insurance Company & Farm
Bureau Life Insurance, Defendants, represented by Adam S. Johnson
-- adam.johnson@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP, pro hac vice,
Brian P. Baggott -- brian.baggott@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP,
Gregory T. Wolf -- gregory.wolf@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP,
Paul Swinton -- paul.swinton@ifblawyers.com -- Parker & McNeill,
P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Samantha Jo Wenger --
samantha.wenger@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP & Wade P. K. Carr
-- wade.carr@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP.


FEDEX GROUND: Nelson Seeks to Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP NELSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., DBA
FedEx HOME Delivery, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01378-NYW
(D. Colo., June 5, 2018), seeks to damages and back-pay to
compensate all current and former FedEx drivers for their unpaid
overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, like all drivers, was
required to arrive at a FedEx terminal each morning and load his
own truck with all packages scheduled for delivery that day. This
process could take anywhere from 2 to 4 hours and Plaintiff was
not compensated for this time.

FedEx Ground provides business-to-business package shipping and
ground delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214 0562
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1603 Capitol Ave, Suite 310 A559
          Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999 4225
          E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com


FERMA GREENBOX: Perez Sues over Itemized Wage Statements
--------------------------------------------------------
TERESA PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FERMA GREENBOX, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV328847 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018),
seeks penalties for Defendants' violations of the California
Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to provide
employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in Defendants'
failure to provide accurate payroll records.

Ferma Greenbox is a Department of Transportation-registered motor
carrier.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gotel" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Gotel, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03432 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 12, 2018).

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource Advantage, LLC
was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in
February, 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in
Amherst, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FRITO-LAY INC: Notice Procedures Order in "Chism" Deal Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCUS CHISM, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00152-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has entered an order regarding notice procedures on
the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement.

The Judge directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the
following issues regarding the procedure to notify class members
of the proposed settlement at hearing:

     a. The settlement agreement states that the postcard notice
"shall also inform Settlement Class Members that in order to
receive an Individual Settlement Payment, they do not need to do
anything except keep the Settlement Administrator apprised of
their current mailing address."  But the proposed postcard notice
does not provide this warning, and the parties do not appear to
have provided the proposed class members with any means to notify
the administrator of a change of address.

     b. The proposed exclusion form requires a significant amount
of personal information, including the last four digits of the
proposed class member's social security number.  The exclusion
form also requires the proposed class member to certify, among
other things, that he has carefully read the Notice of Class
Action Settlement.  The Northern District's guidance states that
the notice should instruct class members who wish to exclude
themselves from the settlement to send a letter only to the
settlement administrator, setting forth their name and a
statement that they request exclusion from the class and do not
wish to participate in the settlement.  It should not require
extraneous information not needed to effect an exclusion.  The
parties should be prepared to address whether the personal
information requested and the proposed certification are
necessary.

     c. The postcard notice should clearly state that the date of
the final approval hearing may change without further notice to
the class.  The Class members should be advised to check the
settlement website or the Court's PACER site to confirm that the
date has not been changed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1VXZq8 from Leagle.com.

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

Frito-Lay, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Thomas Michael McInerney -- tmm@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., James R. Silvers --
james.silvers@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and
Stewart, P.C., Jason Phillip Brown -- jason.brown@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Stephen R. Woods
-- stephen.woods@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
and Stewart, P.C..


GOHEALTH LLC: "Beck" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Todd Beck, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GoHealth, LLC, Norvax, LLC, and Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., dba Florida Blue, Case No.
1:18-cv-02889 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Matthew Todd Beck is an individual citizen of the state of
Florida, who resides in St. Petersburg, Florida.

GoHealth and Norvax are engaged in a joint venture of health
insurance telemarketing and will be referred to herein as
"GoHealth Defendants." GoHealth Defendants provide an outsourced
carrier customer enrollment platform that works with over 100
health insurance carriers and more than 20,000 licensed agents
across the United States. GoHealth Defendants sell leads to
health insurance carriers, agents, and brokers across the
country, including defendant BCBSFL to initiate telemarketing
calls advertising the sale of health insurance to those leads.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St. Ste. 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
              tsostrin@keoghlaw.com


GOLD PROTECTION: Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO VAZQUEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. GOLD PROTECTION SERVICES INC.,
and ALAIN URQUIOLA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22226-FAM
(S.D. Fla., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have employed several other
similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: "Ayala" Suit Alleges NYLL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ayala and Benjamin Lamkin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Government Employees
Insurance Company, Case No. 7:18-cv-03583 (S.D. N.Y., April 23,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the New
York Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff Christopher Ayala was employed by the Defendant in
New York from approximately May 2013 to November 2013 as an
Adjuster-In-Training.

The Plaintiff Benjamin Lamkin was employed by the Defendant in
Chicago, Illinois from approximately March 2015 to July 2015 as
an Adjuster-In-Training.

The Defendant GEICO is an insurance company which provides
various insurance products to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (800) 616-4000
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


HAIR BAR: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Bar NYC, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hair Bar NYC, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05278 (S.D. N.Y., June 12, 2018).

Hair Bar NYC is a New York salon chain proving hair care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALAL GUYS: "Elshamy" Suit Seeks Wages, Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Elshamy and Emad Ali, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Halal Guys, Inc., All 53 SW
Inc., Altawhid Food Supply Inc., Ahmed Elsaka, Abdelbaset
Elsayed, and Mohamed Abouelenein, Case No. 1:18-cv-03468 (S.D.
N.Y., April 19, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
unpaid wages including unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Ahmed Elshamy is a resident of Queens, New York. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants as a food server/food vendor in
March 2012 until March 4, 2018.

Emad Ali is a resident of Queens, New York. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants as a food server/food vendor from 2006
until March 2008.

The Defendants operate what they call a "world-renowned
international restaurant chain" named "The Halal Guys" out of
five food-carts and two New York City restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


HALLIBURTON CO: Deal in EPJ Fund Securities Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., et al., on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HALLIBURTON COMPANY and DAVID J. LESAR, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:02-cv-1152-M (N.D. Tex.), Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, granted Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement; and Class Counsel's Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.

EPJ Fund, is the Lead Plaintiff in a putative class action
against Halliburton and one of its executives, alleging
violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
According to EPJ Fund, between June 3, 1999, and Dec. 7, 2001,
Halliburton made a series of misrepresentations regarding its
potential liability in asbestos litigation, its expected revenue
from certain construction contracts, and the anticipated benefits
of its merger with another company -- all in an attempt to
inflate the price of its stock.  Halliburton subsequently made a
number of corrective disclosures, which, EPJ Fund contends,
caused the company's stock price to drop and investors to lose
money.

Numerous complaints alleging misrepresentations by Halliburton
were filed in 2002 and consolidated into the action.  Four lead
Plaintiffs were appointed, including the Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund, Inc. ("AMSF"), the precursor in name to EPJF.
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP ("S&B") was appointed as the lead
counsel, and Federman & Sherwood ("F&S") and The Emerson Firm
were appointed the co-liaison counsel.

On May 10, 2004, all the Lead Plaintiffs except for AMSF moved
for preliminary approval of settlement, asserting that all claims
had been settled for $6 million.  Following a final fairness
hearing, the Court denied approval and held that there was
insufficient proof that the proposed settlement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

On Oct. 7, 2004, Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC ("K&K") was appointed
local counsel for AMSF.  On May 3, 2005, S&B was removed as the
lead counsel.  AMSF became the sole remaining Lead Plaintiff in
the action, and at its request and with the Court's approval,
Scott+Scott, LLP and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP were appointed the co-lead counsel.

In February of 2007, Scott+Scott and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins were relieved of their duties as the lead
counsel and were replaced by BSF.

AMSF subsequently changed its name to the "Erica P. John Fund,
Inc."  At the class certification stage, the case was subject to
multiple appeals, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari twice
to resolve various issues.  In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John
Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"), the Supreme Court held that
Halliburton could introduce evidence of a lack of price impact at
the class certification stage to show the absence of
predominance.  It again vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit
and remanded the case to the Court for further proceedings.
After briefing and oral argument addressing Halliburton II, the
Court certified the class.  The Defendants took another appeal to
the Fifth Circuit.

On Feb. 21, 2017, EPJF filed the Stipulation of Settlement and
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The
Stipulation of Settlement is between EPJF, on behalf of itself
and each of the class members, and Defendants Halliburton and
David Lesar.

The Plaintiffs are agreeing to release all claims based on the
purchase or acquisition of common stock during the Class Period,
which is defined as between Aug. 16, 1999, and Dec. 7, 2001,
inclusive.  The Parties agreed to settle the case for $100
million subject to the Court's approval.  The Stipulation of
Settlement does not include claims stemming from purchases of
stock between Dec. 8, 2001, and July 22, 2002, which are part of
the Magruder putative class action.  These claims are expressly
not released.  The Court granted preliminary approval.

EPJF then filed the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Plan of Allocation.  The Class Counsel -- Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF"), Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), and
Lawrence "Larry" Vincent -- filed the Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.
Several other firms have also moved for fees and expenses, namely
F&S, K&K, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("RGRD").  RGRD
has since withdrawn its request for fees and instead seeks only
expenses.

On July 31, 2017, the Court held a final fairness hearing
regarding the Motion for Final Approval and heard argument on the
fee and expense motions.  The Class Counsel applies for
attorney's fees in the total combined amount of $33,333,333.33,
or one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus interest.  The request
for one-third of the Fund is intended as an award to BSF, KSF,
and Lawrence "Larry" Vincent, who served as local counsel to BSF
and later KSF in the action.  In addition, the Class Counsel
seeks reimbursement for $5,969,540.84 in expenses, plus interest.
The Class Counsel also asks for a $100,000 compensation award,
plus interest, to the Lead Plaintiff.

Judge Lynn concludes that the percentage requested by the Class
Counsel is reasonable and fair.  Compared to other common fund
cases in this Circuit, the Class Counsel is not asking for an
unusually large or high fee.  Furthermore, there are significant
considerations that further justify the fee, such as the dogged
perseverance the Class Counsel showed in the case, such as
eventually convincing the Supreme Court to overturn adverse Fifth
Circuit precedent.

As stated at the July 31, 2017, hearing, the request for the
$100,000 award for the Lead Plaintiff is granted.  Without the
hard and diligent work of the Lead Plaintiff over 15 years, this
recovery would not have been possible.  The requested fee,
according to the Judge, is reasonable based on the value of the
time of the Lead Plaintiff, and no one has objected to it.

The Judge finds that the expenses requested by Scott+Scott are
reasonable, and there have been no objections to the amount
requested.  A significant amount -- 55% of the requested
expenses, or $163,933.33 -- was spent on experts, consultants,
and investigators -- which Mr. Johnson claims was necessary to
contact confidential witnesses and to prepare confidential
witness memoranda used to support allegations in the complaint --
and thus was reasonably necessary in the successful prosecution
of the case.  Accordingly, the expenses are reimbursed.

Because F&S did not provide a substantial or independent benefit
to the Class and acted contrary to the wishes of at least the
current Lead Plaintiff, who opposes its fee application, the
Judge denied its requested fee award.  However, the Judge
reimbursed F&S' claimed expenses of $8,993.51.  F&S seeks
reimbursement of out of pocket expenses in the amount of
$10,922.05, without interest.  The Judge determines that some
expenses were not reasonably and necessarily incurred in
prosecuting the action and in achieving the proposed settlement.

The Judge awarded K&K $91,161.75 in attorney's fees.  Unlike F&S,
she finds that K&K was more actively involved in the litigation
of this case, particularly in its opposition to the failed
settlement.  Despite the Lead Plaintiff's opposition, the Judge
finds that K&K has provided substantial or independent benefit to
the class.  She also reimbursed K&K $7,380.87 in expenses.  After
reviewing the expense report provided by K&K, she finds that the
expenses were reasonable and necessary for successful prosecution
of the case.

Finally, the Judge finds that RGRD's request for $112,513.85
reimbursement in expenses were reasonable and necessary for
successful prosecution of the case.  Accordingly, the expenses
are reimbursed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Lynn granted the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement; granted the Class Counsel's
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses.  The Class Counsel is awarded $33,333,333.33
in attorney's fees, plus interest accrued thereon.  The Class
Counsel is reimbursed $5,969,540.84 for expenses, plus interest
accrued thereon.  The Lead Plaintiff is awarded $100,000, plus
interest accrued thereon.  Scott+Scott is reimbursed $300,652.90
for expenses, plus interest accrued thereon.

She granted in part and denied in part F&S' Motion for Attorney
Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses.  F&S's is reimbursed
$8,993.51 for expenses.  She also granted in part and denied in
part K&K's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.  K&K
is awarded $91,161.75 in attorney's fees, plus interest accrued
thereon.  K&K is reimbursed $7,380.87 for expenses, plus interest
accrued thereon.  The Judge granted RGRD's Motion for Award of
Expenses.  RGRD is reimbursed $112,513.85 for expenses, plus
interest accrued thereon.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/kITieK from Leagle.com.

Highlands Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Brian S.
Martin -- bmartin@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons
LLP.

Richard Moore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Law
Group, E. Lawrence Vincent -- lvincent@burnscharest.com -- Burns
Charest LLP, Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group, Nadeem Faruqi --
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi & Roger L. Mandel --
rogerlmandel@gmail.com -- Roger L. Mandel, P.C.

Private Asset Management, Plaintiff, represented by William B.
Federman -- WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- Federman & Sherwood, Darren J.
Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
LLP, E. Lawrence Vincent, Burns Charest LLP, John G. Emerson, Jr.
-- jemerson@emersonfirm.com -- Emerson Scott LLP, Kay E. Sickles,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Marc I. Willner,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, pro hac vice, Richard S.
Schiffrin -- rschiffrin@gelaw.com -- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart L. Berman -- sberman@ktmc.com
-- Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Erica P John Fund Inc, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Boies --
dboies@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, pro hac vice,
William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, Arthur L. Shingler,
III, Scott + Scott, pro hac vice, Carl E. Goldfarb --
cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac
vice, Caryl L. Boies -- npenny@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, David Paul Nelson -- dnelson@bsfllp.com -- Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, pro hac vice, David R. Scott --
DAVID.SCOTT@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
E. Lawrence Vincent, Burns Charest LLP, Edmund W. Searby, Scott
Scott, pro hac vice, Geoffrey M. Johnson -- GJOHNSON@SCOTT-
SCOTT.COM --  ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, J.
Ryan Lopatka -- j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti
LLC, pro hac vice, Justin D. Fitzdam -- jfitzdam@bsfllp.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Kim E. Miller --
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Lauren Louis,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, pro hac vice, Lewis Kahn, Kahn Swick &
Foti LLC, Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Mark V. Jackowski,
Scott Scott LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Robinson --
michael.robinson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, pro hac
vice, Michael A. Swick -- michael.swick@ksfcounsel.com -- Law
Offices of Michael A. Swick, Neil Rothstein, Truth in Corporate
Justice, pro hac vice, Robert M. Thornton, Kilgore & Kilgore,
Sashi Bach Boruchow -- sbach@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, pro hac vice, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, pro hac vice, Willie Briscoe --
wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law Firm & Theodore
Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC.

Gabriel T Forrest, Plaintiff, represented by William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood, David R. Scott, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
LLP, E. Lawrence Vincent, Burns Charest LLP, Gregory M. Nespole -
- gmn@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G.
Emerson, Jr., Emerson Scott LLP, Jules Brody -- jbrody@ssbny.com
-- Stull Stull & Brody, pro hac vice, Kay E. Sickles, Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Patrick Slyne -- pkslyne@ssbny.com
-- Stull Stull & Brody, pro hac vice & Richard S. Schiffrin,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, pro hac vice.

Paul J Benec, Plaintiff, represented by William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood, David R. Scott, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
LLP, E. Lawrence Vincent, Burns Charest LLP, Gregory M. Nespole
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G. Emerson, Jr.,
Emerson Scott LLP, Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, pro hac
vice, Kay E. Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP &
Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, pro
hac vice.

Gary McAdams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G. Yates,
Jr., Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood, Paul J. Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Steven E. Cauley, Cauley
Geller Bowman & Coates.

Meyer Meyer Abramowitz, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R.
Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group &
Roger L. Mandel, Roger L. Mandel, P.C.

David Garden, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R. Stanley,
Stanley Law Group, Brian P. Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Eric J. Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Murray Frank & Sailer, Leo
W. Desmond, Law Office of Leo W. Desmond & Roger L. Mandel, Roger
L. Mandel, P.C.

Manisha Patel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Carl
Anderson, III , Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC, Marc I. Gross --
migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross,
Patrick Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Richard J. Vita, Law Office of Richard J. Vita & Stanley M.
Grossman -- smgrossman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross.

Halliburton Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica B. Pulliam
-- jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Benjamin T.
Pendroff -- bpendroff@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Charles
David Strecker -- charles.strecker@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts
LLP, David D. Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence -- john.lawrence@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts LLP & Thomas E. O'Brien --
tom.obrien@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP.

David J Lesar, Consol Defendant, represented by David D.
Sterling, Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B. Pulliam, Baker Botts LLP,
John Benjamin Lawrence, Baker Botts LLP & Thomas E. O'Brien,
Baker Botts LLP.

Arthur Andersen LLP, Consol Defendant, represented by Lea F.
Courington -- lcourington@dykema.com -- Dykema Cox Smith &
Lindsey C. Cummings -- lcummings@bellingersuberg.com -- Bellinger
& DeWolf LLP.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Ct. Won't Review Rulings in "Durand" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER A. DURAND, On behalf of herself and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., And THE ALLMERICA FINANCIAL CASH
BALANCE PENSION PLAN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-00130-
HBB (W.D. Ky.), Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of certain rulings in a Memorandum Opinion and
Order that addressed three related motions filed by the parties.

This is a class action against the Hanover and the Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan.  The Plan belongs to a
subset of defined benefit plans known as cash-balance plans.  The
Plaintiffs' whipsaw and whipsaw-related breach of fiduciary duty
claims allege violations of various sections of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

On Dec. 17, 2013, the Court issued an order certifying the
classes, claims, and defenses and appointing the class counsel.
The Court found that the Plaintiffs had established the
prerequisites for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and that the requisites of Rule 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and
(b)(2) had been met with regard to the lump-sum benefit whipsaw
calculation and related fiduciary breach claims remaining in the
case; and that the Plaintiffs' counsel should be appointed the
class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The order established an overall class ("Lump Sum Class") of
vested Plan participants who received a lump sum distribution
between March 1, 1997 and Dec.31, 2003.  The order certified
Durand as the overall class representative.  Additionally, it
established a subclass ("Subclass A") made up of class members
who received their lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997
and March 12, 2002.  The order certified James A. Fisher, who
received a lump sum distribution in 2000, as the subclass
representative.

The Order at issue addressed the Defendants' motion to enforce
the scheduling order and for a protective order forbidding the
Plaintiffs additional privilege challenges as untimely; the
Plaintiffs' motion to update and amend the Court's Dec. 17, 2013
class certification order; and the Plaintiffs' motion for in
camera review of 218 additional documents that the Defendants are
withholding on privilege grounds.  These related motions arose
out of the 204(h) documents that the Defendants produced, subject
to a nonwaiver stipulation, on Oct. 18 and Dec. 5, 2017.

The Order denied the Defendants' motion, and granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' two motions.  The Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration focuses on certain portions of the
Order that addressed their two motions.

Plaintiffs' motion to update and amend the class certification
order proposed some minor modifications to the Lump Sum Class
definition and a mix of minor and substantial changes to the
Subclass A2 definition.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to the extent that it sought minor modifications to the Lump Sum
Class.  The Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to with regard to their proposed changes to
the Subclass A definition.

More specifically, the Plaintiffs conceded that the whipsaw
benefits claims asserted by Subclass A's members are time-barred.
They proposed amending the class certification order to reflect
that Subclass A's members are now limited to seeking appropriate
equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) on whipsaw-related
breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Facially, the Plaintiffs'
proposal seemed reasonable.  But the Defendants objected, arguing
at least two claims that the Plaintiffs intended to pursue were
not actually pleaded in the amended complaint.  Notably, the
Plaintiffs failed to address this issue in their reply
memorandum.

In an effort to obtain a clear understanding of the dispute, the
Court reviewed a number of documents in the record, including a
letter from the Plaintiffs' counsel dated Feb. 5, 2016.  It
determined that the Plaintiffs were proposing that Subclass A's
members will pursue these whipsaw-related breach of fiduciary
duty claims:

     1. the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA
Section 404 by failing to independently investigate the legality
of the Plan's calculation method and override the Plan terms
pursuant to ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(D).

