CAR_Public/180621.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, June 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 124



                            Headlines


215 SOHO CAFE: Faces "Valle" Suit in E.D. New York
ADT INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AIDA GROUP: Augusta Ventures, Legal Capital to Fund Wage Suit
AIDA GROUP: Perth Woman Joins Wage Theft Class Action
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action

ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
APPLE INC: Faces 3rd Class Action Over Macbook Keyboard Defect
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Former PM Testifies in Home Insulation Class Action
AWA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Porter" Suit in C.D. California

BARON CAPITAL: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
BAUBLE BAR: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Miners File Class Suit Over Bounced Checks
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Franklin" Suit in S.D. New York
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Avios Fuel Surcharges

CANADA: Equitas Society's Walk for Veterans to Help Fund Suit
CANADA: Class Action Over CWB Privatization Takes Step Forward
CIGNA HEALTH: Hit With 2nd Class-Action Lawsuit
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Still Faces Money Laundering Class Actions
CORE POWER: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

DARP INC: Faces "Norrid" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
DAVENPORT, IO: PTO Suing School District Over Special Education
DEOLEO USA: Olive Oil Makers Agree to $7-Mil. Customer Pay Out
DYNASTY VI: Faces "Islam" Suit in E.D. New York
E.L.F. COSMETICS: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York

EPIC SYSTEMS: May Win Dismissal of Additional Class Action Suit
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Filed
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Beats Class-Action Suit Over Anthem Fallout
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Emergency Stay in Battle Over Faceprints
FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Class Action Transferred to Ohio

FERGUSON, MO: Insurer Sues Over Class Action Court Fees
FLUOR CORP: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GAP APPAREL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in California Superior Court
GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS: Gatlinburg Fire Victims Seeks Class Action
GREENVILLE, NC: Sued Over 2015 Mold Incident

GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit in S.D. Ohio
GLORYRIDGE AT GETTYSBURG: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: New Rape Allegation in Class-Action Lawsuit
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Denies Sex Crimes Allegations, Awaits Trial
HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Class Action Over River Contamination

HOTELS.COM: Pine Bluff Invites Magnolia to Join Sales Tax Case
HOUSTON TEXANS: Five More Former NFL Cheerleaders File Suit
IDAHO: Class Suit Goes After Public School Districts
JIVAMUKTI YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
JMP SECURITIES: Faces "Crain" Suit in California Superior Court

LANCASTER GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate Claims
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT: Faces "Smith" Suit in S.D. California
LENDING CLUB: Faces "Lynch" Suit in E.D. New York
LUCKY VITAMIN: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
MARSHALL MIDDLE: 34 Join Class-Action Suit Over ISD's Boiler Leak

MARYLHURST UNIVERSITY: Students Seek Class-Action Status
MCDONALD'S CORP: Customers Suing Over Unwanted Cheese
MCFADDEN HOTEL: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
MICKEL LAW FIRM: Faces "Schmidt" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
MICRO FOCUS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Chinese Gov't Probe Amid Class Action
MICRON: Questioned by Chinese Authorities Following Lawsuit
MILWAUKEE: Pays Another $375,000 to Settle Illegal Police Strip
MODO YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Jakubowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
N.V. PERRICONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
NBA MEDIA: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
NEW DOMINION: Earthquake Lawsuit Certified as Class Action

OKLAHOMA: Monitors Overseeing Pinnacle Plan Call for Swift Action
PAALI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Lawsuit Adds Tank Manufacturer as Defendant
PEAK TIME: Faces "Ametepe" Suit in S.D. New York
POPCHIPS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Zieley" Suit in E.D. New York
PORTLAND, OR: ACLU Gets Class-Action Suit in PBB Kettling Case
PROTHENA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
QUINSTREET INC: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit
QUINTIS LIMITED: Faces Another Class Action Lawsuit

RECRO PHARMA: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
RECRO PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action
RUBIN-LOBO LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
S-TRIP: Faces $7-Mil. Class Action Lawsuit
SAWGRASS GRAND: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida

SCRANTON, PA: Lawsuit Over Trash Fee to be Hashed Out in Court
SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Ex-Directors, Officers Must Face Lawsuit
SPOTIFY USA: To Pay $113MM to Settle Copyright Class Action
STATE STREET: Special Master Recommends Significant Fee Refund
SYMANTEC CORP: Klein Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

SYMANTEC CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TESLA INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Autopilot System
TEZOS SECURITIES: Community Petitions End to Class Action Suits
TIGER RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Another Case Over Teen Pregnancy Program

UNITED STATES: Mentally Disableds' Suit vs. DHS Can Proceed
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Witt" Suit in S.D. Florida
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Kelly" Suit in N.D. New York
WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE: Alberta Court of Appeal Upholds Class Suit
WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action Over Maytag Aqualift Technology

YOGA WORKS: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

* 11th Cir. Affirms ADA Preemption of Class Action
* Australia's Class Action Law Firms Warn Against Reforms
* Colorado Springs Attorney Files 2nd Suit v. PFC Manufacturers
* DC Plan Executives Wind Up in Crosshairs of ERISA Lawsuits
* GDPR Non-Compliant APAC Firms Liable for Class Actions

* Hershner Hunter Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
* Mississippi Supreme Court Blocks Class Actions in State Courts
* Nevada Senator Calls for Diabetes Drug Pricing Transparency
* SCOTUS Green Lights CA Waivers in Major Win for Employers






                            *********


215 SOHO CAFE: Faces "Valle" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 215 Soho Cafe Corp.
The case is styled as Kelsey S Valle, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 215 Soho Cafe Corp.
doing business as: Soho Cafe & Grill, 8312 Soho Cafe Corp.
doing business as: Soho Cafe & Grill, Jose Zosayas, Rene Brown
and Jose Alfredo Galicia, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03475
(E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

215 Soho Cafe Corp is a restaurant located at 8312 5th Ave -
Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ADT INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ADT Inc. (NYSE:ADT)
("ADT or the "Company") securities between January 15, 2018 and
May 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in shares of ADT Inc. are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website -- www.whafh.com

If you have incurred losses in the shares of ADT Inc. and would
like to assist with the litigation process as a lead plaintiff,
you may, no later than July 20 , 2018, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor
in ADT Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

     -- historical metrics integral to appraising ADT "key value
drivers" and the likely and consequently materially adverse
effects on ADT's future results, share price, and prospects;

     -- the already occurring 75% increase in year-over-year
losses;

     -- the other complete yet undisclosed materially negative
fourth-quarter ("4Q") and full-year ("FY") 2017 results and
trends;

     -- ADT's dependence on the recently enacted Federal tax cut
to meet even the extreme low end of its 2017 estimate ranges; and
that

     -- as a result, ADT's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 18, 2018, ADT conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), issuing approximately 105 million shares of ADT common
stock to the investing public priced at $14.00 per share.

On March 15, 2018, ADT announced its financial and operating
results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2017.
Contrary to analyst expectations, ADT reported an adjusted loss
for the fourth quarter of $0.06 per share, excluding special
items. Following this news, ADT's share price fell $1.28, or
12.54%, to close at $8.93 on March 15, 2018.

Since the IPO, ADT's common stock price has fallen to below $8.00
per share, representing a decline of more than 42% from the IPO
price.

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Email: gstone@whafh.com,
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


AIDA GROUP: Augusta Ventures, Legal Capital to Fund Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that UK-based funders Augusta
Ventures and Balance Legal Capital (the former of which recently
opened a Sydney office), are set to fund a class action against a
pair of Australian direct marketing companies, AIDA and Credico,
who are alleged to have grossly underpaid the door-to-door and
direct sales workers in their employ. [GN]


AIDA GROUP: Perth Woman Joins Wage Theft Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Shannon Hampton, writing for The West Australian, reports that a
Perth woman who says she was paid below the minimum wage when she
worked for a marketing company fundraising for charities has
joined a new multimillion-dollar national class action to be
filed on June 4 in the Federal Court in Sydney.

Canberra-based law firm Adero Law, in conjunction with the
National Union of Workers, were on June 4 set to launch two class
actions against international direct marketing companies AIDA
Group and Credico Australia on behalf of Applecross woman Kelly
Jenkins and about 100 other workers across the country.

Adero Law partner Rory Markham said that it would be alleged that
the group of workers were victims of wage exploitation, with
underpayments for those in the group estimated to be in the
millions of dollars.

The firm has described the action as the "opening salvo" in a
legal battle that may eventually involve thousands more alleged
victims of wage theft.

"The action is designed to ensure that vulnerable Australians who
were badly underpaid, often less than $5 an hour when the legal
minimum is more than $17, are paid what they are owed,"
Mr Markham said.

According to the NUW, affected workers sold products door-to-door
and in shopping centres for major businesses including Telstra,
Optus and Foxtel, as well as several well-known charities.

Ms Jenkins spent four months working for AIDA Group franchise
company AF4 in mid-2016, selling monthly subscriptions for the
Fred Hollows Foundation and the Australian Red Cross.

She said she worked 50 hours a week, Monday to Saturday, and was
paid an average weekly wage of $250.

"It was really long hours," she said.  "We had to be in the
office by about 9am . . . then we would go out to the field to do
the doorknocking . . . and we would be out until 7pm or 8pm and
we would only have two or three breaks and sometimes if we
weren't knocking on enough doors we wouldn't take breaks.

"I wasn't sure whether or not I was getting underpaid at first,
as I had never done that type of work before."

But Ms Jenkins said she soon grew "suspicious after a few pays
and seeing how little I was getting considering how much I was
working".

"Even though I was working so much, I was still not making enough
to cover my bills and rent," she said.

Ms Jenkins said while she had an idea that "something wasn't
right with this company", she said she continued the work because
she needed to financially support herself while she was looking
for a spray-painting apprenticeship.

"I hope they see that they did wrong and they can't just do that
to people," Ms Jenkins said. [GN]


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Allegiant Travel Company (NASDAQ:
ALGT) from June 8, 2015 through April 13, 2018, both dates
inclusive ("Class Period") of the important June 25, 2018 lead
plaintiff deadline in the first-filed case commenced by the Rosen
Law Firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Allegiant
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Allegiant lacked adequate systems to ensure its
aircraft were being properly maintained; (2) consequently,
Allegiant was not operating responsibly and ethically, and
providing safe working conditions for its employees; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 25, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew LeBlanc, writing for The Journal Gazette, reports that a
ruling from a judge moves forward a federal lawsuit that says
Allen County Sheriff David Gladieux prevented hundreds of jail
inmates from voting in the 2016 presidential election.

The class-action lawsuit filed last year in U.S. District Court
in Fort Wayne claims Gladieux "systematically disenfranchised
hundreds of eligible voters held in the Allen County Jail during
the 2016 general election by refusing to provide them absentee
ballots or alternative access to the polls."

Chief Judge Theresa Springmann ruled on May 24 that information
included in the lawsuit meets requirements for a class-action
lawsuit, which means it allows for many claims for damages to be
filed together rather than separately.

The lawsuit could apply to more than 300 inmates, court documents
say.

Demetrius Buroff and Ian Barnhart were in jail and "were not at
any time permitted to vote by absentee ballot, in-person voting
or any other means. [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces 3rd Class Action Over Macbook Keyboard Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that Apple was hit with two class actions
(one and two) in May over the MacBook Pro's faulty keyboard that
uses a butterfly key mechanism.  Now that June has kicked in, a
third class action lawsuit over the same issue was filed on June
2, 2018 on behalf of Diego Binatena individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated

Just prior to the class actions being filed in May, a petition
came to light from Charge.org that demanded Apple take action to
fix their MacBook Pro's faulty keyboard.  The petition was backed
by a number of longstanding Apple bloggers such as John Gruber of
Daring Fireball.

Overview of the Action

The Plaintiff's complaint before the court begins with an
overview of the action that is presented as follows:

"Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and
others who purchased MacBook Pro laptop computers on or after
late 2016 with defective "butterfly" keyboards.  These keyboards
are prone to failure, and, when replaced, often fail again.

Apple is a market leader in the manufacture, marketing and sale
of computers and computing devices.  In late 2016, Apple
introduced a new version of its high-end MacBook Pro laptop,
featuring new a "butterfly" keyboard, which is more compact than
previous keyboards.  This keyboard, however, is particularly
prone to failure, especially when dust or other debris becomes
lodged underneath the keys.

The cost of replacing a keyboard is approximately $700.

Unfortunately, replacing failed keyboards with the same butterfly
keyboard does not fix the issue -- the replacement keyboards are
also prone to the same failure.

Keyboards are an essential part of a laptop computer.  Without a
functioning keyboard, the utility and value of a laptop is vastly
diminished.

Plaintiff brings this action for monetary, declaratory and
equitable relief for Apple's: 1) breach of its express and
implied warranties; 2) breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 3) breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing; 4) breach of California's Unfair
Competition Law; 5) breach of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; and 6) fraudulent concealment. "

In his testimony Mr. Binatena further described how the "b, n and
m keys" were unusable.  He brought his MacBook Pro to an Apple
Store for repair and they only fixed the "b" key by replacing it.

He went back to the store 2-3 weeks later, being dissatisfied
with the repair, and was told that his MacBook Pro was now out of
warranty and it would cost $500 just for a full diagnosis of the
problem and additional money for any repairs

Why wasn't a full diagnosis done the first time around? I guess
that will come to light during the trial if the class action gets
the green light to proceed.

Causes for Action

Count 1: Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

Count 2: Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200

Count 3: Fraudulent Concealment

Count 4: Breach of Written Warranty

Count 5: Breach of Implied Warranty

Count 6: Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec
2301

Count 7: Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1792

Count 8: Breach of Contract/Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
[GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tanea Jones, on behalf of
herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03465 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a Data recovery service in Des
Plaines, Illinois.[BN]


AUSTRALIA: Former PM Testifies in Home Insulation Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that former
prime minister Kevin Rudd has told a court he would have insisted
safety risks with the Home Insulation Program be fixed before it
was rolled out, had he been aware of them.

Mr Rudd gave evidence via video link this morning from New York
in the class action lawsuit by more than 140 insulation
manufacturers, suppliers and installers who claim they were
financially damaged when the program was terminated abruptly
following four deaths in New South Wales and Queensland.

Jim Delany QC, for the plaintiffs, asked Mr Rudd what he would
have done if the public service had raised the prospect of
delaying the program because of safety risks.

Mr Rudd said as chairman of the cabinet his response would have
been that the program had to be "right".

"We cannot proceed with a program that has unacceptable safety
risks," he said.

Mr Rudd told the court he had not been informed of safety risks
prior to February 2009 and referred to findings of the Royal
Commission into the program which supported his statement.

Under cross examination by Rachel Doyle SC, for the government,
Mr Rudd said if a minister had provided advice that the risks
could not have been resolved then there was no basis on which the
commonwealth could proceed.

"I was chair of the cabinet, I could not in all conscience
proceed with the program," he said.

He said solving the safety risks would have been "paramount" and
when revisiting the program advice would have been taken from
members of the Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee
including treasury secretary Ken Henry.

The trial before Justice John Dixon continues. [GN]


AWA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Porter" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Awa Collections.
The case is styled as Ashley Porter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Awa Collections
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01050 (C.D.
Cal., June 13, 2018).

AWA Collections is a licensed and bonded collection agency in
Orange, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BARON CAPITAL: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baron Capital, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baron Capital, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05397 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Baron Capital Group, Inc. is an investment management holding
company. The firm, through its subsidiaries, provides mutual
funds, investment advisory, brokerage, and funds distribution
services. Baron Capital Group, Inc. is based in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAUBLE BAR: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bauble Bar, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bauble Bar, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03447 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

BaubleBar Inc. engages in the online retail of jewelry in the
United States and internationally. It provides necklaces,
earrings, bracelets, rings, and personalized products. BaubleBar
Inc. was formerly known as eight1six, Inc. The company was
incorporated in 2010 and is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Miners File Class Suit Over Bounced Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McElhinny, writing for MetroNews, reports that miners at a
coal operation owned by Gov. Jim Justice's family have filed a
federal class action lawsuit over bounced checks.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia in Beckley.  It is against Bluestone
Industries and also names the governor's grown children, Jay and
Jill Justice, directors of the business.

Also named is James Miller, secretary and treasurer for
Bluestone.

Governor Justice became president and chief executive of
Bluestone Industries in 1993, after his father's death.  His long
association with the company is still spelled out on Justice's
official biography on the Governor's Office website.

During late 2008 and early 2009, Justice negotiated the $568
million sale of Bluestone and most of the rest of the family's
coal holdings to Mechel, OAO, one of Russia's leading mining and
metal companies.

Downward pressure on the mining industry led Mechel to shut some
of the mines. Justice bought them back in 2015 for just $5
million.

Justice reopened some of the mines and hired back a couple
hundred miners.

"It was the right thing to do," he said in 2015.

"There was a real possibility they (Mechel OAO) could have just
walked and left everyone holding the bag.  With all that at play
-- and you know how I feel about West Virginia -- the last thing
on earth we needed was another bad outcome. If they had just
left, it would have been tragic."