     2. the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA
Section 404 by concealing from participants the plan's whipsaw
calculation methodology (i.e., projecting to age 65 at the same
rate as the ERISA-required discount rate, which was designed to
be a meaningless wash calculation).

     3. the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA
Section 404 by concealing from participants (1) that the
Department of Labor had concluded that the Plaintiffs had a
viable claim to additional whipsaw benefits, and (2) that
participants could potentially forfeit that claim if they did not
file suit within 5 years of receiving a lump-sum distribution,
when the statute of limitations might foreclose the claim.

     4. the Defendants violated ERISA's Section 102's SPD
disclosure requirements by concealing from participants (1) that
the Department of Labor had concluded that the Plaintiffs had a
viable claim to additional whipsaw benefits, and (2) that
participants could potentially forfeit that claim if they did not
file suit within 5 years of receiving a lump-sum distribution,
when the statute of limitations might foreclose the claim.

     5. the Defendants breached a fiduciary duty because they
failed to apply to a court for instructions in 2002, while the
participants' claims were unquestionably timely, about how to
calculate benefits in light of the uncertainty created by the DOL
IG's conclusions; and whether it needed to recalculate the lump
sum benefits already paid to members of the Fisher class.

The Court reasoned that certification cannot be premised on these
unpleaded claims.  Therefore, the Court ordered that the class
certification order will be amended to reflect that Subclass A's
class members are pursuing equitable relief under Section
502(a)(3) on the whipsaw-related breach of fiduciary duty claims
1 and 2 identified.

The Plaintiffs also proposed an expansion of Subclass A to
include Plan participants who received lump sum distributions
between Jan. 1, 2004 and Aug. 17, 2006.  The Court ordered that
the class certification order will not be amended to include this
group of Plan participants.

The Plaintiffs' also proposed amending the class certification
order to expressly, instead of implicitly, indicate that Subclass
A's members include participants who received lump sum
distributions between March 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 1997 from two
other plans.  The Court denied the Plaintiffs' untimely request
to amend the class certification order to expressly include
participants in the Hanover and Citizens Plans.

The Plaintiffs' second motion sought in camera review of 199
additional documents that the Defendants were withholding on
claim of privilege.  The Court concluded that an in camera review
would be appropriate as to 141 of the documents as they seemed to
be relevant to the whipsaw-related breach of fiduciary duty
claims and pertain to matters of plan administration.  It also
concluded that the Plaintiffs had made an unsubstantiated
allegation of a criminal purpose which was not sufficient to
warrant an in camera review under the crime-fraud exception to
the attorney-client privilege.

The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the following: (1) the
Court's "sua sponte dismissal" of claims 3, 4, and 5 for want of
an adequate statement in the amended complaint; (2) the Court's
denial, based on its dismissal of the three claims, of the
Plaintiffs' requested modifications to Subclass A's definitions;
(3) the Court's consideration of only claims 1 and 2 in the Rule
26(b)(1) relevance assessment of the 199 documents that they
asked to be reviewed in camera; and (4) the Court's denial of
their request to amend the class certification order to expressly
indicate that Subclass A's members include participants in the
Hanover and Citizens plans.

Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl finds that the Plaintiffs'
assertion of sua sponte dismissal is not an accurate description
of what actually occurred.  Additionally, with regard to the
issue of unpleaded claims, he says the Plaintiffs are using their
motion to raise legal arguments about claims 3 and 4 that could
have been, but were not, presented in their reply memorandum.
This is not an appropriate use of a motion to reconsider.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to reconsideration of
the portion of the prior order that concluded claims 3 and 4 are
not pleaded in the amended complaint.

Having reviews the paragraphs 37, 44, 48, 85, and 86, as they are
actually written, Magistrate Judge concludes that claim 5 is not
pleaded in the amended complaint.  In sum, the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate the Court committed a clear error when it
found that claim 5 is not pleaded in the amended complaint.
Additionally, other than making a bare assertion, the Plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate there is a need to prevent a manifest
injustice.  In sum, he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate the Court committed a clear error.  Their assertion
is not sufficient to demonstrate a need to prevent manifest
injustice.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated clear error with regard to the Order's ruling on
their second proposed amendment to Subclass A.  Earlier in the
order, he finds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
reconsideration as to the Order's finding that claims 3 and 4 are
pleaded in the amended complaint.  He also finds found that there
was no clear error with respect to the Order's finding that claim
5 is not pleaded in the amended complaint.  In light of these
findings, there appears to be no reason to revisit denial of the
Plaintiffs' first and second requested modifications to Subclass
A.  Therefore, the Order's rulings stand with regard to the
Plaintiffs' first and second proposed amendments to Subclass A.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are not
entitled to reconsideration of the portion of the Order that
denied their motion to amend the class certification order to
expressly include participants in the Hanover and Citizen plans.
This is merely a rehash of the arguments the Court already
addressed when it ruled on this matter in the Order.  As
previously indicated, motions for reconsideration are not
intended to re-litigate issues previously considered by the
Court.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Brennenstuhl denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Dkg9Xx from Leagle.com.

Jennifer A. Durand, On behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Walter J. Wharton & Michael A.
Tedesco, Plaintiffs, represented by Albert Huang --
albert@gottesdienerlaw.com -- Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, E.
Douglas Richards, E. Douglas Richards, PSC, Eli Gottesdiener --
eli@gottesdienerlaw.com -- Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC & Steven
D. Cohen, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan
S. Gilbert -- alan.gilbert@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
Christopher Q. King -- cking@redgravellp.com -- Redgrave, LLP,
Kristen C. Rodriguez -- kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- Dentons
US LLP, Lira A. Johnson -- lira.johnson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore
& Shohl LLP, Stephen J. O'Brien -- stephen.obrien@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, Jeffery S. Davis -- jdavis@riker.com -- Dentons
US LLP, Lisa D. Hughes , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Richard H.C. Clay
-- richard.clay@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Defendant,
represented by Alan S. Gilbert, Dentons US LLP, Christopher Q.
King, Redgrave, LLP, Lira A. Johnson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons US LLP, Jeffery S. Davis, Dentons US
LLP, Lisa D. Hughes, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Richard H.C. Clay,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Azroui Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
GHALEB AZROUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTH BENEFITS ONE, LLC d/b/a HEALTH
BENEFITS CENTER a/k/a HEALTH REGISTRATION CENTER a/k/a SIMPLE
HEALTH, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03709 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2018), alleges that
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing unsolicited calls made to the cellular telephone numbers
of Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or a "predictive dialer" as this term has been defined
and adopted by the Federal Communications Commission.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not have
Plaintiff's express prior consent(oral or in writing) to call
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number with an ATDS or a
predictive dialer, nor did Defendant have Plaintiff's express
prior consent to play or leave artificial or pre-recorded voice
messages on his cellular telephone number.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Majdi Y. Hijazin, Esq.
          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          E-mail: mhijazin@hijazinlaw.com
                  jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


HEALTH CARE: "Saywer" Class Has Conditional Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SAWYER, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH CARE
SOLUTIONS AT HOME, INC; and LINCARE INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-5674 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
in part the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

In October 2016, Sawyer filed a complaint against the Defendants,
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated hourly workers
employed by the Defendants.  Sawyer contends that the Defendants
falsely altered the timekeeping records of their hourly employees
to deduct 30-minute lunch breaks from hourly employees' hours,
even when they worked during that time, and failed to factor
bonuses into the overtime rate for hourly employees, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Pennsylvania law.

The Defendants are in the business of delivering respiratory
devices and treatment services directly to patients' homes, and
maintain over a thousand service centers in forty-eight states.
They employ hourly-paid delivery drivers, known as "Service
Representatives," and Customer Service Representatives throughout
Pennsylvania.  The Driver/Service Representatives'
responsibilities include delivery, setup, and maintenance of
respiratory equipment at customers' homes.  The Customer Service
Representatives communicate with patients regarding refills of
supplies and educate customers about available products and
services.  Both Driver/Service Representatives and Customer
Service Representatives are hourly-paid and overtime-eligible
employees. Id.

The Defendants employed Sawyer as a full-time Driver/Service
Representative at their service center location in Wyomissing,
Pennsylvania.  Because of his busy schedule of visits to customer
sites, he often did not take an uninterrupted lunch break.
Sawyer alleges that the Defendants nevertheless adopted a
corporate policy of automatically deducting a half-hour lunch
break from employees' time logs, regardless of whether they
actually took a break.  As a result, the Defendants deprived
employees of wages owed for work performed during the "lunch
breaks" the Defendants deducted, and, since some of these
deducted hours were overtime, the Defendants deprived the
employees of overtime compensation.

The Defendants maintained a non-discretionary bonus policy that
awarded a $15 bonus each time an employee convinced a patient to
buy medication directly from them.  Sawyer alleges that the
Defendants did not include the bonus compensation as part of the
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay for
Driver/Service Representatives and Customer Service
Representatives.

Sawyer brought suit against the Defendants, alleging a violation
of the FLSA based on the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, a
violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, based on failure
to compensate employees for work performed, a violation of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and breach of
contract.

He now moves for preliminary certification of an FLSA collective,
defined as all current and former drivers, customer service
representatives, and other hourly employees who worked for the
Defendants Lincare in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any
time in the last 3 years.

Sawyer also asks the Court to order the Defendants to identify
all potential members of the proposed collective and to authorize
dissemination of his proposed notice by first-class mail, email,
and text message.

With respect to similarly-situated employees, Judge Leeson finds
that Sawyer offers only his own belief that the Defendants did
not factor bonuses into their calculation of other Driver/Service
Representatives' and Customer Service Representatives' overtime
pay.  Sawyer presents no evidence that other employees were
similarly situated with respect to their overtime rates.  The
record contains no testimony of other employees that they, too,
received overtime pay at a rate that did not account for their
bonuses, and no evidence of a company policy that excluded
bonuses from overtime rates.  The declaration of Sawyer's former
supervisor is silent as to calculation of overtime rates.

Without more, the Judge says Sawyer's argument that the
Defendants must have violated other employees' rights because
their policies allegedly violated his rights does not satisfy the
modest factual showing test.  Sawyer has set forth an individual
claim based on the Defendants' failure to include bonuses in his
overtime rate, but Sawyer's request for conditional certification
of a collective is denied with respect to this claim.

Although Sawyer seeks preliminary certification of a collective
encompassing the Defendants' employees throughout Pennsylvania,
the Judge finds that Sawyer pas presented evidence of the
Defendants' policy being applied only to employees in the offices
under the control of Schenck's Area Managers (Poff and Jones),
namely, the Hanover, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Wyomissing, and York
offices.  Therefore, the Judge restricts the collective to
Defendants' hourly Driver/Service Representatives and Customer
Service Representatives in those offices.

With respect to Sawyer's requests that the Court orders the
Defendants to provide cell phone numbers and email addresses of
the potential class members and authorize dissemination of notice
by mail, email, and text message, the Judge will limit
dissemination of notice to first-class mail.  Additionally, the
Defendants request that the proposed notice inform potential opt-
in Plaintiffs of the possible consequences of joining the
lawsuit, such as liability for their costs.  Because Sawyer does
not respond to this request either, the Judge will grant it, and
the parties must provide notice of possible liability for costs
and expenses in the event the Defendants prevail.

For these reasons, Judge Leeson granted in part Sawyer's Motion.
He granted conditional certification for a collective limited to
Driver/Service Representatives and Customer Service
Representatives who worked at the Defendants' Hanover,
Harrisburg, Lancaster, Wyomissing, and York locations.
Additionally, the certification is limited to Sawyer's claim
based on improper deduction of meal breaks.  The Notice to
potential opt-in Plaintiffs will be limited to first-class mail.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/74oE7a from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY SAWYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JASON T. BROWN --
jbt@jbtlawgroup.com -- JTB LAW GROUP, LLC & NICHOLAS R. CONLON --
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB LAW GROUP LLC.

HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS AT HOME INC. & LINCARE INC., Defendants,
represented by ASHWIN R. TREHAN, FORD HARRISON LLP, MARILYN G.
MORAN -- mmoran@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP, MARK A.
SALOMAN -- msaloman@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP, TODD
S. AIDMAN -- taidman@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP &
DAVID M. KALTEUX -- dkalteux@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON
LLP.


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: "Campos" Class Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFONSO CAMPOS, on behalf of himself, others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL
CORPORATION; HERC RENTALS INC.; THE HERTZ CORPORATION; HERTZ
GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-03170-CRB (C.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer
of the District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Class Action
Allegations.

The Judge has considered the Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Class Action Allegations, Declarations, and all other
documents submitted in support of or opposition to the motion.
He finds that the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal is not
collusive or prejudicial to the class and there is no need to
send notice of the dismissal to the class.

The Plaintiff seeks dismissal based on the settlement of another
other putative wage and hour class actions involving
substantially the same causes of action, for the same proposed
class, and against the same Defendants.  No one has offered the
Plaintiff or his Counsel, Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP, any
consideration, direct or indirect, for the dismissal of the class
allegations.  The dismissal will avoid any detrimental ruling
which could prevent another class member from bringing a class
action on behalf of putative class members.

Further, the Judge finds that there is no need to require notice
to be sent to the putative class in the action.  It is very
unlikely that any of the putative class members have refrained
from filing their own lawsuit because of any reliance on the
action.

Finally, the Judge finds that the putative class members are not
likely to suffer any prejudice to lack of adequate time to file
their own actions once the class claims in this case are
dismissed.  The dismissal is precertification and will be without
prejudice. Accordingly, the dismissal will not create a
procedural bar to any class member filing a claim or putative
class action.  Any putative class member will have the benefit of
a four-year statute of limitations on their wage claims.
Moreover, a filing of an alleged class action tolls the statute
of limitations for all individual claims covered by the class
action during the pendency of the suit.  After dismissal, the
class members will be in the same position as when the suit was
initially filed.

Accordingly, Judge Breyer granted the motion and dismissed
without prejudice the class claims in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RgR0Zh from Leagle.com.

Alfonso Campos, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Lavi --
jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi and Ebrahimian LLP, Vincent Charles
Granberry -- vgranberry@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi and Ebrahimian, LLP
& Vanessa E. Kamau, Lavi & Ebrahimian.

Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, HERC Rentals Inc., The Hertz
Corporation & Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Seth Lewis Neulight -- sneulight@nixonpeabody.com
-- Nixon Peabody LLP & Robert A. Dolinko --
rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP.


HSDC SECURITIES: Underpays Employees' Overtime Premium
------------------------------------------------------
LAVERNE WEEKS-RIVERA and SANDI TURNIPSEED, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., the Defendant, Case No. 154959/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover alleges that HSBC
has policy and practice of underpaying its employees the overtime
premium pay they have rightfully earned, in order to enhance its
corporate success.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated KYC workers were paid solely a salary and were not paid
any additional premium pay when they worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek. The other similarly situated KYC workers who
worked with Plaintiffs were paid in a similar manner, i.e.,
salary only. The Plaintiffs' pay stubs failed to indicate
Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay. Despite working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated KYC workers overtime compensation at a rate of
time and a half their regular rate of pay for the hours they
worked over forty in each workweek. The Defendant classified
Plaintiffs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the New York
Labor Law.

HSBC is one of the largest banks in the world. In the United
States alone, HSBC employs more than 1,000 employees and its
revenues totaled over $1 billion in 2017 alone.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN MORGAN, P.A.
600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


HUMAN SERVICE: "Santos-Hunt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL SANTOS-HUNT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUMAN SERVICE OPTIONS, INC., MARTIN JONES
and JANICE M. LOWENSTEIN, Case No. 1:18-cv-10839-DJC (D. Mass.,
April 30, 2018), seeks payment of all alleged unpaid wages,
statutorily mandated liquidated and treble damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest.

Ms. Santos-Hunt alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
her and the Class 1.5 times their regular hourly rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Human Service Options, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with
a principal place of business located in Braintree,
Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are officers and
employees of the Company.

HSO is in the business of providing support to individuals with
intellectual disabilities.  To that end, the Defendants operate
numerous facilities across Massachusetts, in which they provide
services for individuals with intellectual disabilities,
including educational and vocational services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Schneider, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
                  nschneider@rflawyers.com


INVESCO LLC: Ramirezes Sue over Fraudulent Judgments vs. Tenants
----------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA RAMIREZ and ANTONIO RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INVESCO, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
2018-CH-07134 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 5, 2018), seeks to vindicate
the rights of Invesco's tenants and put an end to Invesco's
unlawful rental practices.

Invesco LLC is an investment and wealth management company which
also operates and manages hundreds of residential rental housing
units throughout Illinois, largely in Mount Prospect.

To enrich their investment clients, Invesco obtains judgments for
fraudulent charges against tenants of color, particularly tenants
of Hispanic descent. Invesco then allegedly sells those
fraudulent judgments, or uses them as part of its wealth
management scheme.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 6020l
          Telephone: (847) 501 5760
          E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org


INVESCO LTD: Cervantes Sues over 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty with respect to
Invesco Ltd.'s 401(k) Plan, and entered into prohibited
transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, to the detriment of the Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually on behalf of a
class of all participants in the 401(k) Plan between May 25, 2012
to the date of Judgment, and on behalf of the Plan, for breach of
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under ERISA.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not consider or
act in the best interest of the Plan and its participants.
Instead, Defendants put their interests before the Plan
participants by treating the Plan as an opportunity to promote
and generate fees from proprietary investment products offered by
Invesco and its subsidiaries.

Invesco Ltd. is an investment management firm that offers mutual
funds and other types of investment products to customers.
Invesco offers the Plan to its thousands of employees. ERISA,
which regulates the operation of the Plan, requires plan
fiduciaries to act solely in the interest of the Plan's
participants and beneficiaries. To meet their fiduciary
obligations, the Plan fiduciaries are required to establish and
maintain a prudent process to search the market for the best
investment options for Plan participants and to monitor the
Plan's investment options on an ongoing basis.

The case is captioned as DIEGO CERVANTES Individually and on
Behalf of the Invesco 401(k) Plan and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INVESCO HOLDING COMPANY (US), INC.;
INVESCO LTD.; INVESCO NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; INVESCO ADVISERS,
INC.; INVESCO POWERSHARES CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; INVESCO
BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE; INVESCO BOARD OF DIRECTORS; INVESCO
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION COMMITTEE; SARAH E BESHAR; JOSEPH
CANION; MARTIN L. FLANAGAN; ROBERT HENRISKSON; BEN F. JOHNSON,
III; DENIS KESSLER; SIR NIGEL SHEINWALD; G. RICHARD WAGONER, JR.;
PHOEBE A. WOOD; SUZANNE CHRISTENSEN; JOHN COLEMAN; WASHINGTON
DENDER; PETER GALLAGHER; DAVID GENOVA; DOUGLAS SHARP; BEN UTT;
GARY WENDLER; and JOHN DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02551-WSD (N.D. Ga., May 24, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Carlton R. Jones, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          Jordan D. Mamorsky, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504 6500
          Facsimile: (404) 504 6501
          E-mail: jherman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cjones@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jmamorsky@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          William W. Stone, Esq.
          David A. Weisz, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (470) 632 6000
          Facsimile: (770) 200 3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
                  williams@johnsonfistel.com
                  davidw@johnsonfistel.com


INVITATION HOME: "Rivera" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rivera, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Invitation Homes, Inc., a Maryland
corporation, the Defendant, was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
May 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-03158-JCS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Invitation Homes is a leading owner and operator of single-family
homes for lease, offering residents high-quality homes across
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Alex Michael Tomasevic, Esq.
Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Andrew Markley, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325 0492
Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
E-mail: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
        cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
        smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


JMEP LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMEP, LLC. The case
is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JMEP, LLC doing business as:
Swerve Fitness, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05275 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 12, 2018).

SWERVE cycling studios are located in Midtown & Flatiron of
NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Munford Sues over Defective Talcum Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
INGRAM MUNFORD, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
ASHLEY MUNFORD, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV328695 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 24, 2018), alleges that Defendants recklessly and/or
intentionally falsely represented the dangerous and serious
health and safety concerns inherent in the use of Products to the
public at large, for the purpose of influencing the sales of
Products known to be dangerous and defective, and/or not as safe
as other alternatives.