Bluestone has remained among the many business interests listed
on Justice's financial disclosure form with the state Ethics
Commission.

When Justice took over as West Virginia's governor in January,
2017, he placed responsibility for the coal business with James
Justice III, known as Jay.

The lawsuit over bounced paychecks was filed this March 6 and
then amended April 11 on behalf of miner Kenneth Cozart,
representing a class of those who were also affected.  The
lawsuit contends Cozart, who lives in Raleigh County, represents
hundreds, maybe thousands, of miners similarly affected.

The action contends Bluestone violated the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act:
"Plaintiffs and their co-workers have suffered and continue to
suffer harm as a result of Bluestone's failure to pay its
employees wages earned and owing."

On Feb. 23, Cozart was issued a paycheck and tried to deposit it,
the lawsuit states.

"The paycheck bounced, causing bad check fees to be charged
against the plaintiff's account," the lawsuit states.

"Sometime thereafter, Bluestone wired the plaintiff wages owed
him due to the bad check deposited on February 23, 2018.
Plaintiff and other employees were charged a wire transfer fee
for this payment."

That wasn't the first time for paychecks to bounce, the lawsuit
states.

"On several prior occasions, the plaintiff was given paychecks
for wages earned and deposited said checks in his account and
those checks bounced, costing the plaintiff returned check fees.

"Bluestone would again wire the plaintiff his pay in the same
manner as set forth above, again incurring wire transfer fees."

John Hussell, the lawyer for Bluestone, says the company has
already tried to make the pay situation right.

"When we became aware of the issue, we immediately took action to
ensure that all of the employees received their full pay,"
Mr. Hussell said.

"There was no interruption of their benefits and all of the
employees were paid promptly after we became aware of this issue.
We are happy to have these miners working with us and are
committed to ensuring that they are paid for their hard work."

The lawyers who filed the class action suit are Anthony Majestro
and Anthony Salvatore.

Mr. Salvatore's website makes reference to more than one lawsuit
over bad checks.

The law practice contends that Bluestone is in a joint venture
with Legacy Land Management Inc.

A separate class action suit has been filed against Legacy Land
Management and its operators.

"If you or someone you know is dealing with Legacy Land
Management or any other Jim Justice owned mine affiliate know
this:  when an employer issues bad payroll checks the law is on
the employees' side 100%," Salvatore says on his website.

The class action suit against Legacy was filed Jan. 3 and then
amended April 12.

James Bradley of Fayette County and Garret Lambert of Crab
Orchard represent the class in that case.

This lawsuit again contends Mr. Bradley and Mr. Lambert may
represent hundreds or thousands of employees in the same
situation.

On Dec. 6, 2017, they were issued paychecks for their work, the
lawsuit states.  Mr. Bradley was also given a check for his
monthly stipend for a truck allowance.

"On the same date, both checks bounced, causing bad check fees to
be charged against plaintiffs accounts."

Two days later, the lawsuit states, Legacy wired the two the
wages they were owed.  But Mr. Bradley was never paid the truck
stipend, the lawsuit contends.  They were charged a wire transfer
fee, the lawsuit states.

Then, five days before Christmas, they were given paychecks
again.

"Plaintiffs deposited said checks in their accounts and those
paychecks bounced, costing the plaintiffs another returned check
fee.

"Legacy again wired the plaintiffs their pay in the same manner
as set forth above. Plaintiffs again incurred bad check fees
and/or wire transfer fees."

On Dec. 29, 2017, the lawsuit contends, it happened again.

"Upon information and belief these checks and the checks for all
other co-workers have not cleared and banks have placed 7-day
holds on all legacy payroll checks," the lawsuit states.  "As
such, plaintiffs and their co-workers do not have access to their
salary." [GN]


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Franklin" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker
International, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Franklin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Brinker International, Inc. doing business as:
Chili's Grill and Bar and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05395 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Chili's Grill & Bar is an American casual dining restaurant chain
that features Tex-Mex-style cuisine. The company was founded by
Larry Lavine in Texas in 1975 and is currently owned and operated
by Brinker International.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Frank A Perez, Esq.
   Kasdan Lipp Smith Weber Turner LLP
   360 East 2nd Street Suite 300
   Los Angeles, CA 90012
   Tel: (213) 254-4800
   Fax: (213) 254-4801
   Email: fperez@klwtlaw.com

      - and -

   Graham B Lipp Smith, Esq.
   Kasdan Lipp Smith Weber Turner LLP
   360 East 2nd Street Suite 300
   Los Angeles, CA 90012
   Tel: (213) 254-4800
   Fax: (213) 254-4801
   Email: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com

      - and -

   Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq.
   Kasdan Lipp Smith Weber Turner LLP
   360 East 2nd Street Suite 300
   Los Angeles, CA 90012
   Tel: (213) 254-4800
   Fax: (213) 254-4801
   Email: janderson@klwtlaw.com

      - and -

   Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

      - and -

   Theodore W Maya, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Email: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

      - and -

   Tina Wolfson, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Avios Fuel Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reports that British Airways is in hot water with some of
its American frequent flyers over the way it levies fuel charges
on award tickets.  A class action lawsuit on behalf of the
airline's U.S.-based Executive Club members went live claiming
that the airline has routinely been overcharging passengers when
they use Avios to book award tickets.

Settlements in either cash or Avios miles are apparently
available for anyone who booked an award ticket and paid fuel
surcharges on British Airways between November 9, 2006 and April
17, 2013.

It's not uncommon for airlines to apply taxes and fuel surcharges
on an award ticket.  A typical 12,500 mile award redemption on
American Airlines between Kalamazoo and Minneapolis, for example,
adds $5.60 of "taxes and carrier-imposed fees."  Where the fees
get questionable, however, is when airlines add fuel surcharges
to make up for the price of oil on any given day of flight.  In
the United States, fuel surcharges are rarely used by domestic
carriers to collect additional fees on award tickets -- even when
flying to international destinations. UK carriers, however, have
aggressively pursued fuel surcharges, which can make up a
significant portion of any award ticket's fees.

Booking a sample ticket from Chicago to London through American
Airlines, for example, will produce a variety of options for
mainline and partner carriers -- including British Airways,
Finnair and Iberia.  Completing that booking using only American
Airlines flights results in a cost of 30,000 miles and $5.60. But
as soon as a transatlantic British Airways flight is selected,
the price rockets up to 30,000 miles and $188.40 in fees.
According to American's price breakdown, $160 of that cost goes
to "carrier-imposed fees."

While adding these fees is technically legal, many have argued
that British Airways is simply using the fees to overcharge
customers irrespective of the price of oil.  In 2006, the UK's
Office of Fair Trading fined British Airways GBP121.5m after it
found that the airline was illegally price fixing with fuel
surcharges.  And a chorus of bloggers and consumer advocates have
stepped up to point out the discrepancy between BA flight fuel
charges and those of competing carriers on similar routes.

To perhaps save face, British has recently started offering a
handful of award ticket fare sales to illustrate the value of
Avios to its customers.  But even those are somewhat problematic.
In analyzing a few sample fares, the blog One Mile at a Time
found one 50% off route between London and Miami that cost 16,250
Avios.  Fuel surcharges on that route, however, still added an
additional GBP373.09.  And booking the same route in cash (where
one would earn frequent flyer miles instead of spending them)
would only cost GBP399.

It's clear that British Airways still needs to do more to
properly price award tickets, especially in light of the relative
cost of competitors fares.  The class action settlement in the
United States may be the first step in taking corrective action.

The deadline to submit claim forms for a fuel charge refund is
July 29th. [GN]


CANADA: Equitas Society's Walk for Veterans to Help Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Vancouver reports that there were as many reasons for
marching in the Equitas Society's Canadian Walk for Veterans on
June 3 as there are men and women who have served in this
country's armed forces.

The event was first held in Burnaby last October.  On June 3, it
expanded to seven cities across Canada -- the first nationwide
iteration of what the organizers hope will become an annual
gathering of Canadian veterans and an annual opportunity for
civilians to learn more about them.

"This was a perfect opportunity for all veterans from all
engagements, all across the country to get together and share
their stories," said Paul Smith, a member the Equitas Society's
board of directors.  "And an opportunity for regular Canadians,
members of the public, to get out and walk with veterans and hear
their stories."

Beyond the camaraderie, the march also serves as a political
demonstration.  The Equitas Society exists, in part, to cover the
expenses of an ongoing class-action lawsuit being brought by
Canadian veterans against the federal government.  The suit's
ultimate goal is to restore the right of Canadian veterans to
lifelong pensions, something the government ceased providing in
2005.

Don Sorochan is one of the lawyers handling the lawsuit.  He told
CTV News his firm is working pro bono, but that there are still
material costs associated with bringing the case, which the
society pays.  The society's funds also ensure that if the
veterans bringing the lawsuit ultimately lose, they won't have to
pay court costs out of their own pockets.

For Mr. Sorochan, this issue is personal.  One of the
representative plaintiffs in the case grew up in a house across
the street from Mr. Sorochan's.

"He got seriously injured over there and got a pittance for a
very serious injury," Mr. Sorochan said.  "I didn't see any way
that this was going to be solved by normal processes."

The dual-purpose nature of the June 3 walk -- with its focus both
on bringing veterans and civilians together and on increasing
awareness of and support for the society's work -- reflects the
myriad challenges Canada's veterans face, according to Equitas
Society president Marc Burchell.

"Canadians have a social covenant -- or what we refer to as a
military covenant -- which is a responsibility to Canada's
veterans," Mr. Burchell said.  "They face any number of issues
beyond what Equitas is focusing on . . . There's a multitude of
challenges that they face and largely, most of them, are due to
the bureaucracies of government."

Events like the walk can help to facilitate action on a variety
of these issues, he said.

"Part of the solution over and above our court case is to bring
veterans together, unite them with one common voice, and bring
Canadians in on the conversation," Mr. Burchall said.  "This is a
way to bring veterans and Canadians together and tell the
government of Canada: 'What you're doing is not adequate and you
need to do better.'" [GN]


CANADA: Class Action Over CWB Privatization Takes Step Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dawson, writing for Grainews, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit against the federal government and G3, alleging
farmers' money helped privatize the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB),
is another step closer, says Anders Bruun, Esq. one of the
lawyers working on the suit.

In a written ruling released May 28, Master Shayne Berthaudin of
the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ruled against the
government's attempt to walk away from a putative class action,
which claims more than $145 million in damages owed to farmers
who delivered wheat and barley to the CWB in the 2010-11 and
2011-12 crop years, along with $10 million in punitive damages.

"This ruling puts the government's shirt in the wringer," Stewart
Wells, a farmer at Swift Current, Sask. and chair of the Friends
of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB), said in an interview on May
31.

"In the proposed class action farmers contend the former minister
of agriculture, Gerry Ritz, deprived farmers of monies they
should have received from the 2010 and 2011 crop years. Instead
of paying farmers, we believe this money was used to sweeten the
pot for whoever was going to acquire the wheat board."

G3 Global Grain Group, a joint venture of U.S. agribusiness Bunge
and Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co. (SALIC),
acquired the CWB and its assets in 2015.

The federal government's failure to stop the lawsuit clears the
way for it being certified, Bruun, a Winnipeg lawyer, said in an
interview.

"We have the paperwork filed seeking certification of the class
action already," said Bruun, adding he is confident it will be
approved by the court.

Bruun represents the proposed class' representative plaintiff,
Brookdale, Man. farmer Andrew Dennis, together with Jordan
Goldblatt and Louis Century, Toronto-based lawyers specializing
in civil litigation and class proceedings.

Of the $151 million Dennis claims should've gone to farmers who
delivered to the CWB, he alleges $145.2 million ended up in the
CWB's contingency fund and $5.9 million was withdrawn from the
CWB's pool accounts. The allegations have not been tested in
court.

The CWB set up a contingency fund to cover losses that occurred
when farmers opted to price grain sales outside the CWB's pools.
It was funded when transactions earned more than the price
farmers sold at. The fund was meant to break even over time.

"In order to fund the transformation of the board to a privately
held entity, the defendants engaged in a course of conduct
intended to reduce payments to farmers who had sold and delivered
grain to the board during the class period and to increase the
monies in the contingency fund," Dennis' statement of claim
alleges.

The federal Canadian Wheat Board Act didn't allow the wheat board
to use money earned from its pool accounts for anything other
than covering its operating expenses. Gerry Ritz, the federal
agriculture minister at the time, said the government would cover
the costs of transitioning the CWB to an entity that could be
acquired by a private company.

"Nevertheless, the board improperly charged $5.9 million in
transition costs to the pool accounts, which reduced the amount
that was available to producers upon payment of their contracts
during the 2011-2012 crop year," the claim alleges.

"The plaintiff (Dennis) pleads that the board breached its duty
of good faith to the class (farmers who delivered to the CWB) by
ignoring its obligations to the producers, and by allocating
money to the Contingency Fund that otherwise would have been paid
to the pool account contract holders."

'Not reason enough'

Dennis' claim, Berthaudin wrote, alleges regulations passed by
the federal government raised the upper limit of funds that could
be credited from the Contingency Fund, to $200 million from $60
million, after which $145.248 million, otherwise due to be paid
to the class, was diverted to the fund.

The government's argument behind its motion to strike out the
statement of claim, Berthaudin wrote, was that the regulations
passed were "statutorily authorized to be passed and are validly
enacted (and thus) cannot constitute unlawful conduct."

However, it's "not plain and obvious to me that the plaintiff
could not establish at trial that there was an unauthorized
purpose behind the passage of the regulations and the flowing of
funds from the pool account to the contingency fund," he wrote in
his dismissal of the government's motion.

"More particulars may become apparent once documentary discovery
has occurred, but that is not reason enough to conclude that the
pleading of material facts thus far is insufficient."

Further, Berthaudin wrote, the government's other argument --
that Dennis' claim constitutes an abuse of process -- relies on
decisions from previous CWB-related proceedings, but the judge
found the "underlying factual allegations" in this claim are
different from those seen in previous rulings.

The judge specifically noted a 2013 Federal Court ruling which
shot down most of a previous class action suit filed by Dennis
and other farmers. In that ruling, the Federal Court
"specifically did not strike out such claims, allowing them to
proceed," Berthaudin wrote.

FCWB, a longtime opponent of the former Conservative government's
deregulation of the CWB's single desk marketing authority, is
backing the proposed class action suit. [GN]


CIGNA HEALTH: Hit With 2nd Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce HealthCare, reports that Cigna
has been served with a second class-action complaint alleging the
insurer conspired with a claims administrator to divert costs to
consumers disguised as fees for medical care.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of California, mirrors a complaint filed in Pennsylvania
in April alleging Cigna colluded with American Specialty Health
(ASH) to misappropriate millions of dollars each year and
falsified Explanation of Benefits (EOB) forms to disguise charges
from ASH.

Cigna contracts with ASH to build a network of providers and
administer claims. In the California lawsuit, a Cigna beneficiary
alleges the insurer diverts administrative costs to members
rather than using plan fees and subscriber premiums.

Similar to the Pennsylvania case, the plaintiffs, Jianliang Zhu
and Joyce Allen, cite several occasions where they were billed
sometimes twice as much as their providers received.

"Under the false pretense that ASH's charges are medical
expenses, Cigna and ASH secretly assess these charges to members
and plans as part of members' and plans' financial responsibility
for health care claims," the complaint states.

A Cigna spokesperson said the company cannot comment on pending
litigation.

Cigna, which is in the process of closing a $67 billion deal with
Express Scripts, has been hit with a rash of lawsuits over the
last several months that allege the insurer overcharged members.

In March, a Connecticut judge allowed the bulk of a lawsuit to
proceed against Cigna alleging the company charged members more
than 10 times the price it paid the pharmacy for certain
medications.

Meanwhile, the insurer has reported strong earnings tied to its
commercial business lines with overall net income up 55% in the
first quarter of 2018 compared to the previous year.[GN]


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Still Faces Money Laundering Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Smyth, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Commonwealth Bank of Australia has agreed to pay A$700m (US$532m)
and admit liability to settle claims by Australia's financial
crime agency that it broke anti-money laundering and counter-
terrorism laws.

The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, is the
largest-ever civil penalty in Australia and is almost double the
A$375m provision made by CBA in its half-year results in
February.

It follows a recent toughening of penalties by the government,
which was forced to call a public inquiry into bank misconduct
following the high-profile money laundering case that erupted
last year.

"While not deliberate, we fully appreciate the seriousness of the
mistakes we made," said Matt Comyn, CBA's chief executive, on
June 4.

"Our agreement is a clear acknowledgment of our failures and is
an important step towards moving the bank forward.  On behalf of
Commonwealth Bank, I apologise to the community for letting them
down."

Australia's biggest bank by assets said it had admitted further
contraventions of Australian law beyond those it had already
acknowledged, including breaching risk procedures, reporting,
monitoring and customer due diligence. It is paying an extra
A$2.5m to cover the legal fees of Austrac, Australia's financial
crime agency.

Shares in CBA closed up 1.4 per cent on June 4 after climbing as
much as 2.4 per cent as investors welcomed an agreement that can
easily be absorbed by the bank, which reported A$4.7bn profit in
the six months through December.