The Products include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder. The Plaintiff alleges that Imerys has been
in the business of mining, extracting, processing, treating,
formulating, promoting, selling, and distributing talcum powder
for use in talcum powder based products, including the Products.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Johnson & Johnson has engaged in
substantial, continuous economic activity in California,
including marketing, distribution, and sale of billions of
dollars in the Products to Californians.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the
defects in the Products or of the wrongful conduct of Defendants,
nor did Plaintiff have access to information regarding other
injuries and complaints in the possession of the Defendants.
Additionally, the Plaintiff was prevented from discovering this
information sooner because Defendants misrepresented and continue
to misrepresent to the public that the Products are safe and free
from defects, and Defendants fraudulently concealed information
to allow the Plaintiff to discover a potential cause of action
sooner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (800) 723 3216
          Facsimile: (713) 659 2204
          E-mail: info@lanierlawfirm.com


JTH TAX: Murrell Alleges Disability/Medical Condition Bias
----------------------------------------------------------
La Toshsa Murrell, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JTH Tax, Inc., doing
business as Liberty Tax Service, a Delaware Corporation; Sharif
Vaughn, an individual; Jasmine White, an individual, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707844 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), alleges that JTH Tax discriminates
Plaintiff based on disability/medical condition.

According to the complaint, the Defendants subjected Plaintiff to
adverse employment actions, including but not limited to:
Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for
Plaintiffs disability, Defendants denied reasonable accommodation
in the form of a finite leave of absence, modified schedule,
duties, and assignments, retaliated against and harassed
Plaintiff, Defendants transferred Plaintiff to unfavorable
positions in favor of an employee who was engaged in wrongful
conduct and did not have the requisite certifications, Defendants
forced Plaintiff to work standing without accommodations.

The Defendants threatened to terminate Plaintiffs benefits,
including medical, dental, vision, flexible spending and life
insurance, Defendants threatened to transfer Plaintiff to another
location while she was on medical leave. The Plaintiffs
responsibilities were changed as she was assigned to Liberty'
Lomita Office which was a low-revenue store; she received lower
bonuses than she would in the Compton Office and worked for few
hours, leading to smaller pay checks; Plaintiffs position was
assigned to Jasmine White at Compton Office who did not have a
current, valid PTIN while managing and preparing taxes; Even
after 10 years of exemplary performance. Plaintiff was offered
the choice to work under White or quit position. Plaintiff was
demoted; Plaintiff was suspended. Plaintiff was terminated.

The Defendants allegedly failed to make reasonable accommodations
for Plaintiffs disability. Defendants refused Plaintiffs request
for protected leave of absence due to her medical disability.
This discriminating conduct was conducted by Defendants who
created an environment that, among other things, tolerated and
encouraged discrimination against Plaintiff.

JTH Tax is a Delaware corporation and prepares tax returns for
individuals and small businesses. Liberty has tax preparation
franchises throughout the United States, including State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Twila S. White, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE
6033 West Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (213) 381-8749
Facsimile: (213) 381-8799


KAISER FOUNDATION: Thomas Alleges Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., a California Corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS, a California Corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; JAMILA
DAINTY, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC707843 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018),
alleges that Defendants discriminated Plaintiff based on
disability/medical condition.

The Plaintiff suffered from a physical disability as defined by
the Fair Employment and Housing Act. More specifically, the
Plaintiff suffered from, amongst other things, ankle sprain due
to which strong ligaments that support the ankle stretch beyond
their limits and tear and which interfered with Plaintiffs major
life activities, including but not limited to walking, running
and working.

Kaiser Foundation operates as a nonprofit health care
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Twila S. White, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE
6033 West Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (213) 381 8749
Facsimile: (213) 381 8799


KARE MANAGEMENT: "Baker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kare Management Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00465 (E.D. Va., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Kim Baker is an adult resident of the state of
Virginia. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Home Health
Aide, specifically, a Certified Nursing Assistant, from
approximately September 2015 to January 2018.

The Defendant Kare Management Solutions, LLC is a Virginia
corporation with its principal place of business in Alexandria,
Virginia. The Defendant is a home health care agency that
provides in-home health care services, including skilled nursing,
home health aide services, speech therapy, medical social
services, occupational therapy, and physical therapy services for
children and adults. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG
      8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301) 587-9373
      Fax: (240) 839-9142
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


KARPLUS WAREHOUSE: Fuller Sues over Illegal Termination
-------------------------------------------------------
ERIC FULLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. KARPLUS WAREHOUSE, INC., a California
corporation; ALI MODARRESI, an individual; HOSSEIN JOWSHAGHANI,
an individual; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC707943 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a sales
associate for Defendants. Plaintiff began working for Defendants
in said capacity, in or about September 2017, and worked
continuously for Defendants, until Defendants terminated her
employment on January 17, 2018, despite his competent and capable
job performance, because he expressed his opposition to
management about unlawful workplace conduct, including but not
limited to, Defendants' illegal rest break policy.

Karplus Warehouse retails new and used cars. The Company offers
jeep, hatchback, sedan, SUV, and other vehicles. Karplus
Warehouse provides automobile parts, finance, and maintenance
services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496 4818
Facsimile: (310) 510 6429
E-mail: inike@crosnerlegal.com
        zach@crosnerlegal.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Arcuri" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Arcuri and Ashley Kerr, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr Brake
Company, New York Air Brake LLC, Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation, and Faiveley Transport North America,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01191 (D. Md., April 23, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for its anticompetitive conduct in
violation of sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiffs seek overcharge damages stemming from the
artificial suppression of their and other employees' wages caused
by Defendants' no-poach agreements.

The Plaintiff Paul Arcuri is a resident of Westminster, Maryland.
Plaintiff began working for Knorr in September 2012 as an
Electronics/Software Engineer. He terminated his employment with
Knorr in August 2014. As a result of Defendants' agreements not
to compete for each other's employees, Plaintiff was paid less
than he would have been absent such agreements.

The Plaintiff Ashley Ken is a resident of Hartsville, South
Carolina. Plaintiff began working for New York Air Brake LLC in
October 2013 as a Procurement Specialist. She worked as a
Material Expeditor from 2013 to 2014, and from 2015 to 2016, she
worked as a Machining Buyer. Ms. Kerr terminated her employment
with New York Air Brake LLC in July 2016. As a result of
Defendants' agreements not to compete for each other's employees,
Plaintiff was paid less than she would have been absent such
agreements.

The Defendant Knorr-Bremse AG 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. In 2017, Knorr had annual sales of
approximately $7.7 billion.

The Defendant Knorr Brake Company LLC is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters in Westminstet, Maryland, and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Defendant Knorr-Bremse AG. Knorr Brake
Company manufactures train control, braking, and door equipment
used on passenger rail vehicles.

The Defendant New York Air Brake LLC is a Delaware company with
its headquarters in Watertown, New York, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG. It manufactures railway air brakes
and other rail equipment used on freight trains.

The Defendant Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation is
a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Wilmerding,
Pennsylvania. Wabtec is a publicly held company, listed on the
New York Stock Exchange. With over 100 subsidiaries globally,
Wabtec is the world's largest provider of rail equipment and
services with global sales of $3.9 billion in 20l7.

Defendant Faiveley Transport North America, Inc., formerly a
subsidiary of Faiveley Transport S.A., is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wabtec, and is a New York corporation headquartered
in Greenville, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James P. Ulwick, Esq.
      KRAMON & GRAHAM P.A.
      One South Street, Suite 2600
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 752-6030
      Fax: (410) 539-1269
      E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

          - and -

      Andrew C. White, Esq.
      William N. Sinclair, Esq.
      Stephen G. Grygiel, Esq.
      SILVERMAN THOMPSON
      SLUTKIN WHITE, LLC
      201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 385-2225
      Fax: (410) 547-2432
      E-mail: awhite@mdattorney.com
              bsinclair@mdattorney.com
              sgrygiel@mdattorney.com


KONG TECH: Order on Payment of Claims With Missing Info Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has
entered parties' stipulated order allowing the settlement
administrator, KCC, to mail physical letters with Amazon credits
codes on them to class members who submitted claims but whose
contact information was incomplete.

KCC has advised the counsel for the parties that 502 of the class
members who submitted timely claims and requested distribution by
check did not provide a name to go on that check.  Neither KCC
nor Class Counsel have been able to obtain those class members'
names.  An additional 609 class members submitted claims for an
Amazon credit with an email address that is presently invalid
(and which therefore cannot receive email.

KCC has a mailing address for each class member in these two
groups.  It has recommended that it be allowed to send each of
these groups of class members an Amazon credit code in printed
form rather than email (i.e. a printed "gift card") as a method
of distributing their payments.  No other method of providing the
benefits to these class members appears available within the
parameters of the settlement and the information known to KCC.

The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Tigar approved, that
KCC will send via US Mail Amazon credit codes to the 502 class
members who requested checks but have not provided their names
notwithstanding those class members' request for a check; and KCC
will send via US Mail Amazon credit codes to the 609 class
members whose emails are invalid, as well as to any other class
members whose emails are invalid at the time of the distribution.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/a4Hldm from Leagle.com.

Oscar Hernandez, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
R. Strange -- bstrange@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange and
Carpenter, Joseph H. Malley, Law Office of Joseph H. Malley, PC,
pro hac vice, John Theodore Ceglia --
jceglia@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Carpenter & Brian
Russell Strange, Strange & Butler.

Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Sarnelli --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jedediah
Wakefield -- jwakefield@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP,
Kathleen Lu, Fenwick & West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Timothy L. Alger,
Alger Law APC.

Opperman Plaintiffs, Miscellaneous, represented by Carl F.
Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker & Jeffrey Scott
Edwards -- jeff@edwards-law.com -- Edwards Law.


LIBERTY INSURANCE: Faces "Horn" Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Insurance
Underwriters, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Horn and Robert
Vetter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated as assignees of Ican Benefit Group LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Plaintiffs v. Liberty Insurance
Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80762-RLR (S.D.
Fla., June 12, 2018).

Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. provides property and
casualty insurance products and services. It offers construction,
which includes erection all risk (EAR), contractors all risk
(CAR), and civil infrastructure products; energy property;
environmental, Excess and Surplus (E&S) property; excess casual;
exploration and production; global crisis management; global
financial risk; management liability/D&O, including employment
practices liability, executive advantage PLUS, fidelity,
investment management solution PLUS, and private advantage combo
policy; and marine insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LONG BEACH, CA: Oct. 29 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES MAY CLAIM REFUNDS
OF TELEPHONE TAXES PAID TO THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
BETWEEN AUGUST 11, 2005 AND DECEMBER 19, 2008

McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, Los Angeles Superior Court Case
No. BC361469

Judge Maren E. Nelson authorized this notice.

SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit, called McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, case number
BC361469, was filed by a Long Beach resident, John W. McWilliams,
who believed that the City improperly required telephone service
providers to collect tax on telephone services that were not
legally taxable. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that prior
to December 19, 2008, the Long Beach UUT should have been
collected only on local telephone service and long distance
service where charges for calls varied by both time and distance.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated taxpayers. Mr. McWilliams created the
John W. McWilliams Telephone Tax Claim Living Trust on June 5,
2014, and appointed as Trustee Joseph Henchman of Tax
Foundation, a non-profit tax policy research organization based
in Washington, D.C., to preserve the claims in the event of his
death. The City denied and continues to deny that the UUT was
improperly collected.

WHY WAS THIS NOTICE ISSUED?
The Court issued this notice because you have a right to know
about the proposed class action settlement which the Court has
preliminarily approved and your rights and deadlines to act. If
the Court grants final approval, and the settlement becomes final
pursuant to its terms, valuable cash benefits will be distributed
to Class Members who submit approved Claim Forms on or before
September 15, 2018.

AM I A CLASS MEMBER?
The Settlement Class includes:

All persons, including corporate and non-corporate entities
wherever organized and existing, who paid telephone utility
user taxes to the City of Long Beach for residential landline
service, business landline service and mobile telephone service
utilized between August 11, 2005 and December 19, 2008, other
than purely local service, teletypewriter exchange service, or
long distance telephone service where the charge varied by both
time and distance (the "Settlement Class"). The Settlement Class
does not include prepaid mobile customers (which includes
customers who purchased plans described as "pay as you go," "pay
as you talk," "pay and go wireless," "prepay or burner phone
service" and "no contract service") but does include prepaid
mobile service providers, i.e., those that provide the above
services to customers who prepay for wireless service. "Purely
local service" means local telephone service provided under a
calling plan that does not include long distance telephone
service or local telephone service where the charges for that
service are separately stated on the bill to customers. The
Settlement Class does not include any person, including corporate
and non-corporate entities wherever organized and existing, to
whom the City has already paid a full refund of UUT paid for
services utilized during the Class Period.

WHAT IF I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I'M INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
The UUT was typically collected on residential and commercial
landlines if the service address of the phone number was within
City limits. For mobile service, the UUT was typically collected
if the billing address was located within City limits. Mobile
service with no billing address (i.e., prepaid mobile service)
does not qualify. If you are not sure whether you or your
business is included in the Class, you may call the toll-free
number (833) 380-5573. You may also write with questions to the
lawyers appointed to represent the members of the class whose
contact information is on page 4 of this notice. DO NOT CALL THE
COURT.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO RECEIVE A CASH PAYMENT FROM THE
SETTLEMENT FUND?
The person who paid the phone bill must submit a valid claim
postmarked by September 15, 2018 and the claim must be approved
by the Claims Administrator. Claims can be completed online at
the settlement website, www.LBTaxRefund.com, or by printing a
Claim Form from the settlement website or requesting one from the
Claims Administrator and submitting it via U.S. Mail. You can
claim a standard refund amount, and you may also provide proof of
the tax paid to claim an actual refund amount.

You cannot claim an actual refund amount and a standard refund
amount for the same kind of service (e.g., you cannot claim a
standard mobile refund and also submit mobile bills for an actual
refund amount claim). You may, however, claim the standard
refund amount for one kind of service and claim the actual amount
for another kind of service (e.g., e a standard refund claim
for mobile and an actual refund claim for landline). For the
standard refund claims, one standard refund will be issued for
each account regardless of the number of phones affiliated with
that account.

A. Standard Refund Claims: You may claim the following standard
refund amounts by checking the boxes on the claim form for UUT
you paid for each kind of service that you utilized during the
time period August 2005 to December 2008. No additional
documentation is required to claim these amounts:

$46.00 - Mobile Telephone Service1
$27.50 - Residential Landline Service
$46.00 - Business Landline Service

You can check more than one box if you paid for more than one
kind of telephone service (e.g., you can claim mobile and
residential landline). For business claimants, only a business
that was registered with the City of Long Beach during the August
2005 to December 2008 time period is eligible to claim the
business landline service amount.

B. Actual Amount Refund Claims: You may also claim a refund based
on the actual amount of UUT that you paid to the City of Long
Beach for telephone services utilized during the August 2005 to
December 2008 time period by submitting copies of telephone bills
or other carrier-provided proof. There are several options for
submitting the required documentary evidence.

   * Submit At Least 10 Phone Bills from August 2005 to December
2008 - To claim a refund for the full period under this option,
submit at least one bill (or other carrier-provided document
showing the UUT paid) from August 2005 to December 2005; at least
three bills from 2006; at least three bills from 2007; and at
least three bills from 2008; OR
   * Submit 10 Recent Phone Bills - If you paid the City UUT
during the August 2005 to December 2008 time period, but you do
not have copies of your phone bills from that time period and you
are unable to obtain them from your carrier, you can submit 10
copies of recent telephone bills (or other carrier-provided
documents) showing payment of the UUT to the City of Long Beach.
In order to claim a refund for the full Class Period using this
option you must submit 3 bills from each of three different
calendar years, plus one bill from a fourth calendar year (e.g.,
three bills from 2013, three bills from 2014, three bills from
2015, and one bill from 2016); OR
   * Verizon and Sprint Customers - If you had phone service with
Verizon or Sprint during the August 2005-December 2008 time
period, and if you provide consent, the carriers will search for
your UUT payment data and provide it to the claims administrator.
   * T-Mobile Customers - If you had phone service with T-Mobile
during the August 2005 to December 2008 time period, T-Mobile
will search for and send directly to you whatever UUT payment
records they can locate. Email UUTclaimLongBeach@T-Mobile.com for
details, or call 1-877-453-1304, ask for "Representative", then
request historical tax information as described in T-Mobile's C2
document #440883.

You must submit bills or other proof of the amount paid for
services utilized during the period August 2005 to December 2008
and your Recognized Claim Amount will be based solely on the
amount reflected on the proof submitted. For landline service,
the Recognized Claim Amount will be 70% of the amount of the UUT
paid to the City of Long Beach. For mobile service the
Recognized Claim Amount will be 100% of the amount of the UUT
paid to the City of Long Beach.

HOW MUCH CAN I GET FROM THIS SETTLEMENT?
The actual amount paid or donated will depend on the number of
claims submitted and other factors. Please see the Settlement
Agreement available on the Settlement website,
www.LBTaxRefund.com, for additional information.

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY CASH PAYMENT?
Payments cannot be made until the settlement is approved by the
Court, becomes final pursuant to its terms, and the claims
process and administration process is complete. Please be
patient. Status updates will be posted on the settlement website
at www.LBTaxRefund.com.

IF YOU MOVE
If your claim is approved, your payment will be sent to the
address you provide. If you change addresses, you must contact
the Claims Administrator at (833) 380-5573 to report any change
of your address. Failure to report a change of address may result
in you not receiving the monetary benefits of the settlement.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
The deadline to exclude yourself from this settlement is
October 15, 2018. If you don't want a payment from this
settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to
sue the City of Long Beach about the taxes at issue in this
lawsuit on your own, then you must exclude yourself by submitting
online or by U.S. Mail postmarked no later than October 15, 2018
a letter

1 Please note: Prepaid mobile telephone service does not qualify
for a refund claim saying that you want to be excluded from the
settlement to: McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, c/o JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91304, Seattle, WA 98111. Be sure to
include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. You
must also verify that you are a Class Member by providing your
telephone number(s) and address(es) during the Class Period.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
The Court has appointed the following Class Counsel to represent
the Class:

          Daniel Krasner
          Rachele R. Rickert
          Marisa C. Livesay
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Jonathan W. Cuneo
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, Ste 200
          Washington, DC 20016

          Nicholas E. Chimicles
          Timothy N. Mathews
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041

          Jon Tostrud
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND
PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE AWARD
The Court-appointed lawyers for the Class ("Class Counsel") will
ask the Court to approve payment of administrative expenses to be
paid from the settlement amount to cover the costs of claims
processing and administration of the settlement, as well as any
notice costs. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award up
to 25% of the settlement amount (or $4.15 million) for attorneys'
fees and will also request reimbursement of their expenses, not
to exceed $125,000.00. Class Counsel undertook the investigation
and litigation of this action on a contingent basis. They have
litigated this case for over ten years, including successfully
overturning a lower court decision on appeal to the Supreme Court
of California. They have received no compensation to date, and
they have incurred significant out-of-pocket costs that have not
been reimbursed. The named plaintiff will also ask the Court for
$6,000 to compensate him for the time and effort he devoted to
this case as a Class Representative.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You may only object if you are a Class member and you do not
exclude yourself from the settlement. You can object on your own
or you may hire a lawyer. You can tell the Court that you don't
agree with the settlement or some part of it by sending a letter
to the Claims Administrator so that it is received on or before
September 28, 2018, saying that you object to the settlement.
Your objection must contain all of the following:

   (1) a heading referring to: McWilliams v. City of Long Beach,
Case No. BC361469;
   (2) a statement of the legal and factual bases for your
objection;
   (3) your name, address, telephone number, and email address;
   (4) copies of telephone bills dated during the Class Period or
other evidence of membership in the Class; and (5) your signature
and the signature of your counsel (if you are represented by
counsel).

The Court will consider your objection. If your objection is
mailed in time, you do not have to attend the Final Settlement
Hearing described below.

Any objection to the Settlement must be served by first class
mail, or email, or otherwise delivered to the Claims
Administrator so that it is received by September 28, 2018. The
Claims Administrator is: McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, c/o
JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91304, Seattle, WA 98111.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 2018,
at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 in
Department 17, to decide whether the proposed settlement is fair
and reasonable. You may attend at your own expense, and
you may ask to speak, but you are not required to do so. If the
Final Settlement Hearing is rescheduled, a notice of the new date
or time will be posted on the settlement website,
www.LBTaxRefund.com. After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long the
decision will take. Please be patient.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are
in the Settlement Agreement. All court records in this
litigation, including complete copies of the Settlement
Agreement, may be examined during regular court hours at the
office of the Clerk of the Court, prior to April 15, 2018 at 600
South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90005, and thereafter
at 111 North Hill Street, Room 212, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or at
any public kiosk in the Los Angeles Superior Court buildings. You
can also get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and other
important information as well as answers to frequently asked
questions by visiting the settlement website at
www.LBTaxRefund.com or by calling the Claims Administrator at
(833) 380-5573 toll free.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT DIRECTLY WITH ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 29 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES MAY CLAIM REFUNDS OF TELEPHONE TAXES
PAID TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BETWEEN AUGUST 25, 2005 AND
NOVEMBER 4, 2008

Granados v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC361470

Judge Maren E. Nelson authorized this notice.

SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit, called Granados v. County of Los Angeles, case
number BC361470, was filed by a County resident, Willy Granados,
who believed that the County improperly required telephone
service providers to collect TUT on telephone services that were
not legally taxable.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that
prior to November 4, 2008, the County's TUT should have been
collected only on local telephone service and long distance
service where charges for calls varied by both time and distance.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated taxpayers.  The County denied and
continues to deny that the TUT was improperly collected.

WHY WAS THIS NOTICE ISSUED?
The Court issued this notice because you have a right to know
about the proposed class action settlement that the Court has
preliminarily approved and which affects your rights under strict
deadlines.  If the Court grants final approval, and the
settlement becomes final pursuant to its terms, valuable cash
benefits will be distributed to Class Members who submit
approved Claim Forms before September 15, 2018.  Those steps may
take time.  Please be patient.

AM I A CLASS MEMBER?

The Class includes:
All persons, including corporate and non-corporate entities
wherever organized and existing, who paid telephone utility user
taxes to the County of Los Angeles on telephone service utilized
from August 25, 2005 to November 4, 2008, other than local-only
telephone services, teletypewriter exchange service, or long
distance telephone service where the charge varied by both time
and distance, and who have not already received a refund of such
tax.

WHAT IF I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I'M INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
The TUT was typically collected on residential and commercial
landlines if the service address of the phone number was
within the unincorporated areas of the County.  For mobile
service, the TUT was typically collected if the billing address
was located within the unincorporated areas of the County.
Mobile service with no billing address (i.e., prepaid mobile
service) is not included in this settlement.  If you are not sure
whether you or your business is included in the Class, you may
call the tollfree number (833) 807-3690.  You may also write with
questions to the lawyers appointed to represent the members of
the Class whose contact information is on page 4 of this notice.
DO NOT CALL THE COURT.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO RECEIVE A REFUND PAYMENT FROM THE
SETTLEMENT FUND?
The person who received the phone bill showing payment of TUT
must submit a valid claim postmarked by September 15,
2018 and the claim must be approved by the Claims Administrator.
Claims can be completed online at
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com, or by printing a Claim Form from the
settlement website or by requesting one from the Claims
Administrator and submitting it via U.S. Mail.  You can submit
your claim form following any of the options above (e.g.,
standard refund amount, proof of actual TUT paid, etc.)
You cannot claim an actual refund amount and a standard refund
amount for the same kind of service (e.g., you cannot claim a
standard mobile refund and also submit mobile bills for an actual
refund amount claim).  You may, however, claim the standard
refund amount for one kind of service and claim the actual amount
for another kind of service (e.g., a standard refund claim for
mobile and an actual refund claim for landline).  For the
standard refund claims, one standard refund will be issued for
each account regardless of the number of phones affiliated with
that account.

A. Standard Refund Claims: You may claim the following standard
refund amounts by checking the boxes on the claim form for TUT
you paid for each kind of service during the time period
August 2005 to November 2008.  No additional documentation is
required to claim these amounts:

$46.00 - Mobile Telephone Service1

1 Please note: Prepaid mobile telephone service does not qualify
for a refund claim.

$27.50 - Residential Landline Service
$46.00 - Business Landline Service

You can check more than one box if you paid for more than one
kind of telephone service (e.g., you can claim mobile and
residential landline).

B. Actual Amount Refund Claims: You may also claim a refund based
on the actual amount of TUT you paid for telephone services
between August 2005 and November 2008 by submitting copies of
telephone bills or other carrier-provided proof.

There are several options for submitting the required documentary
evidence.

   * Submit At Least 10 Phone Bills from August 2005 to November
2008 - To claim a refund for the full period under this option,
submit at least one bill (or other carrier-provided document
showing the TUT paid) from August 2005 to December 2005; at least
three bills from 2006; at least three bills from 2007; and at
least three bills from 2008; OR

   * Submit 10 Recent Phone Bills - If you paid TUT between
August 2005 and November 2008, but you do not have copies of your
phone bills from that time period and you are unable to obtain
them from your carrier, you can submit 10 copies of recent
telephone bills (or other carrier-provided documents) showing
payment of the TUT to the County of Los Angeles.  In order to
claim a refund for the full Class Period using this option you
must submit 3 bills from each of three different calendar years,
plus one bill from a fourth calendar year (e.g., three
bills from 2013, three bills from 2014, three bills from 2015,
and one bill from 2016); OR

   * Verizon and Sprint Customers - If you had phone service with
Verizon or Sprint during the August 2005-November 2008 time
period, and if you provide consent, the carriers will search for
your TUT payment data and provide it to the claims administrator.

   * T-Mobile Customers - If you had phone service with T-Mobile
during the August 2005 to November 2008 time period, T-Mobile
will search for and send directly to you whatever TUT payment
records they can locate.  Email UUTclaimCountyOfLA@T-Mobile.com
for details, or call 1-877-453-1304, ask for "Representative",
then request historical tax information as described in T-
Mobile's C2 document #440884.

You must submit bills or other proof of the amount paid for
telephone services between August 2005 and November 2008 or
provide consent for Verizon or Sprint to search for your TUT
payment data, or call T-Mobile to obtain your TUT payment data,
and your anticipated refund amount will be based solely on the
amount reflected on the proof submitted.  For landline service,
your anticipated refund amount will be 70% of the amount of the
TUT paid. For mobile service, your anticipated refund amount will
be 100% of the amount of the TUT paid.

HOW MUCH CAN I GET FROM THIS SETTLEMENT?
The actual amount refunded to you will depend on the number of
claims submitted and other factors.  Please see the
Settlement Agreement available on the Settlement website,
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com, for additional information. Please
note, if you previously received a refund of TUT paid during the
Class Period, such as through the prior Oronoz class action
settlement, any amount of telephone TUT previously refunded to
you will be an offset against any refund amount you are due
here.

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY REFUND PAYMENT?
Payments cannot be made until the settlement is approved by the
Court, becomes final pursuant to its terms, and the claims
process and administration process is complete.  Please be
patient.  Status updates will be posted to
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com.

IF YOU MOVE
If your claim is approved, your payment will be sent to the
address you provide.  If you change addresses, you must contact
the Claims Administrator at (833) 807-3690 to report any change
of your address.  Failure to report a change of address may
result in you not receiving the monetary benefits of the
settlement.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
The deadline to exclude yourself from this settlement is
October 15, 2018.  If you don't want a payment from this
settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to
sue the County about the taxes at issue in this lawsuit on your
own, then you must ask to be excluded by doing so online or by
sending a letter via U.S. Mail to: Granados v. County of Los
Angeles, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91348, Seattle,
WA 98111.  Be sure to include your name, address, telephone
number, and signature.  You must also verify that you are a Class
Member by providing your telephone number(s) and address(es)
during the Class Period.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
The Court has appointed the following Class Counsel to represent
the Class:

          Daniel Krasner
          Rachele R. Rickert
          Marisa C. Livesay
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Jonathan W. Cuneo
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016

          Nicholas E. Chimicles
          Timothy N. Mathews
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041

          Jon Tostrud
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND
PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE AWARD

Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of
administrative expenses to be paid from the settlement amount to
cover the costs of claims processing and administration of the
settlement, as well as any notice costs.  Class Counsel will also
ask the Court to award up to $4 million for attorneys' fees and
will also request reimbursement of their expenses up to
$150,000. Class Counsel undertook the investigation and
litigation of this action on a contingent basis.  They have
litigated this case for over ten years, including successfully
overturning a lower court decision on appeal to the California
Court of Appeal.

They have received no compensation to date, and they have
incurred significant out-of-pocket costs that have not been
reimbursed.  The named plaintiff will also ask the Court for
$10,000 to compensate him for the time and effort he devoted to
this case as a Class Representative.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You may only object if you are a Class member and you do not
exclude yourself from the settlement.  You can object on your own
or you may hire a lawyer.  You can tell the Court that you don't
agree with all or part of the settlement by sending a letter to
the Claims Administrator so that it is received on or before
September 28, 2018, saying that you object to the settlement.
Your objection must contain all of the following: (1) a heading
referring to: Granados v. County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC361470; (2) a statement of the legal and factual bases for your
objection; (3) your name, address, telephone number, and email
address; (4) copies of telephone bills dated during the Class
Period or other evidence of membership in the Class; and (5) your
signature and the signature of your counsel (if you are
represented by counsel).  The Court will consider your objection.
If your objection is mailed in time, you do not have to attend
the Final Settlement Hearing described below.

Any objection to the settlement must be served by first class
mail, or email, or otherwise delivered to the Claims
Administrator so that it is received by September 28, 2018. The
address for the Claims Administrator is: Granados v. County of
Los Angeles, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91348,
Seattle, WA 98111.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing at 9:00 am on October 29, 2018, at
312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles CA 90012 in Department 17 to
decide whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
You may attend at your own expense, and you may ask to speak, but
you are not required to do so.  If the Final Settlement Hearing
is rescheduled, a notice of the new date or time will be posted
to www.LACountyTaxRefund.com.  After the hearing, the Court will
decide whether to approve the settlement.  We do not know how
long the decision will take.  Please be patient.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement.  More details are
in the Settlement Agreement.  All court records in this
litigation, including complete copies of the Settlement
Agreement, may be examined during regular court hours at the
office of the Clerk of the Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue,
Los Angeles, CA 90005.  You can also get a copy of the Settlement
Agreement and other important information as well as answers to
frequently asked questions by visiting
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com or by calling the Claims Administrator
at (833) 807-3690 toll free.  DO NOT CONTACT THE
COURT DIRECTLY WITH ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.

QUESTIONS? CALL (833) 807-3690 TOLL FREE, OR VISIT
WWW.LACOUNTYTAXREFUND.COM


LYFT INC: Olson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
B. Olson, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-
566788 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), alleges that Lyft has
violated and continues to violate the California Labor Code
protections applicable to Lyft Drivers because they should be
classified as employees rather than independent contractors.

According to the complaint, Defendant's violations include the
failure to reimburse Drivers for their expenses, pay overtime,
pay minimum wage, provide itemized wage statements, keep accurate
payroll records, and provide meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff
brings his claims under the California Labor Code and Unfair
Competition Law.

Lyft is an on-demand transportation company based in San
Francisco, California. It develops, markets and operates the Lyft
car transportation mobile app.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Members:

Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
Rachel Bien, Esq.
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94Ill
Telephone: (415) 638 8800
Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
        imattes@outtengolden.com
        rmb@outtengolden.com
        mscimone@outtengolden.com

     - and -

Katharine Chao, Esq.
Christian Schreiber, Esq.
OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
20I Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 484 0980
Facsimile: (415) 23I 0037
E-mail: kathy@osclegal.com
        christian@osclegal.com


MAND MADE: "Bessey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
John Bessey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mand Made Pizza, Inc., Mand Made Pizza OK, LLC, and
Anthony Mand, Case No. 1:18-cv-00938 (D. Colo., April 21, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until approximately
January 2018 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's stores
located in South Pueblo, Colorado and within this District.

The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores including stores within this District and this Division.
Anthony Mand is an owner, officer and director of both corporate
Defendants Mand Made Pizza, Inc. and Mand Made Pizza OK, LLC.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Forester, Esq.
      Matthew Haynie, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Fax: (214) 346-5909


MASTRO CONCRETE: Class in "Medrano" Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAFAEL MEDRANO and WILLIAM SALVATIERRA, for
themselves and on behalf of others employed by Defendants,
Plaintiffs, v. MASTRO CONCRETE, INC., MELROSE BUILDING MATERIALS
CORP., MASTRO READY MIX, INC., MASTRONARDI BROS, INC., and any
other related or affiliated entities, Defendants, Docket No.
151285/2016, Motion Sequence No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Kathryn
E. Freed of the New York County Supreme Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to grant class certification pursuant to CPLR
901.

Mr. Medrano and Mr. Salvatierra, in their complaint dated Feb.
17, 2016, for themselves and on behalf of others employed by the
Defendants, seek to recover from the Defendants as damages earned
but unpaid overtime compensation allegedly owed to them, under
Sections 190 et seq. and 663 of New York's Labor Law and 12 NYCRR
142-2.2.

The Defendants employed Mr. Medrano as a mechanic from around
June 2009 through December 2015.  Mr. Medrano typically worked
six days a week, Monday through Saturday, from about 7:00 a.m.
until 6:00 p.m., and was paid $35 an hour for his first forty
hours each week.  Mr. Medrano would usually receive about $700 in
cash for overtime, i.e., time he worked over and above 40 hours.
The cash payments Mr. Medrano received for overtime, however, did
not equal the amount he would have received had he been paid one
and a half times his regular rate.

Mr. Salvatierra worked for the Defendants as a mechanic, machine
operator, concrete truck driver, and batcher from about 2000
through March 2015.  He typically worked six days a week, Monday
through Saturday, from about 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.  The
Plaintiffs allege Mr. Salvatierra was paid by check about $20 to
$23 per hour for the first 40 hours he worked each week.  He
would also receive cash for the work he performed beyond 40
hours, usually in the amount of $400.  The cash payments Mr.
Salvatierra received for overtime, however, did not equal the
amount he would have received had he been paid one and a half
times his regular rate of pay for those hours.

The Plaintiffs allege that their coworkers also regularly worked
six out of seven days, and were paid by check for their first 40
hours each week.  They also assert that their coworkers received
cash payments for overtime and that those payments did not equal
the amounts they would have received had they been paid one and a
half times their regular rates of pay for overtime.

The Plaintiffs contend that, by failing to pay all the overtime
compensation due them and the other members of the putative
class, defendants violated Labor Law Section 663 and 12 NYCRR
142-2.2.2

The Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on Aug. 5,
2016, denying the Plaintiffs' allegations.

In motion sequence number 001, the Plaintiffs move, pursuant to
CPLR 901, to certify the action as a class action for all
individuals employed by Mastro Concrete, Melrose Building, and/or
Mastro Ready, who performed work related to their concrete
manufacturing, production, distribution and delivery business
throughout New York between February 2010 and the present,
including but not limited to mechanics, drivers, batchers and
other yard workers.

Judge Freed finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of
representation and superiority.  Accordingly, she granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to grant class certification pursuant to CPLR
901.  She certified the class of the Plaintiffs in the action to
include all persons, other than managers, corporate officers or
directors, or clerical or office workers, employed by Defendants
Mastro Concrete, Melrose Building, and/or Mastro Ready, who
performed work related to their concrete manufacturing,
production, distribution and delivery business in the State of
New York between February 2010 and the date of this decision and
order.

The Judge directed the counsel for the parties to appear for a
compliance conference on July 17, 2018, at 2:15 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/N4KJl1 from Leagle.com.


MATHESON TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Straight Time & OT, Kuhns Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK KUHNS on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
MATHESON TRUCKING, INC., and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
RG18907542 (Ca. Super. Ct., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid all straight time wages and overtime wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a continuous
and widespread policy of not paying the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated for all hours they worked, including before
clocking in for their work shift, after clocking out for their
work shift, and during unpaid meal periods. Further, Defendants
have had a continuous and widespread policy to shave the time
Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked.

Matheson Trucking operates as a diversified transportation
carrier. It offers specialized hauling, time sensitive material
handling and transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          Alexandra Shirpman, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAWFIRM, APLC
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


MDL 2311: Sept. 26 Approval Hearing on $38MM Toyoda Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

In Re: OCCUPANT SAFETY SYSTEMS CASES

THIS RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

CASE NO. 12-MD-02311
HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

2:12-cv-00601-MOB-MKM
2:16-cv-10002-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION
WITH TOYODA GOSEI AND TOKAI RIKA DEFENDANTS AND HEARING ON:
(1) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS;
(2) PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND; AND
(3) MOTION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND COSTS AND EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS TO THE
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES.

TO: ALL INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OCCUPANT SAFETY
SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT FROM
JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH FEBRUARY 25, 2015.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE, AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?

This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The
purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a hearing before the
Court to consider:

   (1) Proposed settlements with Defendants Toyoda Gosei Co.,
Ltd.; Toyoda Gosei North America Corp.; and TG Missouri Corp.
(collectively, "Toyoda Gosei") and Defendants Tokai Rika Co.,
Ltd. and TRAM, Inc., d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. (collectively,
"Tokai Rika") (all Defendants referenced in this paragraph are
collectively referred to as the "Settling Defendants");

   (2) A plan of distribution of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika
settlement proceeds to Settlement Class members and a proposed
Claim Form that you may submit in order to share in the
Settlement Fund proceeds; and

   (3) Settlement Class Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of their litigation costs and
expenses and incentive awards to the Class Representatives.

This Notice provides information concerning the proposed
settlements, the proposed plan of distribution, and the motion
for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and costs, and
incentive awards. The Notice also advises you of your rights to:
participate in the settlement claims process; exclude yourself
from either or both of the Settlement Classes; and object to the
terms of the proposed settlements, the plan of distribution, and
the requests for fees and costs and incentive awards in
connection with the Court hearing on these matters.

BACKGROUND

You were previously notified of the existence of this class
action, the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims, and settlements
with Autoliv Inc.; Autoliv ASP, Inc.; Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG;
Autoliv Safety Technology, Inc.; and Autoliv Japan Ltd.
(collectively, "Autoliv"), in the amount of $35,516,800, and with
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. and TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH
(collectively, "TRW") in the amount of $6,500,000. Those
settlements were previously approved by the Court in Orders dated
January 7, 2015, and July 24, 2015, respectively. An Order
authorizing distribution of the Autoliv and TRW settlement funds
was entered by the Court on April 18, 2017, and checks were sent
to approved claimants on May 23, 2017.

Plaintiffs have reached settlements with the Toyoda Gosei
Defendants for $34,000,000 and with the Tokai Rika Defendants for
$4,000,000. When added to the Autoliv and TRW settlements, this
brings the total settlements in this case to $80,016,800, plus
accruing interest. As described below in more detail, the amounts
of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika settlements, in the total
amount of $38,000,000 (the "Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika
Settlement Fund"), are subject to possible reduction, and/or
rescission, in the event of valid requests for exclusion by
Settlement Class members.

This litigation is part of coordinated legal proceedings
involving a number of parts used in motor vehicles. This
litigation and the proposed settlements relate solely to Occupant
Safety Systems purchased in the United States directly from a
Defendant or any co-conspirator of a Defendant. "Occupant Safety
Systems," for purposes of the settlement, are seat belts,
airbags, steering wheels or steering systems, safety electronic
systems, and related parts and components. These proceedings do
not relate to, and have no effect upon, cases involving any other
product.

If you purchased Occupant Safety Systems in the United States
directly from a Defendant or any co-conspirator of a Defendant
during the period from January 1, 2003 through February 25, 2015
(the "Class Period"), you are a member of the Toyoda Gosei and/or
Tokai Rika Settlement Classes and have the rights and options
summarized here:

   * You may remain in either or both of the Toyoda Gosei or
Tokai Rika Settlement Classes and be eligible to share in the
proceeds of, and be bound by the terms of, any settlement in
which you remain;

   * You may exclude yourself from either or both of the Toyoda
Gosei or Tokai Rika Settlement Classes, in which case you will
not be bound by any settlement from which you exclude yourself
and will not be able to share in the proceeds of that settlement;

   * If you remain in either the Toyoda Gosei or Tokai Rika
Settlement Classes, you may object to that proposed settlement,
to the proposed plan of distribution of the Toyoda Gosei and
Tokai Rika Settlement Fund, or to Settlement Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses and for incentive payments to the Class Representatives.
You may also appear at the hearing where the Court will consider
these matters;

   * You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your
own counsel at your own expense; and

   * Any Settlement Class member who wishes to participate in the
distribution of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund
may either rely on a valid Claim Form that it previously
submitted in connection with the prior settlements in this
litigation or may instead submit a Claim Form that would
relate only to the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika settlements. Any
Settlement Class member that chooses the latter option must
complete and submit a copy of the attached Claim Form, postmarked
no later than August 17, 2018.

WHO IS IN THE TOYODA GOSEI AND TOKAI RIKA SETTLEMENT CLASSES?
The Court has provisionally certified a Direct Purchaser Toyoda
Gosei Settlement Class (the "Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class") and
a Direct Purchaser Tokai Rika Settlement Class (the "Tokai Rika
Settlement Class") for the purpose of disseminating notice of the
proposed Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika settlements.

The Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class is defined as follows:

All individuals and entities (excluding Defendants and their
present and former parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates) who
purchased Occupant Safety Systems in the United States directly
from one or more Defendants from January 1, 2003 through
February 25, 2015.

The Tokai Rika Settlement Class is defined as follows:

All individuals and entities who purchased Occupant Safety
Systems in the United States directly from one or more Defendants
or their co-conspirators (or their controlled subsidiaries,
affiliates, or joint ventures) from January 1, 2003 through
February 25, 2015. Excluded from the Settlement Class are
Defendants, their present and former parent companies,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, federal governmental entities and
instrumentalities of the federal government, and states and their
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities.

For purposes of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Class
definitions set forth above, the following entities are
Defendants: Autoliv, Inc.; Autoliv ASP, Inc.; Autoliv Safety
Technology, Inc.; Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG; Autoliv Japan Ltd.;
Takata Corporation; TK Holdings, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.;
TRAM, Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc.; Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.;
Toyoda Gosei North America Corp.; TG Missouri Corp.; TRW
Automotive Holdings Corporation; and TRW Deutschland Holding
GmbH.

Plaintiffs Beam's Industries, Inc.; Findlay Industries, Inc.; and
NM Holdings Company, LLC have been appointed by the Court to
serve as "Class Representatives" for the Tokai Rika and Toyoda
Gosei Settlement Classes.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau &
Pachios LLP; and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. to serve as
"Settlement Class Counsel" for the Settlement Classes.

WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?

In 2012, class action lawsuits were filed against Defendants by
Plaintiffs, on behalf of direct purchasers of Occupant Safety
Systems. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into a
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Occupant
Safety Systems by agreeing to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices,
rig bids, and allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Systems, in
violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs further allege
that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other direct
purchasers of Occupant Safety Systems have been injured by paying
more for those products than they would have paid in the absence
of the alleged illegal conduct, and they seek recovery of
treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award
of attorneys' fees.

Toyoda Gosei, Tokai Rika, and the other Defendants have denied
Plaintiffs' allegations and liability and have asserted defenses
to Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims. The Court has not issued
any findings or rulings with respect to the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims or Defendants' defenses. This is a partial settlement of
the claims in the complaint, as it is with Toyoda Gosei and Tokai
Rika only.


WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class, have
entered into a settlement with Toyoda Gosei dated November 14,
2017 (the "Toyoda Gosei Settlement Agreement"), under which
Toyoda Gosei has agreed to pay $34,000,000. The Toyoda Gosei
Settlement Agreement gives Toyoda Gosei the right to reduce its
settlement payment, but in no event to an amount less than
$14,250,000, based upon the amount of valid requests for
exclusion by members of the Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class. Toyoda
Gosei has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the
continuing prosecution of the Takata Defendants, who are the only
remaining non-settling Defendants.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, have
entered into a settlement agreement with Tokai Rika dated January
29, 2018 (the "Tokai Rika Settlement Agreement"), under which
Tokai Rika has agreed to pay $4,000,000. The Tokai Rika
Settlement Agreement gives Tokai Rika and the Plaintiffs the
right to terminate the settlement based upon the number of Tokai
Rika Settlement Class members that request exclusion. Pursuant to
the settlement, Tokai Rika has also agreed to cooperate with
Plaintiffs.

This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed
settlements. The Toyoda Gosei Settlement Agreement and Tokai Rika
Settlement Agreement contain other important provisions,
including the release of certain claims against Toyoda Gosei and
Tokai Rika (and companies and people affiliated with them). For
the complete terms of the settlements, you are referred to the
agreements, which are on file with the Clerk of Court and are
available on-line at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. The
proposed settlements must receive final approval by the Court
in order to become effective.

If you wish to object to approval of either of the settlements,
you may do so, but only in accordance with the procedures set
forth below. If you do not object to a settlement, you do not
need take any action at this time to indicate your support for,
or lack of objection to, that settlement.


HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES, WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO,
AND HOW DO I FILE A CLAIM FORM?

You were previously asked to decide whether you wanted to remain
in the Autoliv and TRW Settlement Classes. With respect to each
of those Settlement Classes, you are bound by whatever decision
you previously made.

If you are a member of the Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class or the
Tokai Rika Settlement Class, as defined above, you will
automatically remain a member of that Settlement Class unless you
elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in a Settlement
Class, you do not need to take any action at this time with
respect to that Class, and your interests will be represented by
the Class Representatives and by Settlement Class Counsel. If you
remain in a Settlement Class, you will be eligible to share in
the proceeds of that settlement. If you submitted a valid Claim
Form in connection with the Autoliv and TRW settlements, you may
submit a Claim Form at this time, but are not required to do so
because the information from your original Claim Form will be
used to determine the amount of your share of the Toyoda Gosei
and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund. If you believe you have
additional information that you did not include in your
previously submitted Claim Form, you may submit a Claim Form with
that additional information.

If you did not previously submit a valid Claim Form in connection
with the Autoliv and TRW settlements and would like to share in
the proceeds of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund,
or if you wish to submit additional information, then you must
submit a Claim Form postmarked by August 17, 2018. Any Settlement
Class member that did not previously submit a valid Claim Form or
does not complete and timely submit a valid and timely Claim
Form at this time will not be entitled to share in the Toyoda
Gosei and Tokai Rika settlement proceeds. If you remain in either
the Toyoda Gosei Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement
Class and the proposed settlement with that Defendant is approved
and becomes effective, you will be bound by its terms, including
the release provisions, whether or not you receive a share of the
settlement proceeds attributable to that settlement.


HOW WILL THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS BE DISTRIBUTED?
The Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund, with accrued
interest, less any amounts approved by the Court for payment of
attorneys' fees, litigation and administration costs and
expenses, and incentive awards for the Class Representatives, and
less any reductions based upon valid requests for exclusion by
members of the Toyoda Gosei or Tokai Rika Settlement Class (the
"Net Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund"), will be
distributed among the members of the Settlement Classes who have
either (1) previously submitted a valid Claim Form in connection
with the Autoliv and TRW settlements and have not elected to
exclude themselves from the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika
Settlement Classes or (2) completed and timely submitted a valid
and timely Claim Form postmarked by August 17, 2018. The Net
Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund will be distributed
pro rata to all Claimants based upon their direct purchases in
the United States from Defendants or their co-conspirators
from January 1, 2003 through February 25, 2015. The distribution
will take place as soon as practicable after review,
determination, and audit of the Claim Forms by the Settlement
Administrator and approval by the Court of the Settlement
Administrator's recommendations as to the amounts to be paid to
the Claimants.

Please do not dispose of any document that reflects any payments
for your direct purchases of Occupant Safety Systems in the
United States from any Defendant or any co-conspirator of a
Defendant (or their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint
ventures) during the period from January 1, 2003 through
February 25, 2015. You may need those documents to complete and
substantiate your Claim Form, which will
be subject to inquiry and verification.


WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN A SETTLEMENT CLASS?
You may exclude yourself from either or both Settlement Classes.
If you wish to exclude yourself from either or both of the Toyoda
Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Classes, you must send a request
for exclusion, in writing, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postmarked no later than July 11, 2018, to Settlement
Class Counsel and to counsel for the Settling Defendants at the
addresses set forth below, and to the following address:
Occupant Safety Systems Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
P.O. Box 5110 Portland, OR 97208-5110

Your request for exclusion must identify the Settlement Class or
Classes from which you are seeking exclusion and must include the
full name and address of the purchaser (including any predecessor
or successor entities and any trade names). You are also
requested to identify the Defendant(s) from which you purchased
Occupant Safety Systems during the Class Period, the Occupant
Safety Systems purchased during the Class Period, and the dollar
amount of your purchases. If you validly exclude yourself from
either or both of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement
Classes, you will not be bound by any decision concerning the
Settlement Class or Classes from which you exclude yourself and
you may pursue individually any claims you may have against the
Defendants in the Class from which you requested exclusion (at
your own expense), but you will not be eligible to share in the
settlement proceeds attributable to those Defendants. Any
potential Settlement Class Member who requests exclusion from the
Toyoda Gosei or Tokai Rika Settlement Class shall not be
precluded, restricted, barred, or limited in any way from
participating in any future settlements relating to other
Defendants in the Action.

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS
The Court has appointed the law firms identified above as
Settlement Class Counsel. These law firms, together with other
firms that have worked on this litigation, will file a petition
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of their costs
and expenses incurred in prosecuting the case. The request of
Settlement Class Counsel for attorneys' fees will not exceed 30
percent of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund.
Settlement Class Counsel will also request incentive awards for
the Class Representatives in the amount of $30,000 each.

The application for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses and incentive awards will be filed on or before June 18,
2018. If you remain a member of either the Toyoda Gosei
Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class and you wish
to object to the requests for fees and expenses or incentive
payments, you must do so in writing in accordance with the
procedures for objections set forth below. If you do not oppose
any of these requests, you do not need to take any action in that
regard.

WHEN WILL THE COURT CONSIDER THESE MATTERS, AND HOW CAN I TELL
THE COURT WHAT I THINK?
The Court will hold a hearing on September 26, 2018, at 3:00
p.m., at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to
determine whether to approve: the proposed Toyoda Gosei
settlement, the proposed Tokai Rika settlement, the proposed plan
of distribution of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement
Fund, and Settlement Class Counsel's requests for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and incentive awards. The
hearing may be rescheduled or continued without further
notice to you.

If you remain a member of either the Toyoda Gosei or Tokai Rika
Settlement Class and you wish to object to that proposed
settlement, or to the proposed plan of distribution of the Toyoda
Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund, or to Settlement Class
Counsel's requests for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses and incentive awards, you must do so in writing and at
your own expense. Any such objection must include the caption of
this litigation, must be signed, and be filed no later than July
11, 2018, with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore
Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard,
Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the following counsel,
postmarked no later than July 11, 2018:

         Gregory P. Hansel
         PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
         One City Center
         P.O. Box 9546
         Portland, ME 04112-9546
         Telephone: (207) 791-3000

         Steven A. Kanner
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
         Bannockburn, IL 60015
         Telephone: (224) 632-4500

         Joseph C. Kohn
         KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
         1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 238-1700

         Eugene A. Spector
         SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class

         Randall J. Turk
         John Taladay
         Mark Miller
         Heather Souder Choi
         BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
         The Warner
         1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
         Washington D.C. 20004-2400
         Telephone: (202) 639-7909

Counsel for the Toyoda Gosei Defendants

         W. Todd Miller
         BAKER & MILLER PLLC
         2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 300
         Washington, D.C. 20037
         Telephone: (202) 663-7820

Counsel for the Tokai Rika Defendants

If you do not object to either of the proposed settlements, or
related matters set forth above, you do not need to appear at the
hearing or take any other action at this time. Unless you
previously submitted a valid Claim Form in connection with the
Autoliv and TRW settlements, you must, however, complete and
timely submit a Claim Form if you wish to share in the
distribution of the Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika Settlement Fund.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY
ADDRESS CHANGES

If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on
the mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your
correct address to Occupant Safety Systems Direct Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110.

The Settlement Agreements, Complaint, and other public documents
filed in this litigation are available for review during normal
business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231
West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226. Copies of the
Settlement Agreements and certain other documents relevant to
this litigation are available at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. In addition, all documents
filed in the case may be obtained through the Public Access to
Court Electronic Records system, after registration and payment
of the required fees. Questions concerning the proposed Toyoda
Gosei and Tokai Rika settlements, this Notice, or the litigation
may be directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified
above.

Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division


MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Collier et al. Sue over WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
COLLENE COLLIER, KAREN GROCE and BARRY KUSNICK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MEDCARE INVESTMENT CORPORATION d/b/a MEDCARE INVESTMENT FUNDS,
CARDIOVASCULAR CARE GROUP, INC., and CCG OF LOUISIANA, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05387-JTM-JVM (M.D. Tenn., May 24,
2018), seeks to recover up to 60 days of statutory back pay for
the days of notice the Plaintiffs did not receive and
reimbursement for the medical expenses Plaintiffs incurred.

The case is a class action for the recovery by Plaintiffs and the
other similarly situated employees against Defendants who as
parent employers made the decision to close Plaintiffs' direct
employers, Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital, LLC, aka
Louisiana Heart Hospital, LLC and LMCHH PCP, LLC in Lacombe,
Louisiana.

The decisions by the Defendants to close the Hospital caused the
termination of Plaintiffs and approximately 700 employees without
60 days' advanced notice in violation of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

According to the complaint, when the Hospital was put into
Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 30, 2017, the employees were
first informed the Hospital was closing in February. Having not
been given 60 days' advanced notice under the WARN Act, the
employees' pay and health care terminated in February.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, 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: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 0017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000


MINING MAX: Blancas Sues over Online Investment Scam
----------------------------------------------------
GRACE BLANCAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MINING MAX, LLC, NAM HO PARK a/k/a
DANIEL PARK, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 28, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04557 (C.D. Cal., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover
financial losses suffered by Plaintiff from an online investment
scam.

The Defendants allegedly scammed hundreds of Californians and
thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars through an
online scam called Mining Max. The Defendants took advantage of
the increased attention, interest and success of
cryptocurrencies, legitimate companies and technology to convince
Plaintiff and the Class that they would make money by investing
in Mining Max and "mining" a highly profitable and well-known
cryptocurrency, Ethereum.

Mining Max was both a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme. That is,
it relied on new money from new users, who were in turn expected
to get more new users to produce more new money, while not
actually engaging in any real activity that would produce income,
profits or benefit to investors.

In its scheme, Mining Max marketed "mining rigs" to its
consumers, like Plaintiff. It advertised that the "mining rigs,"
which were computer-like machines, would produce cashable,
sellable, tradable cryptocurrency. The consumer did not ever see
his or her "mining rig," because those machines were supposedly
stored and "operated" in a facility in South Korea.

Mining Max is a cryptocurrency mining company that promises to
offer continuous profits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
6220 W. Third Street, No. 115
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (314) 662 2836
Facsimile: (855) 710 7706
E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com

     - and -

Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
JONES WARD PLC
The Pointe
1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
Louisville, KY 40206
Telephone: (502) 882 6000
E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

     - and -

Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
Little Rock, AK 72202
Telephone (501) 372 1300
Facsimile: (888) 505 0909
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

     - and -

Abigale Rhodes Green, Esq.
ABIGALE RHODES GREEN INJURY LAW
1800 Kentucky Home Life Building
239 S. Fifth Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 736 8159
Facsimile: (502) 736 8150
E-mail: agreen@arglawfirm.com


MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN: "Waleski" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled, Stanley Waleski, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP;
Natalie D. Ramsey; and Leonard A. Busby, the Defendants, was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Scranton) on June 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01144-RDM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani.

Montgomery McCracken is a full service law firm with attorneys in
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey & Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          BARTONY HARE & EDSON
          Law and Finance Building
          429 Fourth Ave., Suite 1801
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338 8632

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
          MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone (570) 342 6100
          E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com


MOTHERHOOD CENTER: Doula Files Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Chondra Hutchinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Motherhood Center, Inc., and Gabriela
Gerhart, Case No. 4:18-cv-01231 (S.D. Tex., April 19, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Chondra Hutchinson is an individual residing in Harris County,
Texas. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a doula to
provide newborn care services.

The Motherhood Center is in the business of providing newborn
care services in the Houston area.

The Defendant Gabriela Gerhart is the owner and president of The
Motherhood Center, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
      Dorian Vanderberg-Rodes, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 621-2277
      Fax: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
              drodes@eeoc.net


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Dewick" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey,
Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The case is styled as Ephraim Dewick, other
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-05273 (S.D. N.Y., June 12,
2018).

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn Llp was founded in 1962. The
company's line of business includes providing full service legal
advice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C.
   285 Passaic Street, Suite 7
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fisher" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2006-1. The lawsuit is entitled as Andrew
Fisher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1,
The National Collegiate Funding LLC, Transworld Systems, Inc.,
Vantage Capital Group, LLC, and Rubin & Rothman, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03067-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2018).[BN]

Attorneys for Andrew Fisher:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

Attorneys for Transworld Systems, Inc.:

          Aaron R Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237 1660
          Facsimile: (908) 237 1663
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NATIONAL IMAGING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Mauthe" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case, ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL IMAGING ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
17-1916 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff filed the class action against the Defendant,
alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
violated the TCPA by sending at least one advertisement by
facsimile to its office.

The complaint alleges that on Sept. 23, 2014, the Plaintiff
received one of the Defendant's advertisements by facsimile.  It
also alleges that the transmission received is a one-page
document about the Defendant's management services available
through its website, i.e., www.RadMD.com.  It allegedly promotes
the Defendant's name and advertises the commercial availability
or quality of services available through www.RadMD.com.

The document requests that the recipient complete a satisfaction
survey and return the results either by facsimile or at the
Defendant's website.  The complaint alleges that the satisfaction
survey is a pretext to increase awareness and use of the
Defendant's healthcare management services and to increase
traffic to its website.  The complaint also alleges that the
Defendant sent advertisements by facsimile to more than 39
persons.

The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff and the other
class members owe no obligation to protect their facsimile
machines from the Defendant.  Their facsimile machines are ready
to send and receive their urgent communications, or private
communications about patients' medical needs, not to receive the
Defendant's allegedly unlawful advertisements.

The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss to which the
Plaintiff responded.

Judge Stengel finds that the document faxed by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff is not actionable as a matter of law under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C).  The content of the document, on its
face, does not constitute an advertisement.  It does not offer --
or even mention -- any product, good, or service to the
Plaintiff, and it does not offer or solicit any product, good, or
service for sale.  Thus, the faxed document lacks the commercial
components inherent in ads.  He will grant the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of the TCPA.

Finally, the Defendant also seeks the dismissal of the
Plaintiff's state law claim of conversion arguing that it is
plainly barred by Pennsylvania's two year statute of limitations.
In its response to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff concedes
that its conversion claim is barred.  Accordingly, the Judge will
grant the motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint alleging a
state law claim of conversion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/DWUgiE from Leagle.com.

ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID M.
OPPENHEIM -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC, RICHARD E. SHENKAN -- rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com --
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC & PHILLIP A. BOCK --
phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC.

NATIONAL IMAGING ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, represented by ERIC
S. MERIN -- merine@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & MICHAEL
E. BAUGHMAN -- baughmanm@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Bluming" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Avrohom Bluming, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03434 (E.D.
N.Y., June 12, 2018).

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEW PENN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Penn Financial
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Marco Rodriguez, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and New Penn Financial LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00233729-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 25, 2018).

New Penn Financial offers mortgage lending products and services
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265 1020
Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


NORTEK SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Tia Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nortek Security & Control LLC and Security Specialist
of America LLC, Case No. 9:18-cv-80529 (S.D. Fla., April 23,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Tia Barnett is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Florida residing in the County of Palm Beach.

The Defendant Nortek Security is one of the largest home and
business security companies in the United States. One of Nortek's
brands is 2GIG, which it promotes on a website owned and operated
by Defendant Nortek, www.2gig.com.

The Defendant Security Specialist operates as a call center and
markets and sells Defendant Nortek's goods and services including
the 2GIG brand of items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NTT DATA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Adams" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
LESLEY ADAMS and FIKILE MPOFU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NTT DATA, INC.,
NTT DATA SERVICES, LLC, DELL SERVICES, LLC, and SYNERGY SERVICES,
INC. D/B/A TALENTWAVE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01303-MEH
(D. Colo., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and California law.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as a consultant providing
support and training to Defendants' clients in using a new
recordkeeping system. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes
were required to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week on their
projects for TalentWave, Dell Services and NTT Data. Although
Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes were required, permitted,
or encouraged to work more than 40 hours per week, Defendants
failed to pay them one and one-half times their regular pay rate
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

NTT Data is a Japanese system integration company and a
partially-owned subsidiary of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone.
Japan Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation, a predecessor
of NTT, started Data Communications business in 1967.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 3000
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
        sschalman-bergen@bm.net
        apiazza@bm.net

     - and -

Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994 5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
        osavytska@llrlaw.com


NUSTAR GP: Franchi Files Securities Class Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NuStar GP Holdings, LLC, William Greehey,
Brad Barron, William B. Burnett, Fully Clingman, Jelynne LeBlanc-
Burley, NuStar Energy L.P., Riverwalk Logistics, L.P., NuStar GP,
LLC, and Marshall Merger Sub LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00592 (D.
Del., April 19, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
February 8, 2018, pursuant to which NuStar GP Holdings, LLC will
be acquired by NuStar Energy L.P., Riverwalk Logistics,
L.P., NuStar GP, LLC, and Marshall Merger Sub LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement that the
Defendants filed on March 15, 2018, omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading.