"I can't think of a larger settlement by an Australian bank but
the shares have gone up because people were worried the penalty
could have been a lot higher," said Brian Johnson, analyst at
CLSA.  "This settlement reduces risk and brings the bank closer
to performing a share buy-back with all the surplus capital that
it has on its balance sheet."

CBA is selling its Australia and New Zealand focused life
insurance business to AIA for A$3.8bn and spinning off its
Colonial First State global asset management unit in a deal that
could be worth A$4bn.  Both deals will bolster CBA's balance
sheet and present the opportunity to return cash to shareholders,
according to analysts.

CBA shares have fallen from just above A$85 in August when
Austrac accused CBA of more than 50,000 breaches of the law by
failing to adequately monitor A$624.7m of transactions on its
network of intelligent deposit machines (IDMs).

Austrac alleged the IDMs were used by drug dealers, other
criminals and terrorists to launder tens of millions of dollars
in cash.  It alleged CBA had also failed to assess the risks of
rolling out the machines, which count deposited cash and
instantly credit the designated recipient.

The scandal forced the early retirement of Ian Narev, CBA's
former chief executive, and the shake-up of CBA's board, and
catalysed the government's decision to establish a public inquiry
into financial-sector misconduct.  The resulting Royal Commission
has uncovered widespread wrongdoing across the banking and
financial advice sectors, forcing the resignation of the chairman
and chief executive of AMP, one of Australia's biggest financial
services companies.

CBA still faces shareholder class-action suits linked to the
money laundering scandal.

Nicole Rose, Austrac chief executive, said she hoped CBA's
settlement alerted the financial sector to the consequences of
poor compliance.

"We want compliance to be voluntary, and even taken on with
enthusiasm, however we will not shy away from using our
enforcement powers where necessary," she said. [GN]


CORE POWER: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CorePower Yoga,
LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CorePower Yoga, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05394 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

CorePower Yoga is the largest privately held chain of yoga
studios in the United States. The company is based in Denver,
Colorado and headed by Eric Kufel who serves as the CEO.[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


DARP INC: Faces "Norrid" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darp, Inc. The case
is styled as Shane Norrid, Kermit Michael Troxel, Kevin Hartman,
Tim Hyers, Christopher Lynn Williams, Codie Shreve, Steven
England, Taylor Brantley On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Darp, Inc., An Oklahoma for profit
corporation, Raymond Jones, Hendren Plastics, Inc., An Arkansas
for profit corporation, R & R Engineering Co., Inc. An Oklahoma
for profit corporation TERMINATED: 03/27/2018, Glenn E. Whitman
TERMINATED: 03/27/2018, Simmons Foods, Inc., An Arkansas for
profit corporation TERMINATED: 03/28/2018, Western Alliance, Inc.
formerly known as: Jer-Co Industries, Inc. An Oklahoma for profit
corporation TERMINATED: 03/27/2018 TERMINATED: 03/27/2018 and
Mid-America Cabinets, Inc., an Arkansas for profit corporation
TERMINATED: 03/28/2018, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05110-TLB
(W.D. Ark., June 14, 2018).

Darp Inc is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Tahlequah,
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Brady R. Henderson, Esq.
   PO Box 1626
   Oklahoma City, OK 73101
   Tel: (405) 525-3831
   Fax: (405) 524-2296
   Email: bhenderson@acluok.org

      - and -

   Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 Oakport St, Ste 1150
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830
   Email: bar@asmlawyers.com

      - and -

   Carey A. James, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 Oakport St, Ste 1150
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830
   Email: caj@asmlawyers.com

      - and -

   Daniel E. Smolen, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC
   701 S Cincinnati Ave
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com

      - and -

   David A. Warta, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC
   701 S Cincinnati Ave
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: davidwarta@ssrok.com

      - and -

   Donald E. Smolen , II, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC
   701 S Cincinnati Ave
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: donaldsmolen@ssrok.com

      - and -

   Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 Oakport St, Ste 1150
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830
   Email: hvr@asmlawyers.com

      - and -

   Lauren Lambright, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC
   701 S Cincinnati Ave
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: laurenlambright@ssrok.com

      - and -

   Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 Oakport St, Ste 1150
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830
   Email: ras@asmlawyers.com

      - and -

   Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 Oakport St, Ste 1150
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830
   Email: rwlm@asmlawyers.com

      - and -

   Amy N. Gioletti, Esq.
   PO Box 1626
   Oklahoma City, OK 73101
   Tel: (405) 437-4435
   Fax: (405) 524-2296
   Email: agioletti@acluok.org

      - and -

   Laura M. Hamilton, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC
   701 S Cincinnati Ave
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: laurahamilton@ssrok.com


The Defendants are represented by:

   William B. Putman, Esq.
   Putman Law Office
   3900 N. Front Street Suite 204
   Fayetteville, AR 72703
   Tel: (479) 287-1288
   Email: bill@putmanlawoffice.com

      - and -

   Jack Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
   Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC (Seminole)
   PO Box 70
   Seminole, OK 74818-0070
   Tel: (405) 382-3333
   Fax: (405) 382-6303
   Email: jackjr@mroklaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
   Teldman, Franden, Woodard, Farris & Boudreaux
   525 South Main Street, Suite 1000
   Tulsa, OK 74103-4514
   Tel: (918) 583-7129

      - and -

   Paula J. Quillin, Esq.
   Franden Farris Quillin Goodnight & Roberts
   Two W Second St, Ste 900
   Tulsa, OK 74103-4509
   Tel: (918) 583-7129
   Fax: (918) 584-3814
   Email: pquillin@tulsalawyer.com

      - and -

   Terence P. Brennan, Esq.
   Levinson Smith & Huffman, PC
   1743 E 71st St
   Tulsa, OK 74136-5108
   Tel: (918) 492-4433
   Fax: (918) 492-6224
   Email: brennanlaw@sbcglobal.net

      - and -

   Amy M. Stipe, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals
   One Leadership Square Suite 1500
   211 North Robinson Ave.
   Oklahoma City, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 235-5500
   Fax: (405) 235-2875
   Email: astipe@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   Christopher S. Thrutchley, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals
   1100 ONEOK Plaza
   100 W. 5th St.
   Tulsa, OK 74103
   Tel: (918) 595-4800
   Fax: (918) 595-4990
   Email: cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   John David Russell, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals - Tulsa
   100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100
   Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
   Tel: (918) 599-0621
   Fax: (918) 583-9659
   Email: jrussell@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   Justin A. Lollman, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals - Tulsa
   100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100
   Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
   Tel: (918) 595-4800
   Fax: (918) 595-4990
   Email: jlollman@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   Philip D. Hixon, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals - Tulsa
   100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100
   Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
   Tel: (918) 595-4800
   Fax: (918) 595-4990
   Email: phixon@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   Sidney G. Dunagan, Esq.
   Gable Gotwals - OKC
   211 N Robinson, 15th Flr
   Oklahoma City, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 235-5500
   Fax: (405) 235-2875
   Email: sdunagan@gablelaw.com

      - and -

   Jessica L. Johnson, Esq.
   Best & Sharp, PC
   One W Third St, Ste 900
   Tulsa, OK 74103
   Tel: (918) 582-1234
   Fax: (918) 585-9447
   Email: jjohnson@bestsharp.com

      - and -

   Sean H. McKee, Esq.
   Best & Sharp, PC
   One W Third St, Ste 900
   Tulsa, OK 74103
   Tel: (918) 582-1234
   Fax: (918) 585-9447
   Email: smckee@bestsharp.com


DAVENPORT, IO: PTO Suing School District Over Special Education
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Cook, writing for Quad City Times, reports that members of
the Davenport District Wide PTO developed a set of action plans
in regard to special education, including consideration of a
lawsuit against the Davenport School District.

Parents, teachers, administrators and other community members met
for two hours on June 2 morning at Davenport Public Library
Eastern Avenue Branch.

"We do think it's a possibility to sue our district to make these
things happen," said parent Kari Dugan, one of the leaders of the
PTO, who referred to a list of action items the group developed
during the meeting.

PTO teams and action items for consideration include:

   * Social team: educational theme book club, teacher/parent
meetups over coffee and community-wide roundtable discussions.

   * Outreach: speakers, meeting dates, training in mental-
health, first aid, parent advocacy, racial bias and IEPs (an
Individualized Education Program is a written document designed
to meet a child's learning needs).

   * Legal action: formal complaints, research, "IEP buddies,"
class action, the end of isolation rooms for students.

   * Public relations: funding, politics, public events, media
and letters to the editor.

"Our student delivery model is suffering. It's really outdated,"
said parent Gina Hale, a meeting facilitator who spoke when
parents discussed the need for para-educators to be specially
trained.

Hale's daughter has a swallowing disorder, so she asked that her
child's para-educator be trained in safe feeding.

"They said it's not in her IEP so we're not doing it," Hale
continued. "It's not in the IEP because you didn't put it in the
IEP, even though I asked for it to be in the IEP."

School Board President Ralph Johanson and school board member
Allison Beck attended the meeting.

"It's eye-opening," Beck said. "On the other hand, I have to
remind myself I also know parents who have had good experiences
with special-ed."

"Nobody should have a bad experience," she said. "It is really
helpful to hear from parents."

"If we're going to get better, we have to listen," Steve
Mielenhausen, principal at Madison Elementary School in
Davenport, said after the meeting. "I was shocked when I heard
some of this stuff.

"I think, based on a lot of what I heard in there, there needs to
be more people at the table here ... (including) more
representatives from the district."

Attendants included Iowa Sen. Jim Lykam, D-Davenport and schools
advocate John De Taeye.

After the meeting, Hale said she thinks it's "really, really
positive when you have multiple stakeholders in the same room"
talking to each other.[GN]


DEOLEO USA: Olive Oil Makers Agree to $7-Mil. Customer Pay Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Neeley, writing for Fox 19 Now, reports that your bottle
of extra virgin olive oil imported from Italy, may not be the oil
you think it is.

Deoleo USA Inc. settled a class action lawsuit that contends that
certain "Bertolli" brand olive oil products were inappropriately
marketed as "Imported from Italy" and/or "Extra Virgin",
according to oliveoilsettlement.com.

The company agreed to pay out $7 million dollars to purchasers
and stop marketing its products in the manner described in the
lawsuit, although Deoleo denied any wrongdoing and contends its
products have always been marketed truthfully.

Customers who purchased certain Bertolli brand olive oil between
May 23, 2010 and April 16, 2018, may be entitled to a cash
payment from the settlement.

The case involves three types of Bertolli brand olive oil:

Bertolli Extra Virgin Olive Oil: May 23, 2010 and April 16, 2018
Bertolli Extra Light Olive Oil: May 23, 2010 and December 31,
2015
Bertolli Classico Olive Oil: May 23, 2010 and December 31, 2015
Customers could be awarded $8.75 per product purchased. Details
on the settlement and how to submit a claim can be found here.

If the settlement does not become effective because it is not
approved or reversed on appeal, the litigation will continue.

The deadline to opt out or object to the settlement is July 12,
2018. [GN]


DYNASTY VI: Faces "Islam" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynasty VI Food
Corp. The case is styled as Ahsanul Islam, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by Dynasty VI Food Corp. d/b/a Fresh N Save and/or Key Food;
Dynasty VII Food Corp. d/b/a Food Dynasty; Dynasty Meat Corp.
d/b/a Fresh N Save and/or Key Food; 50-18 Meat, Plaintiff v.
Dynasty VI Food Corp. d/b/a Fresh N Save and/or Key Food, Dynasty
VII Food Corp. d/b/a Food Dynasty, Dynasty Meat Corp. d/b/a Fresh
N Save and/or Key Food and 50-18 Meat Corp. d/b/a Fresh N Save,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03469 (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Food Dynasty is a privately held company in Woodside, NY.
Categorized under Independent Supermarkets, records show it was
established in 1993 and incorporated in NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


E.L.F. COSMETICS: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.L.F. Cosmetics,
Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
05377 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

E.L.F. Cosmetics is an international cosmetics brand based in New
York City. Founded by Joseph Shamah and Scott Vincent Borba in
2004, it sells products largely at $1, $3, and $6 price
points.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: May Win Dismissal of Additional Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Monica, writing for EHR Intelligence, reports that a class
action lawsuit brought against Epic Systems by quality assurance
workers who claimed they were illegally denied overtime pay may
be dismissed by a federal judge because of the recent Supreme
Court decision that upholds Epic's arbitration agreements,
according to Wisconsin State Journal.

US District Judge William Conley stated on May 23 that he plans
to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against Epic in
December 2016 by Epic quality assurance workers unless convinced
otherwise.

Conley cited the Supreme Court's recent decision that Epic
workers who signed arbitration agreements must settle wage and
hour disputes individually rather than through collective action
as the basis for this potential motion.

The class action lawsuit brought against Epic by quality
assurance workers was put on hold in January 2017.

Epic filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the
quality assurance workers had signed agreements dictating that
employees can only resolve wage and working hours claims through
individual arbitration.

The health IT company took the same stance in the recent Epic v.
Lewis case involving technical writers who filed a complaint
claiming they had also not been appropriately compensated for
overtime.

In Epic v. Lewis, Supreme Court justices ruled in a 5-4 decision
that the Epic technical writers had waived their right to pursue
wage disputes through class action lawsuits by signing the
arbitration agreements.

Shortly after this decision, Conley lifted the hold on the
quality assurance workers' class action lawsuit and stated the
lawyers representing the quality assurance workers -- the same
lawyers who represented Lewis -- have until June 12 to argue
their case. Otherwise, the judge plans to grant Epic's motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit and compel individual
arbitration.

Conley stated Epic will have two weeks to respond if the quality
assurance workers choose to continue to oppose individual
arbitration in their argument.

The quality assurance workers claimed in their complaint that
they were misclassified by Epic as being exempt from overtime
pay.

Analysts, computer programmers, and software engineers are exempt
by law from overtime pay. However, the quality assurance workers
stated they perform low-level computer work that requires little
training or education in computer programming or engineering, and
therefore should be eligible for overtime compensation.

The case has not progressed enough to gain class certification,
but Washington State Journal stated as many as 1,000 quality
assurance workers are potentially involved in the lawsuit against
Epic.

This is the second class action lawsuit brought against Epic by
quality assurance workers over wage and hour disputes, according
to Wisconsin State Journal. In 2014, Epic paid $5.4 million to
settle the lawsuit. Epic also paid former technical writers an
undisclosed sum to settle a similar lawsuit in January 2017.

Given the Epic v. Lewis decision, Epic may be protected from
class action lawsuits over wage disputes despite the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which secures employees' rights to
bargain collectively with employers.

In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated the NLRA has
no bearing on Epic's arbitration agreements because the act "says
nothing about how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes
that leave the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral
forum."

Furthermore, Epic's arbitration agreements are protected under
the Federal Arbitration Act, Gorsuch stated.

"Far from conflicting, the Arbitration Act and the NLRA have long
enjoyed separate spheres of influence and neither permits this
Court to declare the parties' agreements unlawful," wrote Gorsuch
in the majority opinion.[GN]


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESPR)
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between
February 22, 2017 and May 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

DEADLINE NOTICE: Investors who purchased Esperion securities
during the Class Period may, no later than July 6, 2018, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor
class. Esperion investors are encouraged to visit
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/esperion-therapeutics to receive
additional information about this action and/or submit their
information prior to the deadline.

On May 2, 2018, Esperion announced results from its second
pivotal Phase 3 study for its cholesterol-lowering medication.
Esperion reported that although the trial met the primary
endpoint of safety and tolerability and the key efficacy
endpoint, there were 13 deaths in the treatment group compared to
only two in the control group.

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
$24.75 per share, or over 35%, to close on May 2, 2018 at $45.75.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges, among other
things, that Esperion and certain senior executive officers made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that the Company's cholesterol-lowering medication,
bempedoic acid, entailed serious undisclosed safety risks,
including death. The complaint further alleges that, as a result
of the foregoing, investors purchased Esperion's securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and
sustained investment losses following the Company's May 2, 2018
disclosure.

Esperion investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-1740, or via
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/esperion-therapeutics, to discuss their
legal rights and options with respect to this action prior to
July 6, 2018.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively prosecutes shareholder actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country on behalf of
investors

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel.No.: (484) 258-1585
                  (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Beats Class-Action Suit Over Anthem Fallout
------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that a New
York judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Express
Scripts alleging the company misled investors about its eroding
relationship with Anthem.

The decision comes nearly a year after Judge Edgardo Ramos
dismissed a previous version of the lawsuit. On May 21, he ruled
that the amended complaint, filed by an Express Scripts investor,
"failed to allege new facts" to support the argument the pharmacy
benefit manager misled investors about its relationship with
Anthem.

In last year's opinion, Ramos wrote the class-action allegations
from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA), a joint
stock life insurance company, "amount to little more than a
suggestion that defendants should have somehow guessed the
outcome of the ongoing negotiations sooner or approached their
negotiations with Anthem more pessimistically."

Ramos referenced the same passage in the dismissal, adding that
the plaintiffs failed to provide any new evidence that executives
knew that their public statements regarding the company's
relationship with Anthem were incorrect.

"The problem with plaintiff's claim is the same: Plaintiff has
failed to point to any evidence that defendants knew their public
statements about renewal (whether embodied in SEC filings or
statements made in investor calls) were incorrect," Ramos wrote.

In both complaints, TIAA pointed to SEC filings and statements
made by executives on earnings calls that downplayed the
contractual dispute the company had with Anthem beginning in
2015. But the court ruled those statements didn't rise to the
level of deceiving investors.

After a rash of lawsuits between the two companies over a 10-year
contract, Anthem cut ties with Express Scripts in 2017,
indicating it would not renew the contract that expires at the
end of this year.

Anthem's decision not to extend the contract ultimately factored
into the PBM's decision to accept a $67 billion offer from Cigna.
[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Emergency Stay in Battle Over Faceprints
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Digital News Daily, reports that
Facebook is asking a federal appellate court to issue an
"emergency" stay in proceedings in a battle over whether the
company's alleged create on of "faceprints" violates an Illinois
privacy law.

"The Court should stay the case so that it may address the
fundamental issues presented in the petition before Facebook and
tens of millions of its users are irreparably harmed," Facebook
writes in an "emergency motion" filed Friday with the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The dispute dates to 2015, when several Illinois residents sued
the company for allegedly violating an Illinois biometrics
privacy law by collecting "faceprints." That law, passed 10 years
ago, requires companies to obtain written releases from people
before collecting "face geometry" and other biometric data.

U.S. District Court Judge James Donato in the Northern District
of California recently allowed the case to proceed as a class-
action on behalf of all Facebook users in Illinois who had their
faceprints stored by the company since 2011. Earlier this month,
Facebook asked the 9th Circuit to review Donato's decision to
allow the case to proceed as a class-action. As of May 25, the
appeals court hadn't ruled on that request.

This week, Donato directed Facebook to notify all potential class
members about the case via email and also by News Feed insertions
and "jewel" notifications, which turn the "notification" icon at
the top of users' home pages red.

Facebook says it asked Donato to stay his order regarding
notifications to the class, but that he hasn't yet responded.

"Unless this Court intervenes immediately, tens of millions of
Facebook users will receive class notice," Facebook says in its
new motion to the 9th Circuit. "The reputational and economic
costs to Facebook will be irreparable, particularly because the
court has ordered Facebook to use its own service to notify
people about a lawsuit against it."

Facebook also argues that staying Donato's order won't harm
Illinois residents, and will avoid future confusion if it
prevails in the appeal over Donato's decision to allow the case
to proceed as a class action.

"If the Court does not grant a stay by May 30, over 20 million
people will receive class notice that may need to be retracted or
modified substantially," the company writes. "If class members
receive a notice that appears to be from Facebook notifying them
of an ongoing class action against Facebook, only to then receive
another notice appearing to be from Facebook telling them that
the class action no longer exists (or some variant thereof), they
will be understandably confused and uncertain as to whether they
can trust those mixed messages." [GN]


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Class Action Transferred to Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that the class action lawsuit
it filed against Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. on behalf of a
class consisting of all public stockholders of Fairmount who have
been harmed by Fairmount and its board of directors (the "Board")
in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
pertaining to the proposed acquisition of the Company by SCR-
Sibelco NV ("Sibelco") has been transferred from the District of
Delaware to the Northern District of Ohio, and assigned case No.
1:18-cv-1186.

The vote on the Merger was scheduled for May 25, 2018.  Under the
terms of the merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") Sibelco
will own, directly or indirectly, approximately 65% of the shares
of the combined company's common stock and Fairmount
stockholders, including holders of certain Fairmount equity
awards, immediately prior to the effective time, will own the
remaining approximately 35% of the outstanding shares.  The
Plaintiff in the class action alleges the Proxy Statement is
materially false and misleading as it fails to provide class
members sufficient information regarding the Merger.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action;

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


FERGUSON, MO: Insurer Sues Over Class Action Court Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for St. Louis Issue Newsletter, reports
that an insurance company contracted with the city of Ferguson
wants a judge to release it from any obligation to cover a class-
action lawsuit over costly court fees.

Allied World Insurance filed suit in federal court in St. Louis,
asking the judge to issue a declaration saying it has "no duty to
defend or indemnify" the St. Louis County suburb in the case of
Carter vs. Ferguson.

That lawsuit, filed by attorney John Campbell, Esq. ArchCity
Defenders and the Saint Louis University Law School legal clinic
in 2014, takes aim at Ferguson's past practice of slapping
defendants with fees to recall warrants issued when they were
late to court -- sometimes even just by a few minutes -- or
failed to appear. (The city of St. Louis, which also used to
charge such fees, voluntarily stopped the practice after
publicity in the Ferguson matter.) Everyone who paid Ferguson
such fees after December 2009 has been certified as part of the
class in the litigation.

Such fees are illegal under Missouri law, the suit alleges --
they are, the suit explains, "not a tax nor is it related to
actual costs incurred; rather it is charged by Defendant as a
means of profiting from the issuance of traffic tickets and other
violations."

In its lawsuit, Allied World acknowledges that Ferguson has an
insurance policy with it, one with a $2 million liability limit.
But it believes it shouldn't have to pay up for this litigation -
- a position it says it's made clear to the city via letters
beginning in January 2015 and up through last December. The city,
however, continues to demand it cover the litigation's costs.

Angela Higgins, Esq. -- higgins@bscr-law.com -- an attorney for
Allied World at Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice, did not respond to a
message seeking comment.

In its suit, Allied World says the allegations in the suit simply
do not match the city's coverage. "The knowing and willful
violation of the law, designed to profit the City 'at the expense
of the general welfare,' is not insurable under Missouri law and
public policy. Additionally or alternatively, the disgorgement of
unlawfully-obtained fees is not a 'Loss' as defined by the
Policy. Additionally or alternatively, the knowing and willful
violation of the law, designed to profit the City 'at the expense
of the general welfare,' is not a 'Public Officials Wrongful Act'
as defined by the Policy." Ergo, the insurer argues, it should be
off the hook.

The city did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.
We'll update this post if we hear back.

Carter vs. Ferguson remains active in St. Louis County Circuit
Court, court records show, with the parties continuing the
discovery process.[GN]


FLUOR CORP: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) ("Fluor" or
the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
the Company's securities between August 14, 2013 and May 3, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The shareholder class action complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company and certain of its senior executive
officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) Fluor's bidding process for gas-
fired projects was flawed; (ii) Fluor had improperly estimated
gas-fired projects; (iii) as a result, Fluor would face craft
productivity issues, equipment issues and other execution issues;
(iv) Fluor would incur multiple charges impacting its financial
results; and (v) Fluor would ultimately decide to discontinue the
pursuit of the gas-fired power market.

On May 3, 2018, Fluor reported a quarterly net loss of $18
million ($0.13 per diluted share) and disclosed that the
quarterly results "include an after-tax charge of approximately
$96 million, or $0.69 per diluted share, for forecast revisions
on a gas-fired power project." Additionally, the Company reduced
its 2018 earnings per share ("EPS") guidance from $3.10 to $3.50
per diluted share down to $2.10 to $2.50 per diluted share, "due
in large part to forecast revisions on a gas-fired power
project."

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
$13.23 per share, or over 22%, to close on May 4, 2018 at $45.76,
on heavy trading volume.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Fluor securities
during the Class Period may, no later than July 24, 2018, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor
class.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


GAP APPAREL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gap (Apparel) LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Andrews, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gap (Apparel) LLC,
Gap International Sales, Inc. and The Gap, Inc, Defendants, Case
No. CGC18567237 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2018).

Gap (Apparel), LLC is based in San Francisco, California. Gap
(Apparel), LLC operates as a subsidiary of The Gap, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   324 S Beverly Blvd, Suite 725
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: 424-285-6006


GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS: Gatlinburg Fire Victims Seeks Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Lakin, writing for Knox News, reports that federal lawsuit
filed on May 24 on behalf of Reed and others seeks millions of
dollars in damages from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
for failing to contain the fire, which burned for five days
before it left the park boundaries, and failing to warn the
residents in its path in time.

The lawsuit lists Reed and James England, who lost his home on
Greystone Heights Road, as lead plaintiffs and seeks class-action
status for all victims of the fire. Attorney Sidney Gilreath,
Esq. -- gilknox@sidgilreath.com -- said he expects the number of
claimants could top 300 people. Damages sought include more than
$15 million for Reed and $1.3 million for England but will most
likely grow.

The complaint cites two after-action reports -- one by a park
service review team and another by an outside consultant, ABS
Consulting -- that faulted the park's response to the fire as
casual, shortsighted and too little, too late.

The park's fire management officer, Greg Salansky, and "park
senior leadership were not only unprepared but unqualified to
manage the fire," ignored repeated National Weather Service
warnings of high winds and dry conditions, failed to notify
Gatlinburg firefighters and police in time, broke their own
firefighting rules and park service policy, and bear direct
responsibility for the 14 deaths and more than $1 billion in
property damage caused by the fire, Gilreath wrote in the
lawsuit.

Park officials haven't filed a response yet and wouldn't discuss
the lawsuit's claims on May 24.

'By policy, the National Park Service does not comment on active
litigation," spokeswoman Dana Soehn said.

The fire began Nov. 23, 2016, the day before Thanksgiving, when
Salansky spotted smoke coming from the park's Chimney Tops peaks
at the tail end of one of the driest fire seasons. He initially
chose to try to contain the fire rather than fight it, despite
forecasts by the National Weather Service that warned of high
winds and "critically dry" conditions.

Salansky didn't attack the roughly acre-sized fire directly,
didn't dig containment lines initially and waited four days to
order water drops by airplane and helicopter. Most of the fire
crew's staff was on vacation due to the holiday. No one called
them in.

Salansky devoted his efforts instead to containing the fire
inside a 410-acre box in hopes of coming rain -- "a debacle of
historic proportions, made worse by innumerable and repeated
failures by Salansky and park officials to adhere to settled
fire-management policies," Gilreath wrote in the lawsuit. Policy
called for a second officer to review Salansky's decisions, but
no such check or balance took place, with top officials like park
Superintendent Cassius Cash mostly deferring to Salansky.

Salansky didn't assign any monitors to watch the fire overnight,
so rangers ended up caught by surprise when they discovered
embers carried by the wind had started new fires the morning of
Nov. 28, including a fire near the Twin Creeks Picnic Pavilion,
within a mile and a half of the Gatlinburg city limits.

Park service policy calls for placing protection of human life,
including neighboring residents, as the first firefighting
priority. But Gatlinburg and Sevier County officials didn't learn
about the fire until the morning of Nov. 28 when a Gatlinburg
fire captain called Salansky about the clouds of smoke hanging
over town -- and didn't learn until 12:30 p.m. in a meeting with
park officials the fire was headed their way.

"The most critical failure of all was the complete lack of early
notice to local officials," Gilreath wrote in the lawsuit.

The ABS review found that delay most likely cost lives.

Early attempts to build firebreaks focused on a single portion of
the city -- Mynatt Park and surrounding neighborhoods in the
southeast corner at the national park's edge -- based on
recommendations from Salansky and other national park officials.

Gatlinburg Fire Chief Greg Miller sent out calls for aid from
other fire departments, eventually drawing 3,535 firefighters
from around the country. Most of that aid didn't arrive for
hours, and officials at all levels, concerned with protecting
Mynatt Park, failed to consider a potential threat to Chalet
Village and other communities across town to the southwest.

By 6 p.m., winds topped 60 mph -- maybe cracked triple digits by
some accounts -- and sent the flames hopping roads and creeks out
of the park and into Gatlinburg. The fire grew and forked to fold
around the city on both sides, with the western half of town
undefended. Most of those who died were on that side of town,
just outside the city limits.

Constance Reed and her daughters tried to run from their home
after Michael Reed became caught in traffic fleeing the fire. The
mother called E-911 to beg for help, but the line went dead.

The lawsuit describes Reed navigating back roads and driving
through clouds of smoke in a vain effort to try to reach his
family.
"Mr. Reed got out of his van and screamed his wife's name, but
there was no answer," Gilreath wrote.

Authorities found the bodies of mother and daughters days later
in a nearby home where they'd apparently tried to take cover.

The city had no mass warning system and relied on officers and
firefighters to make notifications in person. Police and
firefighters raced from door to door to evacuate homes, but the
fire outran them. Flames in some places forced fire crews into
retreat, and some hydrants ran dry due to lack of water pressure.

Most of the 14,000 people in the fire's path escaped to safety.
The wind finally died down around 2 a.m. as rain doused the
flames.

Authorities ultimately charged two teenage boys from Anderson
County with starting the fire by playing with matches. State
prosecutors dropped the case, and federal prosecutors have given
no public sign of pursuing charges.

City and county officials refused to release records on the fire
for months, citing the Juvenile Court case against the boys, but
finally complied after the case was dropped.[GN]


GREENVILLE, NC: Sued Over 2015 Mold Incident
--------------------------------------------
Seth Thomas Gulledge, writing for The Daily Reflector, reports
that two years after abandoning a lease agreement with the City
of Greenville over allegations that city negligence endangered
children and volunteers, the Little Willie Community Development
Center has filed a class action lawsuit demanding compensation
for medical treatment and screenings.

The suit filed on May 29 in Pitt County Superior Court argues the
city neglected to remove known mold infestations from a facility
the center rented annually for $1, placing volunteers and
children the center cared for at risk. The case is filed as a
joint action by the center and Marvin Arrington Jr., the center's
board chairman.

In addition to the named plaintiffs, the lawsuit includes a class
action for all persons who were volunteering, working, attending
or visiting the property between the years 2007 and 2015 and were
harmed by the environmental conditions of the property.

According to documents filed by Inez de Ondarza Simmons, Esq. the
Raleigh attorney representing the plaintiffs, a 2007 inspection
of the building reported mold in the facility before the center
moved in. Little Willie staff acquired a copy of the inspection
through public record requests.

According to Greenville City Attorney Emanual McGirt, Esq. --
EmanuelMcGirt@durhamnc.gov -- the city has hired McAngus
Goudelock & Courie LLC to defend it against the suit. No other
comment from the city was immediately available.

The documents say Arrington has developed a series of
debilitating illnesses from his exposure to the mold conditions.

"Arrington suffered serious illnesses caused by the exposure to
the toxigenic mold that remained on the property despite the city
having actual knowledge of its presence for a period of seven to
eight years that has caused him to become permanently and totally
disabled," the documents said.

The illnesses have been substantiated by experts that directly
link them to the exposure of the toxigenic mold the city failed
to remediate, the document said.

The documents also say that several other former volunteers and
clients of the center have reported a litany of symptoms and
illnesses including chronic headaches, chronic pain, tremors, ear
infections, upper respiratory problems, decreased cognition and
attention, fatigue, drowsiness, allergies and general malaise.

"Members of the class unable to obtain testing have been living
with the fear of not knowing if they had contracted an illness
from the toxigenic mold they were exposed to or have been
misdiagnosed," the suit said.

The documents said the plaintiffs believe about 250 children and
between 25-75 volunteers and workers have cause to be concerned
and deserve medical screening and treatment.

The extent of damages sought by the plaintiffs is not clear.
Court documents show they are petitioning the court to compensate
both Arrington and the class in excess of $25,000, however the
group has asked for upwards of $1 million in past talks with the
city.

Representatives from the center and their attorney's office were
not able to immediately respond.

In 2015, city officials told The Daily Reflector that Pitt County
Health Director John Morrow advised there is no specific medical
screening that could determine if mold was the cause of illnesses
reported by center staff, clients and volunteers.

Little Willie has provided low-cost after-school and summer
programs for children in west Greenville since 1990. In 2007, the
city agreed to lease the agency buildings in the old St. Gabriel
Catholic Church property owned by the city for $1 a year. The
agreement allowed the center to expand its services.

Mold was discovered in an upstairs room in one of the buildings,
the old church rectory, by center staff in May 2015. A report
compiled by LRC Indoor Testing and Research stated "extensive
mold contamination" throughout the facility.

The city made repairs to the facility the following August, but
center volunteers and officials not satisfied with the repairs
and refused to move back into the rectory, instead opting to run
a downsized version of their operations out of a smaller building
on the premise. The center vacated the property the following
February at the expiration of its lease.

During the same time period members of the center sent a 22-page
resolution to the Greenville City Council and city, demanding
millions in compensation for center employees and children for
medical screening and treatment for a litany of illness that
allegedly stemmed from mold exposure.[GN]


GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulf Interstate
Field Services, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Sloane,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00583 (S.D. Ohio, June 13, 2018).