NuStar GP Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
and maintains its principal executive offices at 19003 IH-10
West, San Antonio, Texas 78257.  NSH's common units are traded on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "NSH." NSH is engaged in the
transportation of petroleum products and anhydrous ammonia and
the terminalling, storage and marketing of petroleum products.

NuStar Energy L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership and is a
party to the Merger Agreement.

Riverwalk Logistics, L.P.is a Delaware limited partnership and a
party to the Merger Agreement.

NuStar GP is a Delaware limited liability company and a party to
the Merger Agreement.

Marshall Merger Sub LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
and a party to the Merger Agreement.

The Individual Defendants are NSH's Board of Directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Cir. Denies Mandamus Bid in "Bozic" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, N RE REGINA BOZIC, REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SAN DIEGO, Respondent, HENNY DEN UIJL, an individual; SANDRA DEN
UIJL, an individual; BRYAN CORLETT, an individual; OBESITY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability Company;
CONTINUITY PRODUCTS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
NATIONAL WEIGHT LOSS INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability
Company; ZODIAC FOUNDATION, a California Limited Liability
Company; INNOTRAC CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, Real
Parties in Interest, Case No. 17-70614 (9th Cir.), Judge Michelle
Friedland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denied Bozic's petition for a writ of mandamus to reverse an
order transferring her putative consumer class action from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
where her action was consolidated with a similar one previously
filed in the Eastern District.

In 2015, Plaintiff-Petitioner Bozic purchased the weight-loss
supplement Lipozene in her home state of Pennsylvania.
Disappointed by the product, Bozic filed a putative class action
in the Southern District against the corporate entities and
individuals responsible for the production, distribution, and
marketing of Lipozene.  In addition to asserting a series of
state law claims, Bozic sought a declaratory judgment defining
Lipozene purchasers' rights under a 2005 Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") consent decree that restricts the Defendants' ability to
sell weight-loss products.  The Southern District, where the
decree was entered and where the Defendants reside, retains
jurisdiction over matters involving "construction, modification,
and enforcement" of that decree.

Bozic's case is the third of its kind.  At the time she filed
suit, two related putative class actions were already pending in
California: Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC, filed in
the San Diego Superior Court, and Fernandez v. Obesity Research
Institute, LLC, filed in the Eastern District.  All three suits
assert similar state law claims against a largely overlapping
group of defendants, although Bozic's request for declaratory
relief under the FTC consent decree is unique to the current
action. Fernandez has been stayed since August 2013 pending the
resolution of Duran.

After Bozic filed the action in March 2016 in the Southern
District, the Defendants moved in that court to transfer the case
to the Eastern District for consolidation with Fernandez or, in
the alternative, to stay the proceedings.  The court held that
Bozic's action was governed by the first-to-file rule, a
judicially created "doctrine of federal comity," which applies
when two cases involving "substantially similar issues and
parties" have been filed in different districts.  Under that
rule, the second district court has discretion to transfer or
stay, or dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency
and judicial economy.

Reasoning that the Fernandez Court had already determined that
venue was proper" in the Eastern District, the district court
chose to transfer.  Bozic then filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking the Appellate Court to vacate the transfer order.

Judge Friedland concludes that although the district court
committed clear legal error by transferring the action to the
Eastern District, mandamus relief is not appropriate.  Issuance
of the writ would have no practical impact on the case in its
current procedural posture.  The district court made clear that
it would either transfer or stay the case under the first-to-file
rule, which the parties do not dispute applies.

If transfer were not an available option, Bozic's action
therefore would be stayed pending a final judgment in Duran --
which is the same state it is in now in the Eastern District.  As
a result, any injury Bozic might face from the transfer is purely
speculative at this point. If the stay were eventually lifted in
circumstances in which she could proceed with her case, thus
making her asserted injury less speculative, Bozic could then
file a motion in the Eastern District to transfer her case back
to the Southern District and, if necessary, file a new petition
for a writ of mandamus in the Appellate Court.

The Judge also finds that it is irrelevant that Bozic is herself
a member of the putative class in Fernandez; whether venue is
proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the action depends only on the
events surrounding Bozic's claims.  Nor does Section 1391(b)(1)
or (b)(3) provide a basis for venue in the Eastern District.  She
says none of the seven defendants in the action reside in the
Eastern District, as would be required for venue under Section
1391(b)(1).  And Section 1391(b)(3) applies only if there is no
district where venue lies under Section 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2).
Because venue is proper in the Southern District, the Judge holds
that the residual provision does not apply.  Thus, the Eastern
District is not an available venue for the action.

Because the district court could only transfer the action to a
district where it might have been brought under Section 1404(a) -
- a requirement that excludes the Eastern District -- the Judge
concludes that the district court committed clear legal error by
granting the Defendants' motion to transfer.

Finally, the Judge finds that the mandamus petition has no effect
on Bozic's options.  Moreover, in the event Duran were resolved
in a manner that did not preclude Bozic's claims and the stay of
her action were lifted, then Bozic could, in reliance on the
Court's opinion, file a motion in the Eastern District to
transfer her case back to the Southern District.  If that motion
were unsuccessful, she could then refile for mandamus.  At that
point, any potential injury from her case remaining in the
Eastern District would be far less speculative, and the Appellate
Court could whether she would be prejudiced in a way that
warranted mandamus relief.

For all these reasons, Judge Friedland concluded that Bozic has
not shown the necessary clear and indisputable right to issuance
of the writ.  She therefore denied the petition.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/3JYLqq from Leagle.com.

Michael T. Houchin -- dmin@consumersadvocates.com -- (argued) and
Ronald A. Marron, Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, San Diego,
California, for Petitioner.

Richard P. Sybert -- rsybert@grsm.com -- (argued), Hazel Mae B.
Pangan -- hpangan@grsm.com -- and Patrick J. Mulkern --
pmulkern@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, California,
for Real Parties in Interest.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Puerto Rico Univ. Appeals to Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. CARVELLI, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RONALD M. FARIS, and MICHAEL R.
BOURQUE, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80500-RLR (Cal.
Super. Ct.), the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System
appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit on May 25, 2018, from the order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
complaint dated April 27, 2018. The appellate case is assigned
Case No. 18-12250.[BN]

Counsel for University of Puerto Rico Retirement System and Lead
Counsel for the Putative Class:

Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
VIANALE & VIANALE LLP
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 392 4750
Facsimile: (561) 961 5191
E-mail: JVianale@vianalelaw.com

     - and -

Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
Atara Hirsch, Esq.
Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER AND TWERSKY, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 279 5050
Facsimile: (212) 279 3655
E-mail: MTwersky@aftlaw.com
        AHirsch@aftlaw.com
        MGuarnero@aftlaw.com


OLERO INC: Fails to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked, Brugers Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPAN BRUGER and DMYTRO BRUGER, Plaintiffs, v. OLERO, INC, EMB
GROUP, INC., OLEG ROMANYUK, EUGENY MINOCHKIN, the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-07138 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 5, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiffs' employment and
employment of others similarly situated with the Defendants, they
worked as truck drivers delivering goods across the state lines,
for which the Defendants were supposed to pay them on a per mile
basis at an agreed-upon rate of pay. The Defendants allegedly
failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated for some or all work performed, as in instances of some
Plaintiffs. The Defendants managed Plaintiffs' and others'
similarly situated work, including the number of hours worked,
distances driven and tasks performed by Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.

Olero Inc. is an active carrier operating under United States
Department of Transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julia Bikbova, Esq.
          3400 Dundee Road, Suite 150
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 541 8100


OREGON: Enriquez Files Suit v. 36 Oregon Counties
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 36 Oregon Counties.
The case is styled as Edmund Enriquez and Estimated 19,800,
similarly situated persons including 34 known cases, Plaintiffs
v. Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General, All Oregon District
Attorneys for the 36 Oregon Counties, In their official capacity
and as individuals personally, 36 Oregon Counties as Municipal
Corporations and State of Oregon, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
01032-HZ (D. Or., June 12, 2018).

Oregon is a coastal U.S. state in the Pacific Northwest known for
its diverse landscape of forests, mountains, farms and beaches.
The city of Portland is famed for its quirky, avant-garde culture
and is home to iconic coffee shops, boutiques, farm-to-table
restaurants and microbreweries. Highlights include the Native
American art in the Portland Art Museum, the Japanese Garden and
the Lan Su Chinese Garden.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OTB ACQUISITION: Rose Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
RAHEEM ROSE, Plaintiff, v. OTB ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a ON THE
BORDER MEXICAN GRILL & CANTINA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
22239-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover money
damages for off-the clock unpaid regular and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards.

The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals who may
become Plaintiffs in this action are employees and/or former
employees of Defendant who are and who were subject to the
unlawful payroll practices and procedures of Defendant and were
not paid minimum and overtime wages at the rate of time and one
half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked
in excess of 40.

On The Border Mexican Grill & Cantina is a chain of Tex-Mex food
casual dining restaurants located in the United States, Puerto
Rico, Canada, and recently opened in Egypt, the United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEPE AUTO: "Gallagher" Suit Asserts Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gallagher, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pepe Auto Group, Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle,
Joseph Pepe, Gene Pepe, Robert Pepe, and Salvatore Pepe, Case No.
7:18-cv-03433 (S.D. N.Y., April 19, 2018), seeks damages against
the Defendants for violation of the Older Workers Benefit
Protection Act and for unlawful discriminatory practices.

Joseph Gallagher is a resident of Tuxedo Park, New York. For more
than 30 years, the Plaintiff has enjoyed a successful career in
the automobile industry. Prior to July 2015, Joseph Gallagher
worked for Mercedes Benz, USA for 25 years.

The Defendant, Pepe Auto Group is located at 50 Bank Street,
White Plains, New York 10606.

The Defendant, Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle is located at 77
East Main Street, New Rochelle, New York 10801.

The Individual Defendant, Joseph Pepe is an owner and officer of
Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle.

The Individual Defendant, Gene Pepe is an owner and officer of
Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle.

The Individual Defendant, Robert Pepe is an owner and officer of
Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle.

The Individual Defendant, Salvatore Pepe is an owner and officer
of Mercedes Benz of New Rochelle. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth L. Dobbs, Esq.
      ABOYOUN, HELLER & DOBBS, L.L.C.
      77 Bloomfield Avenue
      Pine Brook, NJ 07058
      Tel: (973) 575-9600
      Fax: (973) 575-1925
      E-mail: sdobbs@aboylaw.com


PERLA MIXTECA: Toxqui Seek Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica R. Toxqui individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. La Perla Mixteca Restaurant Corp., (d/b/a
Estrellita Poblana II) Hector Leonel Gonzalez and Paola Gonzalez,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04692-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 28,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
pay, breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other members of
the FLSA Class who are and/or have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,
and have been subject to Defendants' common practices, policies,
programs, procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing
and refusing to pay them the require overtime pay at a one and
one-half her regular rates for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek under the FLSA, willfully taking improper wage
deductions and other improper credits against Plaintiff' wages
for which Defendants did not qualify under the FLSA, and
willfully failing to keep records require by the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Franco, Esq.
          LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
          42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (800) 933 5620


PITMAN FARMS: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Duran Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA DURAN, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PITMAN FARMS, a
California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CECG01995 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2018),
seeks to recover all wages owed, minimum wages, and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the
plaintiff class were and are classified by Defendants as non-
exempt employees, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare
Commission, and Division of Labor Standards. As non-exempt
employees, Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class are
entitled to certain benefits, including mandated meal and rest
breaks. In addition, statutory provisions, wage orders,
regulations and standards obligate the employer to maintain
accurate records of the hours worked by employees.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not compensate their
hourly non-exempt employees for all the minutes that they worked
as described above, including but not limited to the time that
the employees were subject to the control and direction of
Defendants; and/or the time that the employees were suffered or
permitted to work.

Pitman engages in raising, producing, and selling chicken, turkey
and duck products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, individual, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 212-5124
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


PORTAGE COUNTY, OH: Faces "Lieberman" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portage County. The
case is styled as Brett Lieberman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portage County,
Portage County Sheriff's Office, Portage County District
Attorney's Office, Mike Lukas, Cory Nelson, Dale Boettcher, John
Doe Portage County Sheriff's Office Personnel and John Doe
Portage County District Attorney's Office Personnel, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00450 (W.D. Wis., June 12, 2018).

Portage County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Shannon Marrese, Esq.
   Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC
   121 W. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1050
   Chicago, IL 60601
   Tel: (312) 955-0545
   Email: jmarrese@hmelegal.com


PRESIDIO BRANDS: "Shank" Injunctive Relief Claim Dismissal Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Presidio's motion to
dismiss Shank's claim for injunctive relief in the case, GARRET
SHANK, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-00232-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

Shank filed the putative class action to challenge the labeling
and advertising of Presidio's Every Man Jack, a line of men's
personal hygiene products.  According to Shank, Presidio's
advertising and labeling strategy focuses on claims that its
Every Man Jack products are all-natural, naturally-derived, non-
toxic, using only naturally-derived ingredients, and
exceptionally safe for consumers.  Presidio cultivates the
products' image as a natural, plant-based, non-synthetic, healthy
and eco-friendly brand through its wood-grain packaging, plant
imagery, and simplistic labeling, as well as through its use of
the statements "naturally," "natural," "naturally-derived," and
"only naturally derived" on its product labels, on its website,
and in magazine advertisements and articles.

However, Shank alleges, the representation that the Every Man
Jack products contain only naturally-derived ingredients is
false, misleading, and deceptive, because they actually contain
"numerous ingredients that are artificially-engineered through
multiple synthetic processes rendering the resulting ingredients
and its components unnatural and not naturally-derived.

Shank asserts that Presidio's conduct violates three California
consumer protection statutes: 1) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); 2) the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and 3) the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").  He seeks to represent a nationwide
class of similarly situated persons who purchased any Every Man
Jack product containing artificially-processed and synthetic
ingredients and labeled or marketed as containing `only naturally
derived ingredients.

Presidio previously moved to dismiss Shank's first amended
complaint.  After the briefing was completed, the Ninth Circuit
issued Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., which resolves a
district court split regarding consumers' standing to pursue
injunctive relief in false advertising cases.

On Jan. 23, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
Presidio's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  In
relevant part, the court dismissed the claim for injunctive
relief with leave to amend, noting that Shank had conceded that
the amended complaint did not contain sufficient factual
allegations to establish standing to pursue injunctive relief
under Davidson.  Shank timely filed his second amended complaint,
and Presidio now moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Shank's claim for
injunctive relief.

Presidio argues that Shank's amended claim for injunctive relief
remains deficient.  In essence, it contends that Shank cannot
plausibly allege a likelihood of future injury because if he
wants to purchase a Presidio product with an "all natural" label
in the future, Shank needs only read the product's ingredients
list on the spot to confirm whether or not the label
misrepresents the product's contents.  Presidio asserts that
these facts distinguish the circumstances in this case from those
addressed in Davidson.

Magistrate Judge Ryu denied Presidio's motion to dismiss Shank's
claim for injunctive relief.  She explains that Shank alleges
that he would like to purchase Presidio's products in the future,
but that he would be hesitant to rely on the Every Man Jack
Products' labels in the future due to the present alleged
misrepresentations on the labels.

These allegations, she says, are sufficient as a matter of
pleading to confer standing to seek injunctive relief, because
Shank alleges that he will not be able to trust Presidio's claims
about Every Man Jack products.  Shank's ability to read the
products' ingredients does not render Presidio's allegedly false
advertising that the products contain "only naturally-derived"
ingredients "any more truthful."  She concludes that Shank has
sufficiently alleged standing to seek injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lri4sh from Leagle.com.

Garret Shank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Elaine
Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Lee Adam Cirsch -- Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law, APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Trisha
Kathleen Monesi -- Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC.

Presidio Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Angela Lee Diesch -- angela@dieschforrestlaw.com -
- Diesch Forrest, APC.


RETAIL ASSISTANCE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Bello Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JANINE BELLO, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RETAIL ASSISTANCE
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC707661 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and/or overtime under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had a consistent policy
of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Merchandisers for
all work perform at the proper rate of compensation.

Retail Assistance Corporation is a retail company that provides
merchandising and branding services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990 8300
Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


RIGHT AT HOME: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RIGHT AT HOME, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05011-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2018), seeks
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's website, www.rightathome.net is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb (DG6151)
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Court Allows 2nd Amended "Weisheit" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERRY L. WEISHEIT, Plaintiff, v. ROSENBERG &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-17-0823 (D.
Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend her
complaint.

Weisheit brought the action against Defendants Rosenberg and
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, in March of last year, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA")
and its implementing regulations, and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), all resulting from alleged actions taken
by the Defendants in connection with an attempted foreclosure of
the Plaintiff's home in 2017.

Two allegations in the Plaintiff's amended complaint are relevant
to the Plaintiff's motion to amend.  First, the Plaintiff
allegedly received a letter from Bayview on Dec. 29, 2016 that
explained why Bayview denied her application for a loan
modification, and stated that Bayview had enclosed all supporting
documentation, although no documentation was included.  The
Plaintiff then allegedly received a letter in February 2017
stating that the all supporting documentation language was
"standard verbiage" and that no supporting documentation was
forthcoming.

Second, the Plaintiff alleged that in the same Dec. 29, 2016
letter, the Defendant cited an investor restriction as the reason
for denying her application.  But, she alleged that despite RESPA
requirements to the contrary, Bayview did not identify the name
of the investor or the particular guideline.  She allegedly
informed Bayview that this information was missing, but Bayview
never responded.

On Aug. 25, 2017, both the Defendants brought motions to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), and did not challenge the Court's subject-
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims, or the Court's
personal jurisdiction over either Defendant.  The Court denied
the Defendants' motions to dismiss on Nov. 15, 2017.

Both the Defendants answered on Nov. 29, 2018.  Bayview denied
that it regularly conducted business in the United States and
Maryland.  With regard to the Plaintiff's allegation that Bayview
had an obligation under RESPA to provide the name of the investor
and did not do so, Bayview admitted that it sent a letter to the
Plaintiff on Dec. 29, 2016 denying her application, but denied
the rest of the allegation.

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order.  In that
order, the Court set Jan. 22, 2018 as the deadline for moving for
joinder of additional parties and amendment of pleadings.  The
parties proceeded to discovery.  The discovery deadline was set
for April 23, 2018, but the Court has indefinitely postponed that
deadline.

The Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint for a second time on
March 19, 2018, a little less than two months after the deadline
for amending pleadings.  Her proposed amendments include some
typographical fixes, as well as a few clarifications, but largely
revolve around a single significant change: the Plaintiff wishes
to amend her complaint to include allegations on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of borrowers who, according to her,
were harmed by Bayview's alleged violations of RESPA.  The
Plaintiff asserts that she had promptly reached out to lawyers
experienced in class action lawsuits and requested that they
review the case, and has secured outside, class action counsel.

Bayview responded in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to
amend on April 2 and the Plaintiff replied on April 20.  That
same day, the Court entered a memorandum and order, denying as
moot an earlier motion by the Plaintiff to compel answers to her
first set of interrogatories, and indefinitely postponing the
discovery deadline in the case, pending resolution of the
Plaintiff's motion.

Judge Bredar concludes that the Plaintiff has demonstrated
sufficient good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend her pleading
after the deadline for doing so set forth in the Court's
scheduling order issued December 21 of last year.  The Judge
finds that Bayview will not be prejudiced as a result of the
proposed amendment, the Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith, and
her amendment is not futile.

For these reasons, the Judge will grant the Plaintiff's motion to
amend her complaint by accompanying order.  The Clerk will be
ordered to docket the Plaintiff's proposed second amended
complaint as the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.  The
Defendant will respond to the Second Amended Complaint within the
time allotted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4).
The discovery deadline in the Court's Dec. 21, 2017 Scheduling
Order remains indefinitely postponed, and the parties are
encouraged to continue efforts to engage in discovery and settle
any disputes informally.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/ZRc7aP from Leagle.com.

Sherry Weisheit, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan K. Tycko --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, Katherine Aizpuru -
- kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP & F. Peter Silva,
II -- psilva@gowensilva.com -- Gowen Rhoades Winograd & Silva
PLLC.

Rosenberg & Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark David
Meyer, Rosenberg and Associates LLC & Sara Tussey, Rosenberg &
Associates, LLC.