Gulf Interstate Field Services provides seasoned Construction
Management, Pipeline and Facility Inspection, Materials
Management, and other services for both onshore and offshore,
domestic and international energy transportation projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3063
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: apiazza@bm.net

      - and -

   Sarah R Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3053
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

      - and -

   Shanon J Carson, Esq.
   Berger & Montague PC
   1622 Locust St
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: scarson@bm.net

      - and -

   Clifford A. Rieders, Esq.
   Rieders Travis Humphrey Waters & Dohrmann
   161 W. Third St.
   Williamsport, PA 17703-0215
   Tel: (570) 323-8711
   Fax: 5671025
   Email: crieders@riederstravis.com

      - and -

   James A Jones, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: jjones@brucknerburch.com

      - and -

   Richard J Burch, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza
   Suite 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Annette A Idalski, Esq.
   Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   Thirty-Fourth Floor
   Atlanta, GA 30303-1747
   Tel: (404) 659-1410
   Fax: (404) 659-1852
   Email: annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com

      - and -

   Keith E Whitson, Esq.
   Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
   120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 577-5220
   Fax: (412) 577-5190
   Email: kwhitson@schnader.com

      - and -

   Peter N. Hall, Esq.
   Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 658-5390
   Fax: (404) 658-5391
   Email: peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com

      - and -

   Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   34th Floor
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 658-5474

      - and -

   Veronica Saltz Turner, Esq.
   Clark Hill PLC
   2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 640-8546
   Fax: (215) 640-8501
   Email: vsaltz@clarkhill.com


GLORYRIDGE AT GETTYSBURG: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gloryridge at
Gettysburg, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gloryridge at Gettysburg, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03448
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Gloryridge at Gettysburg, LLC is a 3-star hotel located in 685
Camp Gettysburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: New Rape Allegation in Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brynn Gingras and Sonia Moghe, writing for CNN, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by three women against Harvey
Weinstein and his former employers includes a new allegation of
rape against the former movie producer.

Melissa Thompson says she was pitching Weinstein a marketing tech
idea for The Weinstein Company in 2011 and alleges Weinstein
raped her in his hotel room in New York, the lawsuit alleges.

Thompson also says Weinstein's current attorney, Ben Brafman,
Esq. and another attorney at his firm, Alex Spiro, Esq. used
deceptive tactics to get audio and video evidence from her.

She says a mutual friend connected her with Spiro in 2017; she
says she was under the impression that Brafman's firm was
representing Weinstein victims after the release of the New
Yorker article that first detailed allegations of sexual
misconduct against Weinstein.

She handed over audio and video evidence of harassment to Spiro
and later found out that Brafman was on Weinstein's defense team,
the suit says.

Brafman and Spiro, in statements to CNN via a spokesperson,
denied Thompson's allegations.

"This firm has never represented Melissa Thompson and I
personally never met with her or any of the other women named in
the lawsuit," Brafman said.

Brafman said that Spiro "never met with Mr. Weinstein nor did he
have any responsibility whatsoever in connection with our
representation of Mr. Weinstein in any matter."

Brafman said that if Spiro ever spoke with or met with any of
these women, he did it on his own time after he left the Brafman
law group and joined another firm.

Brafman has said that Weinstein has never had nonconsensual
sexual relations with anyone.

In a statement, Spiro said, "I never have and I never would
represent Harvey Weinstein, I left the Brafman firm well before
Brafman ever represented Weinstein, and, in fact, I represent one
of the key victims, but Ms. Thompson has never been a client."

Another plaintiff, Caitlin Dulany, says Weinstein performed oral
sex on her without her consent after he arranged for her to meet
him at the Hotel du Cap in Cannes, France, in 1996.

The third woman, Larissa Gomes, says she met Weinstein twice. It
was the second time, in 2000, when Weinstein forced her to kiss
him and he touched her breasts, she says.

The New York Police Department says it interviewed all three
women for its criminal case, but their claims were beyond the
statute of limitations. The women are not part of the current
criminal proceedings.

The June 1 filing alleges Weinstein's former employers are
responsible for sexual offenses that happened during his
employment and that some employers may have concealed Weinstein's
conduct or participated in the "decadeslong campaign to squelch
complaints or illegally procure the silence of victims, witnesses
and others," according to the complaint.

The lawsuit names as defendants Harvey Weinstein, Robert
Weinstein, The Walt Disney Company, Miramax and others, including
Weinstein Company board members.

CNN has reached out to Robert Weinstein, The Walt Disney Company,
Miramax and The Weinstein Company for comment but not received
any responses. [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Denies Sex Crimes Allegations, Awaits Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHIO, citing news reports, relates that former movie mogul Harvey
Weinstein has been indicted on first and third-degree rape and
first-degree criminal sexual act charges in New York City,
according to news reports.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. announced the
indictment on May 30, less than a week after Weinstein turned
himself in to New York police and was arrested on sex crimes
charges.

Mr. Vance said it brings Weinstein "another step closer to
accountability," according to a report by The Associated Press.

"Our office will try this case not in the press, but in the
courtroom where it belongs.  The defendant's recent assault on
the integrity of the survivors and the legal process is
predictable. We are confident that when the jury hears the
evidence, it will reject these attacks out of hand," Mr. Vance
said in a statement, according to news outlets.

Mr. Weinstein, 66, did not testify before the grand jury because
his lawyers said there wasn't enough time to prepare for the
testimony.

Mr. Weinstein has denied the allegations.

If convicted on the rape charges alone, Mr. Weinstein could be
sentenced to between five and 25 years behind bars, The New York
Times reported.

Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein turned himself in to
authorities on June 1 to face charges related to sexual abuse
allegations in New York.

Mr. Weinstein will plead not guilty to charges of rape, criminal
sex act, sex abuse and sexual misconduct, his attorney, Benjamin
Braffman, said outside a New York courtroom on June 1.

"We believe at the end of this, Mr. Weinstein will be
exonerated," he said.

A judge set a $10 million bond for Weinstein on June 1 as he
awaits trial on charges including rape and sex abuse.

Mr. Weinstein was ordered to surrender his passport and to wear
an electronic monitor.  The Associated Press reported he will
post $1 million bail.

Police confirmed in a statement released on June 1 that Weinstein
has been charged with rape, criminal sex act, sex abuse and
sexual misconduct in cases involving two women. [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Class Action Over River Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Rutherford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class action federal lawsuit has been filed in Metropolis,
Illinois, against Honeywell International for uranium
hexafluoride (U6).

The federal complaint alleges that "Exposure to this radioactive
and toxic mixture in the environment through human pathways can
cause grave bodily injury and has created a need for a
mitigation/abatement program to protect the public from further
risk of being harmed by Honeywell's tortious contamination of
their properties."

The suit explains that the contamination does not come from a
"nuclear incident," but to " ongoing and continuous release of
the indisputably hazardous, toxic and carcinogenic wastes at
issue in this Petition."

According to allegations in the complaint, despite the presence
of Russian nuclear weapons, radioactive testing did not detect
any contamination of concern. During re-licensing by the NRC, the
presence of plutonium was revealed.

Honeywell's parent company provided an assessment sampling  of
Dietz Hollow, which may contain burial materials with a long
shelf life from the Huntington Pilot Plant , which recycled
nuclear reactor materials and worked with a nickel carbonyl
process. The plant was demolished as contaminated and buried, in
part, at a classified site in Piketon, Ohio, on the grounds of
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.  The assessment did not
detect radioactive materials and/or no tests were conducted for
radioactive materials.

The Metropolis, Illinois, site sets on a space next to the Ohio
River.

"Honeywell, from at least 1963 until at least late 2017, operated
the UF6 plant on the outskirts of Metropolis along the Ohio
River. 19. Fifty-Five gallon drums, bolted shut and filled with
powdered uranium ore from all over the world, would come to the
UF6 plant where they would be emptied with an automated "drum
dumper."

Each time the drum dumper emptied a barrel, radioactive dust
containing metals would be released into the air. 20. After the
drums were dumped they were cleaned. Earlier in the plant's
history workers sandblasted the drums, which also released
radioactive and metal-contaminated dust into the air.

Later, a water cleaning method replaced sandblasting. Six-inch
berms around a concrete cleaning pad contained the wastewater
that then entered a series of drains leading to the UF6 plant's
wastewater treatment facility where, after moving through a
single settling pond, the water was discharged into the Ohio
River.

In 2006, Honeywell pled guilty in federal court to criminal
violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging radioactive
materials into the Ohio River." [GN]


HOTELS.COM: Pine Bluff Invites Magnolia to Join Sales Tax Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Magnolia Reporter, the City of Magnolia is lending
its support to a lawsuit against Hotels.com.

The Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission initiated the
class-action lawsuit, and invited similar commissions in the
state -- including Magnolia -- to join in its claim against the
online hotel and hospitality service reservation company.

Magnolia and other Arkansas cities fund their A&P commissions
through sales taxes.  In Magnolia's case, the sales tax is on
hotel rooms.  Magnolia's hotel tax collections generally
fluctuate between about $6,000 and $9,000 a month.

Pine Bluff is complaining that Hotels.com is not remitting local
sales taxes to the cities.

The Magnolia council vote 7-0 to join the lawsuit.

The City of Magnolia won't have any obligation to pay expenses of
the lawsuit. [GN]


HOUSTON TEXANS: Five More Former NFL Cheerleaders File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reports that five former N.F.L. cheerleaders
sued the Houston Texans on June 1, claiming the team failed to
fully compensate them as required by law and subjected them to a
hostile work environment in which they were harassed and
intimidated.

The lawsuit accuses the franchise of paying the women less than
the $7.25 per hour they were promised, not compensating them for
making public appearances or performing other tasks related to
their jobs, and creating a workplace where the women were
threatened with being fired for voicing any complaints.

"I and my fellow cheerleaders were treated as the lowest of the
low," Hannah Turnbow, one of the former cheerleaders, said at a
news conference. "The Houston Texans were paid thousands of
dollars to have us show up at appearances at locations all over
Texas with no security, no transportation and where our safety
was not guaranteed."

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages. It is the second such
lawsuit filed against the Texans.

Turnbow said that after she was attacked by a fan at one game,
and left with abrasions on her shoulder, the team told her "to
just suck it up."

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

Amy Palcic, a Texans spokeswoman, said the team was constantly
evaluating its cheerleader program and makes changes "as needed
to make the program enjoyable for everyone."

In May, another former cheerleader filed suit in Houston federal
court, accusing the Texans of not paying her minimum wage and not
paying overtime wages. She also accused a cheerleading supervisor
of body-shaming. That suit may become a class-action case.

These lawsuits are part of a series of recent complaints that
have been made by cheerleaders against N.F.L. teams across the
country.

The New York Times reported that on a trip to Costa Rica for a
photo shoot in 2013, Washington Redskins cheerleaders had their
passports collected by the team, were forced to be topless for a
calendar photo shoot that included male spectators, and were
asked to be escorts for sponsors at a nightclub.

Former cheerleaders with the Miami Dolphins and the New Orleans
Saints also have filed recent discriminatory complaints and
lawsuits against the teams.

The prominent women's rights lawyer Gloria Allred, Esq. who is
representing the cheerleaders, said she planned to present a
letter to N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell asking him to review
the complaints being made by her clients and other cheerleaders
about their working conditions.[GN]


IDAHO: Class Suit Goes After Public School Districts
----------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Parsons, writing for 7 KTVB.Com, reports that two
families are going after Idaho public school districts and
charter schools in a newly-filed class-action lawsuit.

The suit alleges that fees passed on to students and their
families for courses, materials, and extracurricular activities
like sports, are unconstitutional.

This lawsuit expands upon previous, successful litigation against
the West Ada School District.

In 2015, a Fourth District Court judge ruled that fees the West
Ada School District was charging for course credits were
unconstitutional.

However, the ruling only applied to the defendant's family.

This class-action suit seeks for all public and charter schools
to stop charging fees, not only for course credits, but
extracurriculars like sports, and seeks reimbursement for all
affected families.

Attorney Robert Huntley, Esq., who is bringing this class-action
lawsuit against all of Idaho's 115 public school districts and 55
charter schools, estimates these schools collect approximately
$20 million in fees each year.

"If you take a course in French, it's $70 for a workbook, if you
take a course online sometimes the charges are $125 per credit to
$175 per credit," says Huntley.

Eric Exline, a spokesperson for the West Ada School District,
says the district stopped charging for course credits after the
2012 decision.

"We dropped doing that two years ago after a lawsuit that was
filed against us, it didn't require us to pay back any fees but
it made very clear that charging them was for classes that a
student needs to complete to get done with their senior year are
unconstitutional," says Exline.

This new lawsuit would require West Ada and other schools that
are charging students to pay them and their families back for all
fees paid since 2012.

The lawsuit also calls for athletic fees to be eliminated and
paid back.

West Ada still charges $110 for each high school sport and $90
for each middle school sport a student participates in, up to two
sports.

"Some people have argued that some, that us paying for that is
unconstitutional because it's not part of a thorough system of
education," says Exline.

Even though all of Idaho's public school districts are named in
this lawsuit, not all schools are charging fees and therefore
wouldn't have to pay anything back.

In a statement, the Boise School District says it does not charge
for any courses or sports.

Both the Nampa and Middleton schools declined to comment and a
spokesperson for the Caldwell School District was not available.

The public school districts and charter schools have 60 days to
formally respond.[GN]


JIVAMUKTI YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jivamukti Yoga,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jivamukti Yoga, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05395 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Jivamukti is a physical, ethical, and spiritual practice,
combining a vigorous hatha yoga, vinyasa-based physical style
with adherence to five central tenets: shastra (scripture),
bhakti (devotion), ahimsa (nonviolence, non-harming), nada
(music), and dhyana (meditation).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JMP SECURITIES: Faces "Crain" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMP Securities LLC.
The case is styled as Sidney Crain, Peter K. Nagel and Dr. Lee
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JMP Securities LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CGC18567294 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2018).

JMP Securities LLC is a full-service investment banking firm. The
firm provides equity research, institutional brokerage and
investment banking services to growth companies and their
investors. It offers strategic advisory services, such as mergers
and acquisitions, divestitures, restructuring, recapitalization,
valuation, fairness opinions, and raising capital for corporate
clients, including equity, debt and convertible securities
offerings in public and private markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Randall J. Baron, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
   401 B Street
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: 619-231-1058
   Fax: 619-231-7423


LANCASTER GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Stauffer, writing for Lancaster Online, reports that a
Lehigh Valley health system is challenging Lancaster General
Hospital's receipt of about $9 million from a state program.

In a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court,
St. Luke's University Health Network in Lehigh Valley says LGH
got too much, and consequently, other recipients were underpaid,
with St. Luke's out an estimated $580,000.

At issue is Pennsylvania's Extraordinary Expense program, which
uses funds from a tobacco settlement to reimburse hospitals for
some charity care costs.

The lawsuit accuses LGH of using "inaccurate and overstated
claims" from 2010-12, noting that LGH received more than a
quarter of the $32.5 million distributed statewide over that
time.

The lawsuit says the Pennsylvania Auditor General's office found
that about 75 percent of LGH claims in that time were invalid,
compared to about 10 percent of claims from all other hospitals,
and that LGH claims dropped off significantly in 2013.

The state Department of Human Services decided in 2016 that
hospitals would not have to return overpayments from 2010 and
subsequent years, regardless of audit findings, and LGH has
declined to voluntarily hand over the funds, according to the
complaint.

In an email statement, LGH spokesman John Lines wrote that LGH
believes "that the allegations by St. Luke's are without merit,
and past findings by the Commonwealth on this issue support our
position."

He cited a 2017 report from the Department of Human Services that
looked back over years including 2010-12 and stated that payments
"were issued appropriately."

"Redistribution of payments at this date would result in a loss
to hospitals due to the loss of available federal funding," the
report said, noting that administrative burden and complications
with timing and other programs would be involved.

St. Luke's said it's going to court on behalf of the hospitals in
its system "and all others similarly situated."  The case was
filed May 22, and no hearings have yet been scheduled. [GN]


LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT: Faces "Smith" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Offices of
Robert J. Colclough, III. The case is styled as Shaleese Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Law Offices of Robert J. Colclough, III, Allied
Collection Services of California, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01275-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 14,
2018).

The Law Offices of Robert J. Colclough, III is a Lawyer in Los
Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
   11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


LENDING CLUB: Faces "Lynch" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lending Club
Corporation. The case is styled as George William Lynch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc. and Lending Club
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03459 (E.D. N.Y., June
13, 2018).

LendingClub Corporation operates an online marketplace platform
that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. Its
marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for
consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal
loans, unsecured education and patient finance loans, auto
refinance loans, and unsecured small business loans. The company
also provides an opportunity to the investors to invest in a
range of loans based on term and credit. LendingClub Corporation
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LUCKY VITAMIN: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Vitamin LLC.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Lucky Vitamin LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03454
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Lucky Vitamin LLC operates as an online e-commerce company for
vitamins and nutritional supplements in the United States. It
sells vitamins, nutritional supplements, herbs, body building,
green living, organic, and natural products. The company was
founded in 2004 and is based in Norristown, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MARSHALL MIDDLE: 34 Join Class-Action Suit Over ISD's Boiler Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Teitz, writing for  Beaumont Enterprise, reports that a
federal judge has ordered that Beaumont ISD and the Harris County
Department of Education should be named responsible third parties
in a class action suit against the insurers and inspectors of a
boiler at Marshall Middle School that leaked carbon monoxide and
sent more than 100 people to local hospitals.

Thirty-four plaintiffs have joined the class action suit since it
was filed in October, alleging that two insurance companies and
HCDE failed in their inspections of Beaumont ISD's boilers.

The "responsible third party" designation allows a jury at trial
"to allocate responsibility" among all those responsible for any
injuries.

The Jan. 28, 2016, accident was caused by two preventable boiler
failures -- corrosion that let fire exit the boiler and an
inoperative ventilation fan, according to a report from the Texas
Department of Licensing and Regulation.

In a motion filed in December, Continental Casualty Company,
which insured the 1988 Raypak boiler, alleged that BISD and HCDE
were responsible for maintaining the fan.

The boiler passed inspection less than three months before the
leak on Nov. 5, 2015, when Continental's inspector documented
that he found "no adverse conditions" and "no violations."

"Maintenance of the boiler, the ventilation fans, the boiler
room, and the building's roof was the responsibility of BISD and
HCDE," attorney Mike Seely, Esq., wrote in the motion.
"Accordingly, any failure to perform such maintenance
responsibilities caused or contributed to the incident."

Robert Calvert, BISD's chief operating officer, testified in a
deposition in April 2017 "that BISD had no preventive maintenance
program prior to the incident," Seely wrote.

"At a minimum, BISD's failure to have a preventive maintenance
program caused or contributed to the incident," Seely wrote.

Calvert told The Enterprise in 2016 that "I, personally, severely
question the quality and the integrity of the inspectors, based
simply upon the fact that they didn't find this mistake." Calvert
has since retired from the district.

BISD does not comment on pending litigation.

A second insurance company was dismissed from the complaint after
providing evidence that it did not insure or inspect any boilers
at Marshall.

BISD hired HCDE to serve as its director of maintenance from Oct.
1, 2015 to Sept. 1, 2016. The agency is a taxing entity that
provides support services and runs specialized schools in the
Houston area.

The class action suit named the educational agency as a
defendant, but U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Crone determined
it had governmental immunity and dismissed it from the suit on
May 9.

Governmental immunity, which BISD claimed in 2016 in response to
a request for depositions related to the boiler incident, does
not prevent entities from being named responsible third parties.

HCDE's attorneys could not be reached for comment.

Jane Leger, who represents the students and their families in the
suit, said Continental is trying to "shift blame" for the
incident.

She called it "bizarre" that the plaintiffs are not allowed to
bring claims against HCDE, because they were ruled immune, but
the insurance company is allowed to hold the agency responsible.

While BISD and HCDE "had some responsibility" for maintenance,
the insurance company "held themselves out as being specialists
and conducting state-required safety inspections," she said.

Continental was "the only one responsible for certifying to the
state of Texas that that boiler was safe," she said. "They said
that it was safe, and it wasn't."[GN]


MARYLHURST UNIVERSITY: Students Seek Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Stein, writing for Lake Oswego Review, reports that two
students filed a lawsuit May 31 against Marylhurst University,
asking for a refund of tuition that they say was collected in
April under false pretenses.

Chelsea Vincenzi and Sara Heggie are asking a federal judge to
grant the case class-action status, saying they and hundreds of
other students would not have paid the tuition if school
officials had been honest with them about the looming closure of
the 125-year-old Catholic university.

Marylhurst announced on May 17 that it would cease all operations
before the end of 2018, citing financial problems and declining
enrollment. But students and faculty say they were left in the
dark by the university's Board of Trustees and President Melody
Rose about the school's impending closure, and were not notified
until a decision was already reached.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Portland,
seeks an order preserving all student records and executive
compensation reports, in addition to the return of tuition paid
in April. The plaintiffs, who are asking for a jury trial, say
tuition refunds and penalties for violations of the Unlawful
Trade Practices Act would amount to more than $5 million.

A grassroots group called "Marylhurst Resistance" formed in
response to the closure, with the goal of doing anything possible
to keep the school's doors open. The group, which met for the
first time on May 25, includes Marylhurst students, alumni,
faculty and staff.

"The decision to close was made totally unilaterally, with no
input from any faculty or students," said a faculty member at the
meeting who asked to remain anonymous because of fear of
termination. "We want to say to the university, 'What you did was
wrong because it was unilateral in nature, and we ask
respectfully that you make up for that by bringing us to the
table now, and let's see if there's a way out of this.'"

The faculty member said that despite continuous requests to
attend meetings of the Board of Trustees, faculty members were
always told they could not. "It's not OK what's been done here,
on so many levels," he said. "They just simply did not do the
right thing."

Chip Terhune, chair-elect of the Marylhurst Board of Trustees,
said that the board had considered every possible alternative to
closure "and concluded the only viable course of action was the
one we took." Reached for comment on June 1, he told The Review
that "there are no words to convey the profound sadness we feel
for students, staff and faculty while our community deals with
this painful situation."

"Our goal is to help students, staff and faculty move forward in
their academic pursuits and careers," Terhune said, "and they
remain our top focus during this challenging time."

According to the lawsuit filed on May 31, Marylhurst promised
students an exceptional academic and social experience and
represented to students that they would be able to complete their
degrees at the school, which is located between Lake Oswego and
West Linn off Highway 43. But by March, the lawsuit claims,
school officials knew or should have known that "crippling
insolvency" would lead to the imminent closure of the university
and that students who paid tuition in April would not be able to
complete their degrees at the school.

"Rather than being upfront about its educational services as the
law required," the lawsuit claims, "Marylhurst executives instead
decided to mislead students and falsely tell them that any
problems had been solved."

After the decision to close the school was announced on May 17,
Rose told The Review that the university is working with 81
students who could complete their degrees by the end of summer
2018 by taking additional summer classes. However, that would
leave an estimated 324 students who will have to transfer to
another university to complete their degrees.

"As we look into legal matters with our attorneys, we will
continue doing everything we can to help students transition,"
Terhune said on June 1. "This includes collaborating with 25
other colleges and universities, with many offering tuition
discounts and grants, fee waivers and other flexibility to
address any potential financial impact and make this process as
easy as possible for students to navigate."

Representatives from those colleges and universities gathered at
Marylhurst to meet with students and help them chart their
educational future. Rose and other school officials also hosted
two Q&A sessions for students and said they were "focusing our
attention on helping our students make the best possible
arrangements under extremely challenging circumstances."

But that's not good enough, the lawsuit says, insisting that
Marylhurst's behavior left students confused about their
educational future and unsure about the school's ongoing
certification and accreditation. The lawsuit, which was filed by
Portland attorney Michael Fuller, Esq. defines the class as
students who paid tuition in April 2018, who would not have paid
that tuition if they had known about the impending closure, and
who are now unable to graduate from Marylhurst.

It asks for actual, statutory and punitive damages and court
costs, and points potential members of the class to a website,
www.MarylhurstStudents.com, where they can begin the process of
joining the lawsuit. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Customers Suing Over Unwanted Cheese
-----------------------------------------------------
Herb Schribner, writing for Deseret News, reports that two
McDonald's customers in Florida are suing the fast-food chain for
$5 million over unwanted cheese on their quarter-pound burgers.

According to the Miami Herald, the lawsuit seeks class-action
status, as the two customers claim McDonald's used to sell four
different Quarter Pounder burger options -- two of which came
without cheese. Those burgers cost 30 to 90 cents less than the
regular one.

But, according to the lawsuit, the restaurant changed its mind
and decided to stop separately displaying these products for
purchase on menus, and currently lists the availability of
Quarter Pounder with Cheese and Double Quarter Pounder with
Cheese."

Now, because of the change, "customers have been forced, and
continue to be overcharged for these products, by being forced to
pay for two slices of cheese, which they do not want, order, or
receive, to be able to purchase their desired product," the
lawsuit reads, according to the Herald.

As Fox News reported, the lawsuit claims "McDonald's is being
unjustly enriched by these practices because it receives payment
for cheese it does not deliver to its customers."

In fact, the lawsuit said the plaintiffs "have suffered injury as
a result of their purchases because they were overcharged, and
were required to pay for cheese, which is not a component of
either a Quarter Pounder or a Double Quarter Pounder, that they
did not want and did not receive."

McDonald's responded to the lawsuit in a statement sent to USA
Today.

The fast-food chain does "not believe the claims in this lawsuit
have legal merit. The advertised Quarter Pounder burger comes
with cheese. We try to accommodate our customers' requests by
allowing them to customize their orders, such as a Quarter
Pounder with no cheese."

McDonald's trademarked the Quarter Pounder in 1975 as a frozen
beef burger with a sesame seed bun, diced onions, mustard,
ketchup and two pickles, according to USA Today. [GN]


MCFADDEN HOTEL: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McFadden Hotel
Group, LLP. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McFadden
Hotel Group, LLP doing business as: Hotel Warner, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03446 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

McFadden Hotel Group, LLP is a 3-star hotel in Downtown West
Chester PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


MICKEL LAW FIRM: Faces "Schmidt" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mickel Law Firm.
The case is styled as Tricia Schmidt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mickel Law Firm, U.S.
Bank N.A., as Trustee For Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.
2006-NC2 Asset Back Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-NC-2,
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. 2006-NC2 Asset Backed Pass
Through Certificates Series 2006-NC-2 and Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05109-PKH (W.D. Ark., June
13, 2018).

Mickel Law Firm, P.A. is a firm serving Little Rock in Real
Estate Foreclosure, Creditor Bankruptcy and Commercial Law
cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul Grobman, Esq.
   555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
   New York, NY
   Tel: (212) 983-5880


MICRO FOCUS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action
complaint has been filed against Micro Focus International plc on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Micro Focus
American Depositary Shares issued in connection with the
Company's 2017 merger with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
("HPE") (the "Merger").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who acquired Micro Focus shares
pursuant to the Company's merger with HPE may, no later than July
23, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the investor class.

Micro Focus investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-1740 to
discuss their legal rights and options with respect to this
action.  Investors may also visit  www.kaskelalaw.com/micro-focus
for additional information about this action, or to submit their
information for confidential review.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Micro Focus
and other defendants made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) HPE Software was
experiencing significant disruptions in global customer accounts
as a result of its de-merger from HP, which had materially
impacted HPE Software's ability to retain customers and for Micro
Focus to recognize claimed synergies from the Merger; (2) HPE
Software and Micro Focus were experiencing massive employee
attrition, including the loss of key sales personnel, and that
this loss had adversely impacted the Company's operational
capabilities and revenue trends; (3) Micro Focus was suffering
worsening revenue trends and was on pace to significantly miss
market expectations for its interim results in its core legacy
business for the six months ended October 31, 2017 -- with
revenues for the Company's Existing Products portfolio ultimately
declining 7% during the period and its licensing revenues in this
segment declining 17% during this time -- and that these
worsening revenue trends were accelerating; (4) Micro Focus was
experiencing significant sales execution problems in its North
America region; (5) HPE Software did not have the operational
capabilities, loyal customer base, products or key personnel to
justify its purchase price or to reverse worsening revenue
trends; (6) Micro Focus had failed to put in place the
operations, procedures and personnel necessary to integrate
successfully with HPE Software, or conduct sufficient due
diligence, so as to provide a reasonable likelihood that the
purported synergies from the Merger would be realized;  (7) the
total enterprise value for the Merger was artificially inflated
by more than $3.4 billion; and (8) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's ability to service the increased debt load it
incurred as a result of the Merger had been materially impaired.

Investors who acquired Micro Focus shares pursuant to the
Company's 2017 merger with HPE are encouraged to contact Kaskela
Law prior to July 23, 2018.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Chinese Gov't Probe Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Fang, writing for Epoch Times, reports that three
chipmaking companies-one in the U.S. and two in South Korea-are
being investigated simultaneously by the Chinese government.

Micron Technology, the largest American chipmaker; Samsung
Electronics; and SK Hynix, the world's second-largest memory
chipmaker, are being investigated by China's Anti-monopoly Bureau
of State Administration for Market Regulation, Chinese news site
Jiwei Net reported on June 1.  Micron has since confirmed that
the Chinese regulators visited its sales office on May 31 for
information, according to Bloomberg.

It is unclear whether China's investigation has to do with the
class action lawsuit filed in April in the federal district court
of northern California.  That lawsuit, filed by the law firm
Hagens Berman on behalf of U.S. consumers, accuses the three
companies of DRAM price fixing, according to Forbes. DRAM is a
type of computer memory chip that powers virtually all computers
and most electronic devices.  Together, the three companies
control 96 percent of the global DRAM chip market, with Micron
making up 22.6 percent of market share in the first quarter of
2018, according to Electronics Weekly.

DRAM prices hit rock bottom in 2015 and 2016. Since then,
however, prices have picked up and the three companies saw their
profits double from the first quarter of 2016 to the third
quarter of 2017, according to technology news site Fossbytes.

Jiwei Net reported that the pricing bureau of China's National
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began its inquiry into
Samsung Electronics late last year.  The pricing bureau has since
merged with the Anti-monopoly Bureau.

The timing of China's investigation into Micron has raised
speculation that China could be holding Micron hostage as a
bargaining chip in its ongoing trade discussions with the United
States.

With ZTE, the Chinese telecoms firm currently being sanctioned by
the United States, the regime has pressured the U.S.
administration to ease sanctions in exchange for buying more
American commodities. [GN]


MICRON: Questioned by Chinese Authorities Following Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave James, writing for PC Games N, reports that Micron is
supposedly now under scrutiny from the Chinese Ministry of
Commerce. That comes less than a month after the report indicated
Micron, along with other memory giants Samsung and SK Hynix, are
to face potential class-action lawsuit in the US.

Chinese officials are concerned that the past few quarters of
DRAM pricing have been detrimental to Chinese OEMs, and that
Micron had been anti-competitive in its interference to supply
equipment to Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. (JHICC), a
memory manufacturer based in China.

Every PC needs memory and every PC also needs the best gaming
monitor. Yes, every PC.

While the US lawsuit sues on behalf of US citizens, the Chinese
government take it on themselves to limit growing monopolies in
the market and ensure a level playing field. The highly-
profitable DRAM market is in their sights due to the massive
market controlled by only a few major companies, including
Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynix.

The report from DRAMeXchange, that outlines the Chinese
investigation, also expects this to limit price increases due to
the huge demand for memory that comes from China. Demand has been
expected to skyrocket even further this year, however, with a
Digitimes report expecting a 22% rise in demand -- outstripping
growth in 2018 by 1%.

So while the Chinese authorities, and the US lawsuit, may
eventually curtail ongoing pricing woes, it may well be too
little too late for 2018. The surge in demand doesn't seem to be
easing, and that could cause problems until more production
capacity comes online in 2019.

At least for China, these memory constraints have led to new
business taking on memory production backed by the Chinese
government, which has led to a rocky relationship with the US,
and some market watchers believe this could have a knock-on
effect on the wider market. Whether this could be good or bad for
memory costs remains unclear, as watchers still are unsure of the
impact the increase in production, and the potential trade war,
could have on the market.

Samsung, Hynix, and Micron are being accused of price-fixing in a
lawsuit currently chasing class action status in the US. The
allegations surround the companies colluding to actively limit
the global supply of memory and drive up prices and revenue.

The proposed class action has been filed on behalf of US
smartphone and PC users who bought hardware between 2016 and
2017, and suggests that Samsung, Hynix, and Micron have worked
together to cut supply and subsequently force consumers to pay
higher and higher prices for their memory technology. The three
companies cover 96% of the total memory market share and
therefore their actions have a massive impact on the global
supply of DRAM.

The law firm, Hagens Berman, has filed the suit after carrying
out its own independent investigation into suspected antitrust
behaviour and they have claimed the investigation has uncovered
proof of wrongdoing.

"What we've uncovered in the DRAM market is a classic antitrust,
price-fixing scheme in which a small number of kingpin
corporations hold the lion's share of the market," says Hagens
Berman's Steve Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- "Instead of
playing by the rules, Samsung, Micron and Hynix chose to put
consumers in a chokehold, wringing the market for more profit."

Hagens Berman love a bit of consumer litigation, and boast
they've achieved over "$260 billion in settlements for consumers
in lawsuits against food corporations, automakers, big banks and
others." They also say they won a similar lawsuit against DRAM
manufacturers over a decade ago, awarding $300 million for
consumers who purchased memory at inflated prices.

This case was filed on April 27, so we'll see how it goes from
here, and whether it does ever achieve class action status.[GN]


MILWAUKEE: Pays Another $375,000 to Settle Illegal Police Strip
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Luthern ,writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports
that the Milwaukee Common Council quietly approved another series
of settlements related to illegal body and cavity searches
performed by Milwaukee police -- pushing the cost of police
misconduct lawsuits since 2015 to roughly $22 million.

The city is self-insured, meaning taxpayers bear the costs of any
settlement.

The newly approved $375,000 settlement would end eight separate
federal lawsuits, with $173,333 going into a trust account and
the remainder covering attorneys' fees and court costs.

The Common Council approved the settlement without any debate on
My 30, sending it to Mayor Tom Barrett for review and final
approval.

Barrett is expected to finalize his decision by June 8, according
to a spokesman for the mayor's office.

The settlement is the latest in a series of high-profile police
misconduct lawsuits -- and the costs likely will keep rising.