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by John
Curtis Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP &
Syed Mohsin Reza -- mohsin.reza@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP.


RXPEDITE PHARMACY: Advanced Dermatology Sues over Spam Fax
----------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, INC., 8940 Darrow Road Twinsburg, Ohio
44087, the Plaintiff, v. RXPEDITE PHARMACY INC., c/o Statutory
Agent CC&J Agents, Inc. 4996 Foote Road Medina, Ohio 44256, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01275 (N.D. Ohio, June 5, 2018),
alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act in sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses
who have not given their consent.

Accoridng to the complaint, the Plaintiff had no business
relationship with Defendant, did not give Defendant its number,
and had not consented to be sent a facsimile. No opt out notice
was provided as required on all faxes. The Defendant continues to
send these facsimiles nationwide without prior consent to do so.

The Plaintiff was damaged by these faxes by suffering a monetary
loss due to the faxes, incurring the costs of the use of
facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to review
the fax, invasion of privacy, nuisance, interruption of work,
trespass to its chattel by interfering with its office facsimile
used to aid patients, stress, aggravation, and because a
violation of the TCPA itself is a concrete injury.

Defendant is a compounding pharmacy in the United States and
solicits medical offices for custom compounded prescription drugs
for such business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502 1055
          Facsimile: (216) 609 0750
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL: Peaks-Smith Sues over Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
FONDA PEAKS-SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL, and
ADP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07077 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. June 5, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs
sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, St. Anthony's improperly discloses
its employees' fingerprint data to at least one third-party
vendor, ADP. St. Anthony's improperly discloses its employees'
fingerprint data to other, currently unknown, third parties,
which host the biometric data in their data centers.

The Defendants lack retention schedules and guidelines for
permanently destroying Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated
individuals' biometric data and has not and will not destroy
their biometric data as required by Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

St. Anthony Hospital is a large general hospital located in
downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zours, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sold Defective Dryers, "DeFrank" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA DeFRANK, HOLLIS STAVN, and CHRIS GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00296-MRB (S.D. Ohio, April 27,
2018), arises from an alleged defect in certain of the
Defendant's clothes drying machines.

The case involves Samsung's design, manufacture, marketing, and
sale of clothes drying machines ("Dryers") with a faulty design
or manufacturing process that resulted in cracked drums (the
"Defect"), ultimately rendering the Dryers unusable for their
ordinary purpose.  The Defect occurs in both gas and electric
dryers designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by Samsung.

Samsung is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New Jersey with its American headquarters
and principal place of business located in Ridgefield, New
Jersey.

Samsung is the manufacturer, producer, distributor, and seller of
numerous home appliances and other electronic products, including
gas and electric dryers, throughout the United States.  Samsung
markets, advertises and sells the Dryers throughout the United
States, including in California, New Jersey, New Mexico, and
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 727-4360
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


SARAR USA: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarar USA, Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned as Kathy Wu on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sarar USA, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04641-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe.

Sarar USA was founded in 2001. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of men's and boys' apparel
and furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (917) 796 7437
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Costello Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONE COSTELLO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707656
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant required them work overtime
without proper compensation and did not authorize and permit them
meal periods and ret breaks. The Defendant did not even keep
proper time records. Defendant also failed to authorize and
permit meal periods for other non-exempt employees, including
Plaintiff, for similar reasons including in order to meet
business needs.

Sentinel provides transportation and logistical services for
Chemours and Phillips 66 companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 432 8933
Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
        brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
        laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
        ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


SERVICOM LLC: Settlement in "Langdon" Suit Gets Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brendalyn Langdon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ServiCom, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17 CV 50185 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge
Iain D. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Western Division, granted the parties'
joint motion for approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action settlement agreement.

Langdon, initially brought the action on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, as both a collective action and a
class action, against the Defendant, alleging violations of the
FLSA, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").  Pursuant to
the settlement before the Court, Langdon along with 15 opt-in
Plaintiffs are now proceeding as an FLSA collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and under the IMWL.

On April 19, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the parties'
Motion to approve the settlement.  Based on the Motion, the
parties' settlement agreement, the attached exhibits and the
representations of counsel at the hearing, the Magistrate Judge
finds that counsel for the parties conducted a thorough
investigation into the matter.  The parties assert that the
Plaintiffs' will receive nearly 90% of the Defendants'
calculations of their potential unpaid wages and liquidated
damages.

Based on this, the Magistrate Judge finds that the parties'
settlement is a fair, just and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute and not the product of collusion. Accordingly, it is
his Report and Recommendation that the parties' joint Motion be
granted.  Any objection to the Report and Recommendation will be
filed by May 9, 2018.

Moreover, pursuant to the parties' agreement that the Defendant
will also pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, briefing will proceed as follows: the Plaintiffs' counsel
will produce all information provided in Local Rule 54.3(d)(1)-
(3) by April 27, 2018; the Defendant's counsel will produce the
information provided in Local Rule 54.3(d)(5) by May 18, 2018;
the parties will identify any agreement or objections based on
the information provided by June 1, 2018; if any matters remain
in dispute, the parties will prepare a joint statement under
Local Rule 54.3(e) by July 2, 2018; by July 16, 2018, the
Plaintiffs will file any motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs with the parties' joint statement attached, or the
parties' will file a joint motion for an award of the Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/goiDzA from
Leagle.com.

Brendalyn Langdon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larry A. Johnson --
ljohnson@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel S.C., Timothy P. Maynard --
tmaynard@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C., James B. Zouras,
Stephan Zouras, LLP, Summer H. Murshid -- smurshid@hq-law.com --
Hawks Quindel, S.C. & Ryan F. Stephan --
rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan, Zouras, LLP.

ServiCom, LLC, Defendant, represented by Helen Marie Mac Murray -
- hmacmurray@mslawgroup.com -- Mac Murray & Shuster LLP & Lisa
Ann Messner -- lmessner@mslawgroup.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: AAS Beneficiaries Class Certification Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLH by parents/general guardians Kenneth and Angela
Hensley, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, v. South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Appellant, Opinion No. 5556 (S.C. App.), Judge Stephanie Myrick
Pendarvis McDonald of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina
reversed circuit court's grant of class certification.

The case involves the alleged breach of adoption assistance
subsidy ("AAS") agreements by the South Carolina Department of
Social Services ("DSS").

In April 2013, minor BLH brought the action against DSS through
her adoptive parents, filing her complaint as a potential class
action on behalf of all children, age 19 or younger on the date
of the Motion for Class Certification (Jan. 6, 2012), who are
current and former beneficiaries of existing adoption assistance
subsidy agreements between their adoptive parents and DSS,
executed on or before June 20, 2002.  The complaint alleged DSS
breached its AAS contracts with class members by unilaterally
cutting adoption assistance benefits to special needs children by
twenty dollars per month, beginning in June 2002.

In October 2013, BLH moved to certify the class pursuant to Rule
23, SCRCP.  After the April 2014 hearing, the circuit court
issued a Form 4 order granting class certification.  DSS moved
for reconsideration and requested a formal order addressing its
commonality argument.

On May 21, 2014, the circuit court issued a more detailed order.
Concerning commonality, the court ruled there were two critical
common questions of law and fact," namely: (1) whether the
benefits cut breached the contracts with the families of adopted
children or violated the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and (2) whether, in light of DSS's reinstatement of
benefits for families of foster care children, the failure to
reinstate benefits for families of adopted children breached the
contracts or violated the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  Separately, the court ordered an "opt-out" notice
procedure and ordered DSS to serve each class member a notice
which will advise them of the facts of this case and their right
to opt out within 30 days.

In August 2014, DSS filed a second motion to reconsider and
requested oral argument.  In the motion, DSS again asked the
court to rule on its position that BLH could not satisfy the
commonality element required by Rule 23 and Gardner.  DSS further
argued the court erred in establishing notice procedures without
giving DSS an opportunity to be heard and in requiring DSS to
bear the burden and expense of notifying potential class members.

On Sept. 16, 2014, the circuit court filed an amended order, but
the only change related to the class certification issue was the
court's inclusion of language indicating it had also relied on
two affidavits.  On Sept. 30, 2014, DSS filed a third motion for
reconsideration requesting a formal order adjudicating the issues
raised in its second motion for reconsideration.  On Oct. 16,
2014, DSS appealed; the court of appeals stayed the appeal until
the circuit court could rule on DSS's third motion for
reconsideration.

In February 2015, the circuit court held a hearing on the third
motion for reconsideration.  Regarding the notice issue, DSS
consented to providing BLH with information about potential class
members but asserted it should not be required to notify
potential class members of the opt-out procedures.

Additionally, DSS again challenged the commonality requirement,
citing Gardner. On the record, the circuit court denied
reconsideration of the class certification, but granted DSS's
request to make BLH responsible for notifying potential members
of the class of the opt-out procedures. However, DSS was required
to provide BLH with information about potential class members
within ninety days of the circuit court's filing of its formal
order.  The parties agreed the formal order would include
language protecting the confidentiality of the parties involved.
The court asked BLH to prepare a proposed order and submit it to
DSS.

On April 1, 2015, DSS sent the circuit court and BLH an
alternative proposed order.  On April 30, 2015, the circuit court
issued another order.  As to commonality, the court found it
determinative that DSS had stipulated that each of the potential
class members signed a contract for AAS payments, and there was a
subsequent twenty dollar reduction in payments.  Regarding the
notice procedure, the court found "good cause" was shown under
the relevant adoption confidentiality law to require DSS to
provide the names and addresses of potential class members to
BLH.

However, the court ordered the information was to remain
confidential, was to be redacted in public filings, and could not
be disseminated to third parties.  All correspondence to class
members was to be marked "Confidential."  On June 8, 2015, DSS
amended its notice of appeal to include the April 30 order.

DSS contends (1) the circuit court erred in certifying a class
when the class representative failed to prove the necessary
element of commonality, and (2) the class certification and
notification process violates the statutory and constitutional
rights of potential class members and their families.

Judge McDonald finds the case analogous to Gardner v. South
Carolina Department of Revenue as there are more than "minor
factual differences" among the various class members.  She says
this is not a case in which the relevant inquiry merely involves
plaintiffs who may be entitled to different amounts of damages."
Several issues here will require individualized inquiry, such as
whether each set of adoptive parents accepted or consented to the
reduction in payments, exhausted any available administrative
remedies, entered into renewal agreements, or at any pertinent
time terminated their agreements.  Accordingly, she holds the
necessity of such individualized inquiries negates the benefits
of a class action suit.

For these reasons, the Judge agrees that the circuit court erred
in granting the class certification.  Accordingly, she reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/fhtegz from Leagle.com.

Andrew F. Lindemann and Joel Steve Hughes, both of Davidson &
Lindemann, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Charles J. Hodge -- CHodge@hodgelawfirm.com -- and T. Ryan
Langley -- rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com -- both of Hodge & Langley
Law Firm, PC, and James Fletcher Thompson --
info@thompsonlawfirm.net -- of James Fletcher Thompson, LLC, all
of Spartanburg, for Respondent.


SOUTHERN & CARRIBEAN: "Barrios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus A. Barrios, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Southern & Carribean Agencies, Inc. and Carlos A. Saenz, Case No.
1:18-cv-21550 (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2018), seeks to recover
damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed as a bookkeeper from April 2017 to
January 2018, and he was responsible for recording business
transactions, maintaining accurate records, and providing reports
to owner Carlos A. Saenz and his CPA. The Plaintiff also had
duties assisting with payroll for Defendants.

The Corporate Defendant S & C Agencies is a property management
company.  The Defendant has place of business at 328 Minorca
Avenue, Coral Gables 33134, where the Plaintiff worked.

The Individual Defendant Carlos A. Saenz is the owner, partner
and manager of S & C Agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SP PLUS: 7th Cir. Vacates Removal of "Collier" From State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the
district court's removal of the case, KATHRYN G. COLLIER AND
BENJAMIN M. SEITZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SP PLUS CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2431 (7th Cir.) from the state
court and remanded for the district court to return the case to
state court.

SP Plus operates public parking facilities at Dayton
International Airport and is headquartered in Chicago.  Collier
and Seitz allege that they used these parking lots in 2015 and
received receipts that included the expiration date of their
credit or debit cards. Printing that information, they say,
violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act ("FACTA").

Collier and Seitz filed a class-action complaint in the Circuit
Court of Cook County alleging that SP Plus willfully violated
FACTA.  They requested statutory and actual damages, stating that
actual damages exceed $25,000.  The complaint did not describe
any concrete harm that the Plaintiffs had suffered from the
printed receipts' exposure of their cards' expiration dates; no
one had experienced credit-card fraud or identity theft.

SP Plus removed the action to federal court, arguing that the
district court had federal-question jurisdiction because the
claim arose under a federal statute.  A week later SP Plus moved
to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing because the Plaintiffs
did not allege an injury in fact, thereby depriving the court of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Collier and Seitz responded by moving to remand to state court,
arguing that it was SP Plus' responsibility to establish subject-
matter jurisdiction and that, without it, 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c) required the district court to return their case to state
court.  Because Article III does not apply in state court, they
presumably hoped that their case could stay alive there despite
their lack of a concrete injury.

The district court denied the motion to remand because FACTA is a
federal statute, so the case arises under federal law and the
court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.  The court
found that Collier and Seitz has not established subject matter
jurisdiction.  The court granted Collier and Seitz leave to amend
their complaint.  When they did not, the court dismissed the case
with prejudice.

Thus, to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, SP Plus
must also show that Collier and Seitz have Article III standing -
- specifically, that they suffered an injury beyond a statutory
violation.  The company disagrees and suggests that once removal
based on a federal question gets a defendant's foot in the door
of a federal court, the slate is wiped clean and the Defendant
can challenge jurisdiction.  But Section 1447(c) makes clear that
the district court must remand the case to state court if at any
time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Here, it is clear that Collier and Seitz's complaint did not
sufficiently allege an actual injury.  A mere reference to
"actual damages" in the complaint's prayer for relief does not
establish Article III standing.  The single reference here falls
far short of an allegation that the Plaintiffs suffered a
concrete harm or appreciable risk of harm apart from the
statutory violation.

SP Plus next contends that the conclusory request for "actual
damages" is unfair because it allows Collier and Seitz to clarify
what concrete injury they suffered "after it is too late" for
removal.  So SP Plus requests that the Court orders Collier and
Seitz to amend their Cook County Complaint to support their
allegations of actual damages or strike these allegations from
that Complaint.

The Court finds this impossible because it has no basis to order
these Plaintiffs how to plead their case in state court after
remand.  Further, a state's standing doctrine is "the business"
of its own courts; it is not for the Court to venture how the
case would there be resolved.

In any event, there is no unfairness here, it says.  If, after
remand, Collier and Seitz were to amend their complaint to state
an injury in fact, 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) would permit SP
Plus to then remove the case to federal court.  And even if
Collier and Seitz do not amend, SP Plus could remove if they
receive any paper that affirmatively and unambiguously reveals
that the predicates for removal are present.

Thus, the Court holds that Section 1447(c) required the district
court to remand this case to state court, because it does not
satisfy Article III's requirements.  Additionally, it notes that
the case should not have been dismissed with prejudice.  Nor was
dismissal with prejudice warranted as a sanction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Collier and Seitz opted not
to amend their complaint.

A Rule 41(b) dismissal is a harsh sanction appropriate only when
there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or
where other less drastic sanctions have proved unavailing.  A
willful failure to prosecute can fit the bill, but no finding of
willfulness in the case justified a punitive dismissal on the
merits.

Finally, the Court declines to award Collier and Seitz attorney
fees or expenses under Section 1447(c), since their brief does
not adequately develop a basis to do so.  But it notes that, SP
Plus' justifications aside, its dubious strategy has resulted in
a significant waste of federal judicial resources, much of which
was avoidable.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment and
remanded instructions to return the action to state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fmiq2I from Leagle.com.

Robert James Pavich, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven H. Gistenson -- sgistenson@dykema.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Micah M. Siegal, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary E. Lentz, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


SRAH BAKERY: Accused by "Polanco" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY POLANCO on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SRAH BAKERY, INC. d/b/a STRAUSS BAKERY and ELLIOT
BERMAN, Case No. 1:18-cv-02530 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2018),
alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and
similarly situated employees, for overtime hours they worked as
well as spread of hours pay, and to provide them with proper wage
notices and paystubs.

SRAH Bakery Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal
executive office located in Brooklyn, New York.  Elliot Berman is
the owner and Chief Executive Officer of SRAH Bakery, Inc.

The Defendants own and operate Strauss Bakery, a large,
"nationally recognized and respected" bakery located in the
Borough Park section of Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
          Thomas H. Andrykovitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
          501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-8999
          Facsimile: (646) 693-2289
          E-mail: jeff@jgoldmanlaw.com
                  thomas@jgoldmanlaw.com


ST. NICKS ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Calderon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEFINA CALDERON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ST. NICKS ALLIANCE
HOME CARE CORP., ST. NICHOLAS HUMAN SUPPORT CORP., SIMONE MAYHEW
and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 511485/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 5, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff and the
putative class plaintiffs were illegally not paid time and one
half the minimum wage for their hours over 40 in a week or time
and one half their regular wage rate for their overtime hours
worked on and after January 1, 2015 and/or who worked numerous
24-hour shifts for which they were illegally paid for only 13 of
the 24-hours worked, as they were on call during the shift and
did not get meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted
sleep and a full 8 hours of sleep during the shifts, pursuant to
the New York Labor Law.

St. Nicks Alliance is a home care provider that services
Brooklyn, NY 11211.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286 1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688 3078


STAY LOKAL: Faces "Conner" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STAY LOKAL, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03728 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to design,
construct, and own or operate a Web site -- http://staylokal.com/
-- that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by,
blind people, including the Plaintiff.

Stay Lokal is a domestic limited liability company organized
under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal executive
office located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The Company owns
and operates Lokal Hotel, a hotel located at 139 N 3rd St., in
Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


STRIPPERS INC: "Bailey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Destiny Bailey, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated entertainers v. Stripper's Inc., John Chambers, and
Veeda Chambers, Case No. 5:18-cv-00128 (M.D. Ga., April 18,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia.
The Plaintiff worked as an adult entertainer at Stripper's, Inc.

Stripper's, Inc. owns and operates a strip club in Byron, Peach
County, Georgia known as "Strippers Gentlemens Club."

The Defendants John and Veeda Chambers are the managers and
owners of Defendant Stripper's, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
      Suite 200, Building 1
      4200 Northside Parkway
      Atlanta, GA  30327
      Tel: (404) 687-8205
      E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com


SUNRUN INC: Taylor Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
and CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company d/b/a SOLAR AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
01207 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants, in
negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff through
telephone calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant is the largest dedicated residential solar company
in the United States and has deployed more than $2 billion in
solar systems. In the process of arranging and brokering the sale
and installation of residential solar systems, Defendant sells
directly to consumers over the phone as well as through a network
of certified partners.

According to the complaint, commencing no later than September of
2016 through the present, the Plaintiff received a number of
unsolicited phone calls to her both her wireless phone for which
Plaintiff provided no consent to call. These calls were received
frequently and on some occasions several calls in a single week.

Numerous times, during these same phone calls, Plaintiff would
instruct Defendants to stop calling, ask to be placed on the
internal "Do Not Call List" and would further advise that her
cellular telephone number was on the Federal Do Not Call
Registry. Despite Plaintiff's efforts to stop Defendants' calls,
Plaintiff continued and continues to receive unsolicited phone
calls from Defendants. The Plaintiff is not alone in receiving
these unsolicited phone calls or in making numerous requests to
stop the calls which Defendants failed to honor. A consumer
review site shows 40 harassment complaints against
Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com


SUNSET PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Retina Assoc. Over Junk Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SUNSET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00740 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
conspiring to, agreeing to, or otherwise causing the
dissemination of junk faxes.

Sunset Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a California corporation with
its principal executive office located in Carlsbad, California.

Sunset Pharmaceuticals is a primary wholesale distributor of
medical surgical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and over-the-counter
items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIDENT SOCIETY: "Quismundo" Voluntary Dismissal OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANDY QUISMUNDO, Plaintiff, v. TRIDENT SOCIETY, INC.
d/b/a TRIDENT SOCIETY, a California Corporation; et al,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-1930-CAB-(WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cathy Ann of Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.

On Aug. 27, 2017, the Plaintiff brought suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California against the Defendants asserting
violations of California Labor Code and California Business &
Professions Code.  On Sept. 22, 2017, the Defendants removed the
action to the Court.  After removal, the Defendants filed motions
to dismiss, stay or transfer, that were either mooted or
withdrawn.