Last fall, a Journal Sentinel analysis found the city has paid at
least $21.4 million since 2015, including interest paid on
borrowing and fees to cover outside attorneys.

Since then, city officials signed off on a $150,000 settlement
related to an illegal stop and search, as well as the additional
$375,000.

The total does not include an estimated $6 million proposed
settlement in a class-action stop-and-frisk lawsuit brought by
the ACLU of Wisconsin.

The bulk of that amount would pay a consultant to monitor a
consent decree outlining reforms to the Police Department's
policies and practices. No individual plaintiff is set to receive
money as part of that settlement.

Although city officials have balked at the rising cost -- the
city attorney's office originally pegged that settlement at $1.9
million -- the negotiations are continuing, according to federal
court records.

Representatives for the ACLU and the city are expected to have
another phone conference on the matter on May 30.

A lawsuit related to the 2011 in-custody death of Derek Williams
also remains pending and is before the federal 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals.

In addition, Milwaukee Bucks player Sterling Brown has said he
intends to file a civil rights lawsuit over his January arrest
and tasing by Milwaukee police.[GN]


MODO YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modo Yoga
International, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modo
Yoga International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05326 (S.D.
N.Y., June 13, 2018).

The Modo Yoga community (known in Canada as "Moksha Yoga") is a
group of socially and environmentally conscious yoga studios.
Modo Yoga in the United States (and Internationally, and Moksha
Yoga in Canada) is a unique hot yoga series that combines the
precision of therapeutic yoga and the foundations of traditional
yoga in a specially heated room.[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


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Molina Healthcare, Inc.
(NYSE:MOH) who purchased shares between October 31, 2014 and
August 2, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Molina's
administrative infrastructure was never designed to handle the
size and complexity of its rapid growth strategy; and (2) it
failed to remediate systemic issues and costly disruptions with
critical administrative infrastructure functions, including
provider payment and utilization management.

On April 28, 2016, Molina reported an earnings miss for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2016 and reduced its full-year 2016
earnings guidance. On August 2, 2017, Molina withdrew its 2017
earnings projection, reported a net loss of $230 million for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2017, and revealed it would exit
certain ACA Health Exchange markets.

Shareholders have until June 29, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: joseph@dknlegal.com [GN]


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Jakubowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey,
Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The case is styled as Tovia Jakubowitz other
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Cavalry SPV
I, LLC, Gotham Process, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03500 (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 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 appears PRO SE.


N.V. PERRICONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.V. Perricone LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. N.V. Perricone LLC doing business as: Perricone MD,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05378 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

NV Perricone LLC manufactures and sells anti-aging skin care
products. The company offers skin care treatment products,
moisturizers, exfoliators and toners, cleansers, and serums, as
well as eye treatment products and products for neck and body. It
also offers products for deep lines and creases, fine lines and
wrinkles, loss of firmness, sun damage and discoloration,
enlarged pores, dry and sensitive skin, and loss of elasticity
skin. In addition, the company offers no makeup skincare products
and nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National
Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. The case is styled as
Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Association for Stock
Car Auto Racing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05369 (S.D.
N.Y., June 14, 2018).

National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing is an American
auto racing sanctioning and operating company that is best known
for stock-car racing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NBA MEDIA: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBA Media Ventures,
LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBA Media Ventures,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05324 (S.D. N.Y., June 13,
2018).

NBA Media Ventures operates the NBA Store, the official e-
commerce site of the National Basketball Association; the WNBA
Store of the Women's National Basketball Association; and the D-
League Store of the NBA Development League, a minor league
basketball organization. Store.NBA.com features apparel, footwear
and other logo gear from NBA teams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW DOMINION: Earthquake Lawsuit Certified as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kallanish Energy reports that a lawsuit against an Oklahoma oil
company for damage from a 2011 earthquake has gained class-action
status and is scheduled for trial on Sept. 10.

Cleveland County, Okla., District Judge Lori Walkley ruled the
class includes Oklahoma citizens with residential or business
property in nine central Oklahoma counties. Those counties
include Cleveland, Creek, Lincoln, Logan, Oklahoma, Okfuskee,
Payne, Pottawatomie and Seminole.

Officials said they are unsure how many people might qualify as
class members with damage claims.

The suit alleges Tulsa, Okla.-based New Dominion's wastewater
disposal operations used injection wells and triggered a trio of
earthquakes in November 2011 near Prague.  That included a
magnitude 5.7 quake that was the strongest quake ever in Oklahoma
until a magnitude 5.8 quake struck near Pawnee in September 2016.

Other lawsuits over earthquake damages are pending in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma suffers an average of 1.21 earthquakes per day in 2018,
according to the state agency. It said that compares to 5.41
earthquakes per day in 2015 and 3.62 earthquakes per day in 2016.

Geologists have attributed the rash of small earthquakes to
increased injection of drilling wastes into underground rock
formations, especially the Arbuckle formation.

Due to recent earthquake activity, the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission's Oil and Gas Conservation Division has shut down
certain injection wells and ordered other injection wells to
reduce the volumes being injected in the Crescent area of Logan
County.

The order affecting nearly 30 injection wells was issued on May
23. Three wells will be closed and a fourth will not be allowed
to resume operations, the state agency said.

Those wells are all within three miles of the earthquakes,
several of which were 4.0 magnitude.

An additional 25 wells within three to 10 miles of the quakes are
required to cut their volume of liquids being injected. Twenty of
those wells have operated within the last 30 days.

The state agency said the order will reduce the volume being
injected by 20%, reducing injection volumes by about 2,848
barrels per day. [GN]


OKLAHOMA: Monitors Overseeing Pinnacle Plan Call for Swift Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tulsa World reports that closing the Laura Dester Shelter in
Tulsa has become one of the most difficult aspects to achieve in
a negotiated court settlement.

For the first time, the monitors overseeing the Pinnacle Plan -
the 2012 improvement plan stemming from the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit alleging abuses in the foster care system -
petitioned the federal judge overseeing the case to order prompt
action from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

In a filing to U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell, the
three-person oversight panel asked for a ruling mandating the
placement of the last 13 children at the shelter by June 30.

Previously, DHS had asked for a November deadline then agreed to
a Sept. 1 closure.

That changed in early March when the monitors found a
"substantially" increased number of confirmed reports of special
needs foster children being victims of abuse or neglect. They
moved for more immediate action.

The state and Tulsa community have been on notice for three years
that the shelter at 7318 E. Pine St. would eventually close. DHS
Director Ed Lake made the decision to close state-run shelters in
January 2015.

It has been an emotionally charged part of the child welfare
reform that many Tulsa advocates and leaders have difficulty
accepting. While some have argued against the move, others
believed it would never happen.

This filing indicates the monitors have run out of patience, and
foster children are at risk.

In a court response, DHS is continuing to ask for extra time and
stated a contractor has been found to take over the shelter.

For decades, the state has lagged in developing diverse options
in group homes and other placements for foster children with
higher-level needs.

Foster children remaining at the shelter have physical,
behavioral and developmental issues that require specialized
care. Many need one-on-one supervision to avoid hurting
themselves or others.

DHS cannot do this alone.

It needs Oklahomans to become foster parents and lawmakers to
adequately fund a system to attract group home contractors.
Social workers need plenty of choices to find the best fit for
foster children.

For the safety of vulnerable children, the shelter needs to close
sooner than later. [GN]


PAALI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paali Enterprises
Inc. d/b/a Nisi Estiatorio. The case is styled as Manuel Lopez,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Paali Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Nisi Estiatorio and Akbarali B.
Himani, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05370 (S.D. N.Y., June 14,
2018).

Paali Enterprises Inc. is a Greek Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PACIFIC FERTILITY: Lawsuit Adds Tank Manufacturer as Defendant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of the storage tank disaster at Pacific Fertility Center
have filed an amended complaint in their class action lawsuit,
which provides new information and developments related to the
March 2018 tank failure incident. The lawsuit, arising out of the
mishandling of thousands of embryos and eggs at Pacific Fertility
Center, names Chart Industries, Inc. as a new defendant alongside
the previously-named defendants Pacific Fertility Center and
Prelude Fertility, Inc. The amended complaint was filed by
Interim Class Counsel from the law firms Girard Gibbs LLP,
Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane PLC (Peiffer Wolf), and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP (Lieff Cabraser).

Pacific Fertility Center has admitted that embryos and eggs may
have been destroyed when Tank 4 failed in March 2018. According
to the lawsuit, one month after the tank failure incident, in
April 2018, Chart Industries, the manufacturer of the tank,
issued a recall of several cryopreservation tanks, citing reports
of issues with a "vacuum leak."

Prelude Fertility owns Pacific Fertility Center, along with an
extensive nationwide network of other fertility centers. Neither
Pacific Fertility Center nor Prelude have publicly stated whether
Pacific Fertility had standard controls such as alarm systems to
catch the problem with its Chart tank before its customers' eggs
and embryos were destroyed or placed in jeopardy. Standard
controls should have prevented this tragedy.

"Our clients are experiencing emotional turmoil and are forced to
make extremely difficult decisions in the wake of this tragedy, "
said Adam Polk of Girard Gibbs. "We are committed to holding
responsible all of the entities that should have been
safeguarding these eggs and embryos for the irreparable harm they
have caused so many people."

Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane Partner Adam Wolf said: "Pacific
Fertility, Prelude, and Chart Industries must take responsibility
and explain exactly what happened. Pacific's customers deserve
honesty and prompt action. We speak with clients daily who are
understandably confused, scared, and angry. We need answers-now."

Attorney Sarah R. London, who filed Lieff Cabraser's complaint on
behalf of the plaintiffs, stated: " Our clients are bringing this
class action to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening to
anyone else. Families all over the world have their eggs and
embryos stored in Chart tanks. Chart needs to explain what
happened and what it is going to do to fix its tanks before
something like this happens again."

         Eileen Epstein, Esq.
         Girard Gibbs LLP
         Telephone: 510-350-9728
         Email: eje@classlawgroup.com [GN]


PEAK TIME: Faces "Ametepe" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Time Parking,
Corp. The case is styled as James Ametepe, on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Peak Time Parking, Corp.,
FIH Enterprise Inc., Sam Dar Enterprises Inc., Zafar Majeed,
Fayyaz Khan and Naveed Anjum, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05384 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Peak Time Parking Inc is a privately held company in Bronx, NY
and is a Single Location business. Categorized under Parking Lot
Construction. Records show it was established in 2006 and
incorporated in New York. Current estimates show this company has
an annual revenue of 110000 and employs a staff of approximately
2.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


POPCHIPS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popchips, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Popchips, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03449
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Popchips, inc. produces and supplies snack food products. It
offers popped potato chips in various flavors, sweet potato
chips, and popped tortilla chips. The company provides its
products through a network of retail stores in the United States
and Canada, as well as online. popchips, inc. was founded in 2007
and is based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Zieley" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Vicky Zieley, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03501-ERK-
SJB (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   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


PORTLAND, OR: ACLU Gets Class-Action Suit in PBB Kettling Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
KOIN 6 News reports that a federal judge granted class-action
status to a lawsuit related to the kettling of protesters in
downtown Portland in June 2017.

The suit filed by the ACLU challenges the Portland Police
Bureau's mass detention of protesters during that melee when pro-
Trump demonstrators and counter-protesters held dueling rallies.

Officers detained nearly 400 counter-protesters and bystanders at
that time.

The city auditor's Independent Police Review released a report
saying the PPB did not have the legal authority for the mass
detention.

The suit names 5 plaintiffs who will represent everyone in caught
in the kettle that day.

The ACLU is looking for people who were there and detained.[GN]


PROTHENA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Prothena Corporation ("Prothena") (NASDAQ:PRTA)
between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/prothena-corporation?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) relevant trial data showed that
Prothena's antibody NEOD001, designed to treat amyloid light
chain amyloidosis ("AL amyloidosis"), was not an effective
treatment; (2) the Company made misleading comparisons of
NEOD001's "best response" rates against certain prior studies;
and (3) the Company touted Prothena's ongoing Phase 1/2 study of
NEOD001 as providing a strong basis for late-stage Phase 2b and
Phase 3 studies of NEOD001, even though the full Phase 1/2 study
data demonstrated that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment.

On October 15, 2015, Prothena announced its late-stage Phase 2b
"PRONTO" study and expansion of its Phase 1/2 clinical trial for
the antibody NEOD001. On April 23, 2018, Prothena announced it
was ending development of NEOD001 after its Phase 2b PRONTO trial
failed to reach either its primary or secondary endpoints.
Following this news, shares of Prothena fell from a close of
$36.84 on April 20, 2018, to a close of $11.50 per share on April
23, 2018.

If you suffered a loss in Prothena you have until July 16, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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


QUINSTREET INC: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. discloses that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased QuinStreet,
Inc. publicly traded securities between February 10, 2016 and
April 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

QuinStreet shareholders may, no later than June 26, 2018, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If
you purchased shares of QuinStreet and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,
contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299.

QuinStreet, an Internet performance marketing and media company,
provides customer acquisition services for its clients in the
United States and internationally. It offers online marketing
services to its clients in the form of qualified leads,
inquiries, clicks, calls, applications, customers, display
advertisements, or impressions through its Websites or third-
party publishers.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i)
QuinStreet recklessly disregarded the occurrence of click-through
fraud; (ii) QuinStreet-owned websites experienced phony, low-
quality traffic for its clients; (iii) the Company's practices
were not geared toward providing its clients with valuable
customers or high-quality leads or clicks; (iv) the Company's
fiscal 2018 financial guidance was overstated; and (v) as a
result of the foregoing, QuinStreet's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 26,
2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as
your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


QUINTIS LIMITED: Faces Another Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Chris McLennan, writing for Katherine News, reports that a class
action has been launched in the Federal Court of Australia on
behalf of any person who bought shares in troubled sandalwood
plantation company Quintis Limited.

The company is now in receivership and a number of Katherine
employees have already been made redundant.

Quintis owns and operates a number of plantations in the
Katherine area.

Quintis has continued to operate on a business as usual basis
since the receivers' appointment.

The class action will involve anyone who owned Quintis shares
between August 31, 2015 and May 15, 2017.

The class action is against three Respondents: Quintis; Frank
Wilson (who was one of the directors of Quintis at the relevant
time) and Ernst & Young (EY) (who were the auditors of Quintis at
the relevant time).

Lawyers for the lead plaintiff and class members are Piper
Alderman, Esq., and the action is funded by the ASX listed
litigation funder Litigation Capital Management Ltd (ASX:LCA)
(LCM).

The case alleges that in both 2015 and 2016, the Financial
Reports issued by Quintis did not give a true and fair view of
the financial position and performance of Quintis.

Rather, those Financial Reports significantly over-stated the
value of Quintis' assets and the amount of Quintis' profits in
those years, it has been alleged.

This is the third class action to be brought against Quintis
(which was placed in voluntary administration on January 20).

Shareholders who did buy Quintis shares in this period and
suffered losses as a result can register their interest  at
http://pipald.info/QIN[GN]


RECRO PHARMA: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit
against Recro Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: REPH) ("Recro" or the
"Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
Company's securities between July 31, 2017 and May 23, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Recro investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-1740 to
discuss their legal rights and options with respect to this
action and/or to obtain a copy of the shareholder class action
complaint. Additional information about this action may also be
found at www.kaskelalaw.com/case/recro.

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

On May 24, 2018, Recro announced that the FDA had declined to
approve Recro's New Drug Application for IV meloxicam. In its
Complete Response Letter, the FDA stated that the drug's
analgesic effects did not meet FDA expectations and raised
questions related to chemistry, manufacturing and controls data.
Following this news, shares of Recro's common stock fell $6.79
per share, or over 54%, to close on May 24, 2018 at $5.63.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Recro and
certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that
IV Meloxicam lacked supporting clinical data to show sufficient
clinical benefits to receive FDA approval. The complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased
Recro's securities at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and sustained investment losses following the
Company's May 24, 2018 disclosures.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased or acquired Recro
securities during the Class Period may, no later than July 30,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the investor class. Recro investors are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC to discuss their legal rights and options with
respect to this action and/or to obtain a copy of the shareholder
class action complaint.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


RECRO PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Recro Pharma, Inc.
("Recro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REPH) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Recro
securities between July 31, 2017 through May 23, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/reph.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) IV meloxicam lacked supporting clinical
data to show sufficient clinical benefits to receive U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval; and (2) as a result,
Recro's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On May 24, 2018, Recro revealed that the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") had declined to approve Recro's New Drug
Application for the non-opioid pain relief treatment IV
meloxicam.  The FDA stated in its Complete Response Letter that
the drug's analgesic effects did not meet its expectations and
raised questions related to chemistry, manufacturing and controls
data. Following this news, Recro stock has dropped $6.79 per
share or 54.67%, and closed at $5.63 on May 24, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/rephor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Recro you have until July 30, 2018 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


RUBIN-LOBO LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin-Lobo LLC. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin-Lobo LLC doing
business as: Bode NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05323 (S.D.
N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Formerly known as Bikram Yoga NYC, Bode led New York City in the
Hot Yoga revolution by bringing Bikram Yoga to Manhattan in
1999.[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


S-TRIP: Faces $7-Mil. Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------
Lauren Pelley and Nicole Brockbank, writing for CBC News, reports
that nearly a year after D'Andra Montaque worked more than 14-
hour days supervising students on a grad trip to Cuba, the 23-
year-old is suing the Toronto-based travel company, because it
treated her as a volunteer instead of paying her as an employee.