On Oct. 20, 2017, the Plaintiff requested and was granted leave
to file an amended complaint.  Subsequently, on Nov. 13, 2017,
the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court.
The Court denied the request, finding the Defendants had
satisfied the requirements necessary for jurisdiction to attach
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and because it was
not persuaded that it ha[d] the discretion to remand a case
removed pursuant to CAFA based on general prudential concerns.
In the interim, the Defendants filed their answer.

On March 5, 2018, the parties participated in a telephonic Early
Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference with Magistrate
Judge William V. Gallo. On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff moved
for dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).  The Defendants filed a
response in opposition and the Plaintiff filed a reply.

The Plaintiff argues that dismissal without prejudice is
warranted on the grounds that the litigation is in its early
stages and because she intends to re-file her claims in state
Superior Court.  Further, she asserts that she attempted to get
Defense counsel to stipulate to the dismissal but "to no avail."

The Defendants oppose voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing
that the Court should deny the Plaintiff's motion in its entirety
because they will suffer plain legal prejudice if the Plaintiff's
claims are voluntarily dismissed from federal court.  The
Defendants also make the alternative argument that, if the
Plaintiff's motion is granted, an award of the Defendants' costs
and fees is appropriate.

The Defendants make four arguments in support of their claim of
legal prejudice but the Court finds none of them persuasive.
First, they contend that the Plaintiff is essentially forum
shopping which has resulted in the parties extensively litigating
the venue issue.  While the parties have previously litigated the
venue issue, Judge Bencivengo finds nothing untoward in the
Plaintiff's behavior.  The Plaintiff now seeks dismissal because
her action could be consolidated or coordinated with the other
pending state lawsuits not because she is trying to negate a
prior order or avoid adverse determinations or other dispositive
rulings of the Court.  This situation does not rise to the level
of extensive litigation or forum shopping that would justify
denial of a motion for voluntary dismissal.

Second, the Defendants assert legal prejudice on the grounds that
because of the comity between federal sister courts the risk of a
judgment conflicting with the Central District's holding in
Romano & Bono v. SCI Direct, Inc., is substantially lower if the
case remains here.  But, the Judge finds that a risk of a
potentially conflicting judgment does not rise to the level of
plain legal prejudice.  Further, there is nothing preventing the
Defendants from bringing the Romano decision to the attention of
the assigned state court judge and advocating for a judgment in
line with that holding.  Moreover, all of the Plaintiff's causes
of action are based on alleged violations of California laws and
Labor and Business and Professions code sections that would be
more appropriately addressed by a state court.

The Defendants' third and fourth assertions of legal prejudice
are equally unavailing.  As to the potential loss of permissible
alternatively-pled affirmative defenses at the summary judgment
stage, the Judge holds that this does not constitute plain legal
prejudice, it is simply a loss of opportunity to raise a legal
argument and not an injury to an actual right.  Similarly, the
argument regarding the costs incurred in defending the litigation
is equally unpersuasive because their interests can be protected
by conditioning the dismissal without prejudice upon the payment
of appropriate costs and attorney fees.

Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff should be
allowed to dismiss her claims without prejudice.

Finally, the Defendants argue that should the dismissal be
granted it should be conditioned on awarding it its attorneys'
fees and costs for litigating in this forum.  Despite the
Defendants' arguments to the contrary, the Judge finds that none
of the factors weigh in favor of imposing conditions.  The
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice does not
expose the Defendants to excessive or duplicative expense because
most of the work performed will remain useful in the litigation
in state court.  And while the work related to the motion to
transfer to the Central District is not likely to be of further
use, it was legal work of the Defendants own making.  Further,
the case is still in its infancy and the Plaintiff has acted with
reasonable diligence is moving for dismissal six months after
removal.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to impose any
conditions on the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

In light of this, Judge Bencivengo granted the Plaintiff's
motions, and dismissed without prejudice all complaints and
claims in the action.  The Judge exercises her discretion and
declines to award fees and costs as a result of the dismissal.
The Clerk of Court will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IUnrpo from Leagle.com.

Jandy Quismundo, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by
Thomas Diachenko -- thom@diachenkolaw.com -- Law Offices of
Thomas M Diachenko.

Trident Society, Inc., a California Corporation, doing business
as Trident Society, Neptune Society of America, Inc., a
Corporation, doing business as Neptune Society, Neptune
Management Corp., a California Corporation, doing business as
Neptune Management & SCI Direct, Inc., a Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Carrie M. Francis -- carrie.francis@stinson.com --
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Jennifer L. Santa Maria --
jennifer.santamaria@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. --
lonnie.williams@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro
hac vice.


U.S. SOCCER: Faces "Sherman" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A.S. a minor by and through CARA SHERMAN, her parent and natural
guardian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES SOCCER
FEDERATION, INC. and US YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00709-NBF (W.D. Pa., May 25, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

United States Soccer Federation, commonly referred to as U.S.
Soccer, is a 501 nonprofit organization and the official
governing body of the sport of soccer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew Thomas Logue, Esq.
QUINN LOGUE LLC
200 First Avenue, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA
Telephone: (412) 765 3800
Facsimile: (866) 480 4630
E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Philip" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Ronnie Philip, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03418 (E.D.
N.Y., June 12, 2018).

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial
service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in
the United States. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was formerly
known as UCB, Inc. and changed its name to United Collection
Bureau, Inc. in August 1979. The company was founded in 1959 and
is based in Toledo, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel A. Louro, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dlouro@cml.legal


UNITED PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Martinez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED PACIFIC WASTE, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC706926 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 24, 2018), alleges that
Defendants' failed to pay wages for all hours of work at the
legal minimum wage rate and wages for all time worked at overtime
rate in violation of California Labor Code

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy,
practice, and/or procedure whereby required the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to perform post-trip inspections off-
the-clock, which reduced the daily hours worked by Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees. The Defendants' policies,
practices, and/or procedures resulted in time each workday and
workweek that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
subject to Defendants' control, but not compensated for that
time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies File Suit v. State Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of State. The case is styled as Afghan and Iraqi
allies under serious threat because of their faithful service to
the United States, on their own and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Michael R. Pompeo, Carl C. Risch, United
States Department of State, Kirstjen Nielsen, L. Francis Cissna,
Donald Neufeld and United States Department of Homeland Security,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC (D. Colo., June 12, 2018).

The United States Department of State, often referred to as the
State Department, is the United States federal executive
department that advises the President and represents the country
in international affairs and foreign policy issues.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Deepa Alagesan, Esq.
   INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
   40 Rector Street
   9th Floor
   New York, NY 10006
   Tel: (646) 602-5639
   Email: dalagesan@refugeerights.org

      - and -

   Shannon M. Leitner, Esq.
   FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
   601 Lexington Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 230-4664
   Email: Shannon.LEITNER@freshfields.com


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued over Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation; USC ENGEMANN STUDENT HEALTH CENTER, entity form
unknown; ERIC COHEN STUDENT HEALTH CENTER OF USC, entity form
unknown; GEORGE TYNDALL, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC707879 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018),
seeks to recover restitution and monetary damages caused by
Defendants' gender violence.

According to the complaint, knowing that Plaintiff and other
members of the Class were trusting and vulnerable, Dr. Tyndall
used his position of authority to require Plaintiff and other
members of the Class to fully disrobe for no reasonable medical
purpose, engage in touching, fondling and groping of Plaintiff's
and Class members' breasts and other parts of their bodies while
making suggestive and improper comments, engage in nonconsensual
vaginal penetration, nonconsensual sexual touching and fondling
of the vaginal and genital region for the purpose of sexual
arousal, sexual gratification, and/or sexual abuse. Tyndall also
made racially discriminatory and sexually harassing comments.

The Plaintiff and other members of the Class are or were young
female students attending USC who sought gynecological care
through the USC student health system and were patients of
Tyndall during his tenure at USC.

The case is being filed anonymously because of the extremely
sensitive nature of the conduct involved and damages suffered by
Plaintiff and others similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mike Arias, Esq.
Arnold Wang, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Katherine Harvey-Lee, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: 310 844 9696

     - and -

Howard A. Janet, Esq.
JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
4 Reservoir Circle, Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (410) 654 3200


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Getz Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04652
(S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of
sending unauthorized and unwanted text messages promoting its
cellular phone and service offerings, and to obtain redress for
all persons similarly situated injured by its conduct.

According to the complaint, Verizon's unsolicited texts violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and
putative members of the Class to suffer harm, including the
aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy
that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment
of their phones.

Verizon Communications Inc., or simply Verizon, is an American
multinational telecommunications conglomerate and a corporate
component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York., NY 10017
Telephone: rscmierer@dentittislaw.com


VISION QUEST: Mattson Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK MATTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VISION QUEST LENDING, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-YY (D. Ore., June 5, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by their conduct.

Vision Quest is a mortgage company. In an effort to solicit
potential customers, Defendant recruited, or employed call
centers who began making telephone calls, en masse, to consumers
across the country. On information and belief, Vision Quest and
or their agents purchase "leads" containing consumers' contact
information and create electronic databases from which Defendant
makes automated calls.

Defendant conducted (and continue to conduct) wide scale
telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made/make unsolicited
calls to consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the
National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Gregory K. Zeuthen, Esq.
          GREGORY K. ZEUTHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227 7257
          Facsimile: (503) 228 1556
          E-mail: gkz@zlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hugheseellzey.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Ste. 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507 7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


VISION QUEST: Mattson Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK MATTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VISION QUEST LENDING, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00995-SB (D. Ore., June 5, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by their conduct.

Vision Quest is a mortgage company. In an effort to solicit
potential customers, Defendant recruited, or employed call
centers who began making telephone calls, en masse, to consumers
across the country. On information and belief, Vision Quest and
or their agents purchase "leads" containing consumers' contact
information and create electronic databases from which Defendant
makes automated calls.

Defendant conducted (and continue to conduct) wide scale
telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made/make unsolicited
calls to consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the
National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Gregory K. Zeuthen, Esq.
          GREGORY K. ZEUTHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227 7257
          Facsimile: (503) 228 1556
          E-mail: gkz@zlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hugheseellzey.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Ste. 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507 7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Bohr Sues over Glutamine Product Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07121 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., June 5, 2018), is a civil class action brought
individually by Plaintiff on behalf of consumers who purchased
"Body'Tech Glutamine," "BodyTech BCAA & Glutamine," and "BodyTech
Creatine & Glutamine with Beta-Alanine" from Defendant Vitamin
Shoppe, Inc., for personal use and not for resale.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, and sells the Products
throughout the United States, including in the State of Illinois.
The Defendant makes numerous false and misleading claims on the
label of their Products. These false and misleading claims
include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the
beneficial effects of glutamine. The Plaintiff and each of the
Class members have suffered an injury in fact caused by the
false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading
practices.[BN]

Counsel For Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Ke Liu, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          North State Street Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 236 0000
          Facsimile: 312 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: 313 303 3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Beatrice Yakubu, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          E-mail: Charles@cuneolaw.com
                  byakubu@cuneolaw.com


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAN I. AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC.,
RICHARD L. MARKEE, COLIN F. WATTS, and BRENDA M. GALGANO,
Defendants, Civ. No. 2:17-cv-6454-KM-MAH (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin
McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(i) granted the motion of Richard Schubert, Daniel E. Onishuk,
Jr., and Mohammed Kayyal ("SOK Plaintiffs") to be appointed the
Lead Plaintiffs and their choice of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
and Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP as the Lead Counsel and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as the liaison counsel for
the class; and (ii) denied the motion of Corpus Christi
Firefighters' Retirement System ("CCFRS") to be appointed the
Lead Plaintiffs.

The federal securities class action is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Vitamin Shoppe common stock between March 1, 2017
and Aug. 8, 2017, inclusive.  The Plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"), and of the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They seek
compensatory damages, including interest; reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and
expert fees; and any other appropriate relief.

Defendant Vitamin Shoppe is a specialty retailer and direct
marketer of nutritional products.  Its common stock was taken
public in an initial public offering ("IPO") in 2009.  Defendant
Markee served as a Director of Vitamin Shoppe from the start of
the Class Period until June 7, 2017.  He previously served as the
CEO and Chairman of the Board. Defendant Watts served as the CEO
and a Director of Vitamin Shoppe throughout the class period.
Defendant Galgano served as Executive Vice President and the CFO
of Vitamin Shoppe during the Class Period.

Named Plaintiff Aguilar, on behalf of the putative class, alleges
that from March 1, 2017 to Aug. 8, 2017 Vitamin Shoppe issued
materially false statements and failed to disclose adverse facts
known about Vitamin Shoppe.  More specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants represented that Vitamin Shoppe's
financial statements were prepared in conformity with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").   The Plaintiff alleges
that these representations were materially false because, in
violation of GAAP, the Defendants allegedly delayed the
recognition of a goodwill impairment charge of more than $168
million for Vitamin Shoppe's retail segment, thereby inflating
the company's income and assets during the class period.

Before the Court are the competing motions of the SOK plaintiffs
and CCFRS.  Each seeks appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and
approval of its selection of counsel as the Lead Counsel.

Judge McNulty concludes that the SOK Plaintiffs are presumptively
the most adequate Plaintiffs.  If the three SOK Plaintiffs'
claimed losses are aggregated, the SOK Plaintiffs clearly have
the larger financial interest.  CCFRS argues, however, that the
SOK Plaintiffs' losses cannot be aggregated because: (1) Schubert
has not proven that he has a direct financial stake in the loss
and thus lacks standing; and (ii) the SOK Plaintiffs are an
unrelated group of individuals.  The Judge notes, however, that
Schubert's loss, standing alone, is larger than that of CCFRS,
and that Onishuk and Kayyal's interests, if aggregated, would
still be larger than CCFRS's interest.  To establish that its
loss is the largest, then, CCFRS must establish both that
Schubert is disqualified and that the losses of Onishuk and
Kayyal cannot be aggregated.

Nonetheless, the Judge says there is evidence that Catherine
Prehn assigned her Vitamin Shoppe stock to her grandson Schubert
during the Class Period.  The assignment of stock to Schubert
therefore would provide Schubert with standing.  Even standing
alone, Schubert has the greatest financial claim of any party
that has sought to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff.

The Judge also finds that the SOK Plaintiffs have also shown that
they will adequately represent the class.  They've have selected
counsel with experience in securities litigation. There are no
known conflicts between the SOK plaintiffs and the members of the
class, and the Lead Plaintiffs appear to have a sufficient
interest in the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy.

The SOK Plaintiffs thus entitled to the presumption that they are
the most adequate Plaintiffs.  CCFRS failed to provide sufficient
evidence to rebut this presumption.  The Judge holds that CCFRS
(i) has not provided any proof that the SOK Plaintiffs are not
sophisticated; (ii) has questioned why the SOK Plaintiffs seek to
appoint two law firms as co-lead counsel, but they have not
produced evidence that these law firms are not qualified to
represent the putative class; and (iii) while unrelated groups
may be considered together as the Plaintiffs under the PSLRA,
there are circumstances where such groups may not be appropriate.
Accordingly, Schubert, Onishuk, and Kayyal are therefore
appointed the co-Lead Plaintiffs.

Finally, The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to
select and retain counsel, subject to the approval of the court.
The SOK Plaintiffs have selected Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP as the Lead Counsel, and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as the liaison counsel, for
the class.

For these reasons, Judge McNulty granted the SOK Plaintiffs'
motion and denied CCFRS's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/JObGK8 from Leagle.com.

Corpus Christi Firefighters Retirement System, Movant,
represented by JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

Richard Schubert, DANIEL E. ONISHUK, JR. & MOHAMMED KAYYAL, Lead
Plaintiffs, represented by LIONEL Z. GLANCY --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC & LISA J.
RODRIGUEZ -- ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis LLP.

IVAN I. AGUILAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI,
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Clarification Bid in "Petrone" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER
ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants.
PHILIP PETRONE, et al.; Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
AND DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:11CV401 (D.
Neb.), Judge Laurie Smith Camp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska overruled the Plaintiffs' Objection to Costs
Taxed, and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification.

Werner operated an eight-week Student Driver Program as part of
the training for new truck drivers.  The Plaintiffs filed the
class action lawsuit seeking compensation for unpaid wages
allegedly earned during off-duty time spent on short rest breaks
and in their trucks' sleeper berths.

In May 2017, the Court held a jury trial on the issue of damages
for the Plaintiffs' short-rest-break claims and liability on
their sleeper-berth claims.  Following the three-day trial, the
jury awarded $779,127 in damages on the Plaintiffs' short-rest-
break claims, an amount equal to those calculated by their
expert.  The jury found that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
that Werner required or allowed the Plaintiffs to work during
time logged in the sleeper berth in excess of eight hours each
24-hour period.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Taxation Clerk taxed costs to the
Plaintiffs in the amount of $15,839.68.  The Plaintiffs object to
the Taxation of Costs, arguing that Werner is not the prevailing
party and therefore not entitled to costs.  They also request
clarification of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 9,
2018.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs request an Order clarifying
that the Defendants will be responsible for the reasonable cost
of distributing the funds awarded by the jury.

Similar to the courts in Shum v. Intel Corp. and Williams v.
Gaye, Judge Camp will exercise her discretion to award costs to
Werner on the sleeper-berth claim.  She says she cannot apportion
taxed costs to the Plaintiffs on their successful claim, because
they did not submit a bill of costs under Rule 54(d)(1), as
required by NECivR 54.1(b).  Thus, at this stage, Werner is the
only party to seek costs properly under Rule 54(d)(1).

Werner represented in its Bill of Costs that the amounts claimed
related solely to defending the Plaintiffs' sleeper berth claim.
Therefore, the taxed costs have effectively been reduced to
reflect the extent of Werner's victory.  The Plaintiffs did not
dispute Werner's claim for the costs of deposition transcripts,
copies, and lay witness fees.  Accordingly, the Clerk properly
taxed costs to Werner in the amount of $15,839.68.

The Court previously noted that under the FLSA, plaintiffs may
recover costs, including reasonable out-of-pocket expenses beyond
those normally allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1920.  The Judge finds that the parties have not cited
any authority interpreting whether the FLSA permits costs of
distributing a jury award as part of reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses.  The Court has previously awarded, where appropriate,
reasonable costs for providing notice to the class.  While
reasonable distribution costs appear to be compensable out-of-
pocket expenses under the FLSA, she will reserve ruling on
whether the costs to distribute the award will be taxed to Werner
until the Plaintiffs have incurred those costs.

Accordingly, Judge Camp overruled the Plaintiffs' Objection to
Costs Taxed; and granted their Motion for Clarification
consistent with her order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/4aqCwh from Leagle.com.

Philip Petrone, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph L. Messa, Jr. --
jmessa@messalaw.com -- MESSA & ASSOCIATES, Joshua S. Boyette --
jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ,
SWIDLER LAW FIRM, Richard S. Swartz -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -
- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM & Thomas N. Sweeney --
tsweeney@messalaw.com -- MESSA & ASSOCIATES.

Brian Pankz, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Stewart Fisher, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated & Jasbir Singh, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S.
Boyette, SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Justin L.
Swidler, SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM, Richard S. Swartz, SWARTZ,
SWIDLER LAW FIRM & Thomas N. Sweeney, MESSA & ASSOCIATES.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Werner Trucking &
Drivers Management, LLC, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth A.
Culhane -- eculhane@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW
FIRM, Joseph E. Jones-- jjones@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER,
STRYKER LAW FIRM, Patrick J. Barrett --
pbarrett@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM & Sarah L.
McGill -- smcgill@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM.


WHITE PLAINS VETERINARY: Tucker Says Website Not Accessible
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHITE PLAINS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05018 (S.D.N.Y., June 5,
2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities.

According to the complaint, because Defendant's website,
www.whiteplainsvets.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


WINTHROP RADIOLOGY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Sypert Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN SYPERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WINTHROP RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04984 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities.

According to the complaint, because Defendant's website,
www.whiteplainsvets.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


WIRELESS VISION: "Arteaga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes Arteaga, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wireless Vision, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00621 (E.D.
Wis., April 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Retail Sales Associate
in March 2013.

Wireless Vision, LLC is a United States-based retailer of T-
Mobile products and services.  The Defendant manages, operates,
and/or owns approximately 500 stores or locations across the
United States, including in the State of Wisconsin. The
Defendant's corporate headquarters is located in Bloomfield
Hills, Michigan.   [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      David M. Potteiger, Esq.
      Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Tel: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
              sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
              dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
              mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com





                            *********


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  * * *