Montaque is now the lead plaintiff in a $7-million class action
lawsuit filed against Canadian student travel firm S-Trip. The
suit follows a CBC Toronto investigative story about the
company's labor practices that was published last year.

"It could have been an amazing experience, and an amazing job
opportunity, but at the end of it I felt used," she told CBC
Toronto.

The lawsuit from Ottawa and Toronto-based law firm Goldblatt
Partners LLP alleges S-Trip "trip leaders" weren't properly
classified as employees and didn't get paid at least minimum wage
for the hours they worked.

The law firm believes those practices violate Ontario labor laws.

"Quite simply, these aren't volunteers," said Josh Mandryk, Esq.
-- jmandryk@goldblattpartners.com -- the lawyer working on the
case. "This is a for-profit company; it's in business to make
money and these are its front-line workers."

Lawsuit focusing on S-Trip 'trip leaders'
The firm's class action follows a 2017 CBC Toronto investigation,
which found that while college-age students and recent graduates
hired by S-Trip are explicitly told to expect 14-hour workdays,
they don't receive a paycheque for doing so.

Jobs posted online last year from Canadian parent company I Love
Travel referred to "trip leaders" as part-time positions acting
as "the main point of contact" for trip participants.  But in
internal documents, trip leaders were instead referred to as
"volunteers" and given an honorarium ranging from $150 to $300.

At the time, S-Trip confirmed the volunteer classification, but
said the company abides by all provincial laws and covers
volunteers' travel expenses, including airfare, excursions and
room and board.

While the student travel company has been operating for more than
a decade, the class action is focusing on "trip leaders" like
Montaque who started their roles on trips leaving Ontario over
the last two years.

"It was a lot of work," she recalled. "It was intense, very hard
and exhausting."

While her travel expenses were covered by the company, Montaque
said her only payment for more than a week of work was the $150
honorarium -- and more than half of that was used to pay for her
S-Trip uniform.

In the end, that left $70 in her pocket.

"I was really let down by them," she said. "I feel like they're
just really taking advantage of really great people."

'This claim is without merit'
In a statement, Eugene Winer, president and COO of I Love Travel,
told CBC Toronto, "this claim is without merit and we will defend
ourselves.

"We work closely with labor lawyers to ensure we abide by all
provincial laws, statutes or guidelines, regardless of role," he
said.

Alleged labor violations are not the only controversy surrounding
S-Trip. The popular student trips previously came under fire from
attendees and their parents after a CBC Marketplace investigation
into the trips' party culture.

Attendees and former trip leaders later shared stories with CBC
Toronto about how the overseas trips can get "a little bit out of
control," with young trip leaders allegedly encountering
situations where students in their care were binge drinking,
getting injured, or having suicidal thoughts.

Montaque said during her Cuba trip, part of her role involved
trying to "stop underage kids from drinking" and making sure the
student attendees didn't get lost on excursions. It was "nerve
wracking," she recalled.

Both Montaque and her lawyer hope the class action changes the
situation for S-Trip workers.

"We want compensation for the folks who've done this work, and we
want to change their practices going forward," said Mandryk. [GN]


SAWGRASS GRAND: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sawgrass Grand Fee
Owner, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Sierra, on his own and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sawgrass Grand Fee Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61313-BB (S.D. Fla., June
13, 2018).

Sawgrass Grand Fee Owner, LLC was incorporated in 2014 and is
based in Miami, Florida and engaged in Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites
Sawgrass Mills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


SCRANTON, PA: Lawsuit Over Trash Fee to be Hashed Out in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times Tribune, reports that a judge
will hear arguments about how a notice should be worded to alert
city residents to a class action lawsuit challenging the city's
annual $300 trash fee.

Lawyers for plaintiff Adam Guiffrida filed a motion proposing how
they think a notice should be written and disseminated to the
potential class of co-plaintiffs, which could be as many as
18,000 people.

City attorneys suggested some revisions to the plaintiff's
version.

Lackawanna County Court Judge James Gibbons will hold a status
conference on the matter at 11 this morning.

Guiffrida filed the lawsuit in December 2016, challenging the
$300 garbage fee as arbitrary and excessive.

This January, Gibbons certified the lawsuit as a class action, a
step that opens the case to about 18,000 property owners who
could seek partial refunds.

The lawsuit is not done. Gibbons has not yet determined whether
the city must pay refunds or how much. If Gibbons rules that the
trash fees were excessive, payers would be entitled to pro-rated
refunds.

In a motion filed May 15, Guiffrida proposes a time frame for
partial refunds from Jan. 1, 2014, when the $300 trash fee first
took effect, to the present.

The former mayor and council raised the annual trash fee from
$178 to $300 for the 2014 budget year. Since then, Mayor Bill
Courtright and city council maintained the $300 annual fee.

Guiffrida's lawsuit argues that fee is excessive and the city
profited $935,498 in 2013, $1.26 million in 2014, $1.82 million
in 2015, and a projected $1.54 million in 2016.

The dispute involves an interpretation of the city's trash
collection ordinance, which says the fee must be used solely for
"costs incurred directly for the disposal of refuse." Guiffrida
maintains that means fee revenue cannot be used for other
purposes. The city disagrees.

A step in the case was for the judge to determine if the lawsuit
should proceed individually or as a class action. He chose the
latter -- a class action -- as the more comprehensive and
effective way of handling the issue.

Under the class action process, the plaintiff would issue a
public notice alerting the prospective class of fee payers to the
existence of the lawsuit, and to the legal steps required for
them to voluntarily "opt in" as plaintiffs.

The motion filed by Guiffrida's attorneys, Patrick Howard, Esq. -
- phoward@smbb.com -- and Charles Kocher, Esq. --
ckocher@smbb.com --  of the Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky
law firm in Horsham, discusses differing versions of notice
language.

"The city made a host of changes to plaintiff's proposed notice
that are not only repetitive, but reek of bias" against the
lawsuit and contradict the rationale of the class certification,
Guiffrida's motion says,

Efforts to contact the city solicitor were unsuccessful.

For example, Guiffrida's version says that those who don't join
the class action lawsuit still could file their own claims for
refunds, either with or without their own lawyers. However, the
city wants to insert in four separate areas of the notice the
following statement: "You do not have to participate in this
lawsuit in order to be entitled to a refund." Guiffrida claims
the city wants to use that sentence "to confuse and dissuade"
people from joining the class of plaintiffs.

The city also wants to insert language saying, "All that is
required to obtain a refund is to submit written notice of your
right to a refund to the city of Scranton."

Guiffrida replies that this assertion by the city is false.
Mediation held in February failed because the city "is unwilling
to provide any (trash fee) refunds," the motion says.

The city wants to remove an explanation about how the plaintiff
would recover attorney fees and costs from those who opt in to
the class action to get their refunds. Deleting this explanation
is "entirely improper," Guiffrida's motion says.

Guiffrida also proposes using a certain firm to administer the
class action notice, Epiq Systems Class Action and Claims
Solutions. He wants to have Epiq mail notices to all potential
class members, and maintain a website with the class action
notice, instructions on how to opt in to the lawsuit, relevant
court documents in the case, and a toll-free number and email
address for communications and information.[GN]


SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Ex-Directors, Officers Must Face Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that
five former directors and officers of a Vancouver-based mining
firm can be sued personally in Ontario by shareholders alleging
the firm misrepresented financial statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada announced on May 31 it will not hear
an appeal, from SouthGobi Resources Ltd., of a Court of Appeal
for Ontario ruling released Sept. 18, 2017.

SouthGobi -- which mines coal in Mongolia -- issued in 2013 a
release re-stating revenues from previous years. Its share price
then dropped about 18%.

Allegations of misrepresentation have not been proven in court.
In 2015, Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice ruled that shareholders should be granted leave to sue
SouthGobi as a corporate defendant. The case is proposed as a
class action lawsuit. The representative plaintiff is shareholder
Paiman Rahimi.

When a company subject to Ontario securities law experiences a
sudden drop in its stock price, its directors and officers are at
risk of being sued by shareholders. This can cost the firm's
directors' and officers' liability insurer a lot of money.

When shareholders sue companies in Ontario court for
misrepresentation, they first need to obtain leave of the court.
The intent of that "leave test" -- which has been subject to
debate in numerous court cases -- is to prevent frivolous claims
from forcing insurers to settle.

In Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources, the plaintiff was initially
denied leave to name six individuals -- including two former
chief financial officers and three former members of the audit
committee -- in the lawsuit. The lawsuit against former Southgobi
CEO Alexander Molyneux, who lives in Taiwan, "has been adjourned
until he has been properly served," the Court of Appeal for
Ontario noted last year.

Rahimi was successful on appeal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario
decided in 2017 that the individual directors and officers could
be named personally. SouthGobi applied for leave to appeal. The
Supreme Court of Canada announced May 31, 2018 it is denying
southGobi's application for leave to appeal.

The individual defendants are Terry Krepiakevich, Matthew O'Kane,
Andre Deepwell, Pierre Lebel and Gordon Lancaster.

Initially, the lower court had ruled that Krepiakevich and O'Kane
-- former chief financial officers of SouthGobi -- could not be
sued due to the defence of "reasonable investigation" under the
Ontario Securities Act. Justice Belobaba also ruled in 2015 that
there was "no linkage" between Deepwell, Lebel and Lancaster
(then on the audit commitee of the board of directors of
SouthGobi) and a November, 2013 press release. But the Court of
Appeal for Ontario found that the three directors  "failed to
correct what they now say was false material information."

To not give the plaintiff leave to file a class-action against
the individual directors and officers is "inconsistent with the
public policy animating the secondary market cause of action and
with the fundamental policies underlying securities regulation,
including protection of the investing public and maintaining the
integrity of the capital markets," Justice William Hourigan of
the Court of Appeal for Ontario wrote in 2017. "At the heart of
the submissions made by SGR and the Individual Respondents is the
rather remarkable proposition that they should be permitted to
evade a potentially meritorious action at the leave stage because
they previously made material misrepresentations during a
restatement process about their company but they are now telling
the truth about the same issue." [GN]


SPOTIFY USA: To Pay $113MM to Settle Copyright Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anandashankar Mazumdar, writing for Big Law Business, reports
that a federal court finalized a $113 million class action
settlement between music streamer Spotify USA Inc. and more than
500,000 owners of copyrights in musical compositions.

The May 22 ruling comes as Congress considers legislation to ease
the music licensing and royalty system for streaming services. If
it passes, the legislation could end a liability headache for
Spotify as it begins its life as a public company. The
legislative fix also would ease the way for competitors like
Apple Music, Amazon Prime, and Google Play, together seen as the
main source of income for music creators.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave preliminary approval a year ago to a deal between Spotify
and the litigants representing the entire class of copyright
holders.

About 1,200 potential class members objected to the deal and
opted out, but the court concluded the settlement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate, as required by class action law.

The class action settlement "is simply cleaning up an old mess
soon foreclosed" by the U.S. Senate's music copyright
legislation, Jim Griffin, a Virginia-based digital music business
consultant, told Bloomberg Law.

The lawsuit accused Spotify of streaming music without properly
securing licenses and paying royalties. Spotify settled a similar
lawsuit by the National Music Publishers Association for $30
million in 2016.

"I think from a political standpoint, Spotify wanted this to be
finished," Los Angeles-based music industry lawyer Niall Fordyce,
Esq., told Bloomberg Law. "Class actions are huge, long and can
be messy." With a legislative fix pending, "I think Spotify
wanted to see this done."

Wixen Music Publishing Inc. filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against
Spotify at the end of 2017 and opted out of the settlement in
this case. The company declined Bloomberg Law's request for
comment.

The Music Modernization Act would create an organization to give
out blanket licenses and collect and distribute royalties,
effectively ironing out the difficulties between copyright
holders and streaming services.

The bill also would require streaming services to pay royalties
to owners of rights in pre-1972 records, which are not covered by
copyright law. Critics say that would protect some works for more
than 140 years, nearly half a century longer than the usual
copyright term.

The House approved its version (H.R. 5477) by a 415-0 vote on
April 25. The Senate Judiciary Committee took up an identical
version (S. 2334).

Sen. Ronald L. Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed The Accessibility for
Curators, Creators, Educators, Scholars, and Society to
Recordings, or Access to Recordings Act, on May 23. The bill
would give oldies records the same term of protection that the
Copyright Act normally grants.

Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the court's ruling on the
settlement.

Gradstein & Marzano PC, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt LLP represented the lead plaintiff Melissa Ferrick.
Mayer Brown LLP represented Spotify.

The case is Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 16-8412,
5/22/18. [GN]


STATE STREET: Special Master Recommends Significant Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that A
federal judge has directed pension fund officials to consider
whether they want to drop their law firm, Labaton Sucharow, after
a contentious hearing on May 30 in which he said the firm's
conduct has been called into question in the class action against
State Street Bank.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Boston issued an order on May 31
in which he asked the executive director of the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System to decide whether the fund wants to continue to
serve as lead plaintiff in the securities class action, the
National Law Journal reports.

If the answer is yes, Wolf said, he wants to know whether the
fund "intends to continue to seek legal advice concerning this
case from Labaton or seek advice instead from counsel whose
conduct is not at issue."

Wolf had appointed a special master last year to examine billing
errors by Labaton and two other plaintiffs' firms that had been
awarded nearly $75 million in attorney fees. The class action,
settled for $300 million, had alleged State Street had
overcharged its customers in connection with certain foreign
exchange transactions.

The special master's report has been filed under seal, but Wolf
said in court on May 30 that it recommended "a significant amount
of money be returned" to the class from the attorney fees,
according to Law360, which covered the hearing.

Wolf said the conduct of Labaton and other lawyers selected by
the pension fund "has been called into question," according to
the Law360 account.

A lawyer representing Labaton, Joan Lukey of Choate Hall &
Stewart, protested that Wolf had made statements that "revealed
items that are under seal." The judge responded, "Yeah, just as
you did earlier."

After a sidebar, Lukey distributed a statement that said the
asserted misconduct relates to a referral fee that was not
disclosed to the court. A lawyer representing the special master,
William Sinnott of Donoghue Barrett & Singal, differed with the
characterization, according to Law360.

"This was not a referral fee, this was a finder's fee," he said.
"And, more importantly, this was a finder's fee that was not
disclosed to the client, to the class, to co-counsel, or to the
court."

The fee was paid to a lawyer who helped bring the pension fund
and Labaton together, according to Law360.

In a later statement, Labaton said the referral fee is legal
under Massachusetts law, and, "It's our position that we complied
with all disclosure requirements," the statement said.

Wolf also set deadlines in his May 31 order for lawyers to
propose redactions in the special master's report before it is
unsealed. In court on May 30, the lawyer for Labaton said
portions of the report "are extremely injurious to the
reputation" of the plaintiffs' firms.

The case is Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street
Bank and Trust Co. [GN]


SYMANTEC CORP: Klein Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Symantec Corp.
(NASDAQ:SYMC) who purchased shares between May 20, 2017 and May
10, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Symantec's internal
controls over financial reporting were materially weak and
deficient; (2) Symantec's later disclosed "reporting of certain
Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact executive
compensation programs" would lead to heightened regulatory
scrutiny by the SEC; and (3) as a result, Symantec's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On May 10, 2018, Symantec announced the commencement of an
internal investigation "in connection with concerns raised by a
former employee."

Shareholders have until July 16, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         E-mail: joseph@dknlegal.com [GN]


SYMANTEC CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Symantec Corporation and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-03152, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise, acquired securities of  Symantec between May 19, 2017
and May 10, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Symantec securities
between May 19, 2017, and May 10, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until July 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at -- rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Symantec Corporation provides security, storage, and systems
management solutions to help businesses and consumers secure and
manage their information. The Company offers software and
services that protect, manage, and control information risks
related to security, data protection, storage, compliance, and
management.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Symantec's
internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak
and deficient; (ii) Symantec's later disclosed "reporting of
certain Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact
executive compensation programs" would lead to heightened
regulatory scrutiny by the SEC; and (iii) as a result, Symantec's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 10, 2018, after the market closed, Symantec filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that its
Audit Committee had commenced an investigation "in connection
with concerns raised by a former employee" and that the Company
had contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to
advise the SEC of the investigation.  The Company further
disclosed that it was "unlikely that the investigation will be
completed in time for the Company to file its annual report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2018, in a timely
manner."

On this news, Symantec's share price fell $9.66, or 33.10%, to
close at $19.52 on May 11, 2018.

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


TESLA INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Autopilot System
------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that Tesla Inc on May
24 reached an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit with
buyers of its Model S and Model X cars who alleged that the
company's assisted-driving Autopilot system was "essentially
unusable and demonstrably dangerous."

The lawsuit said Tesla misrepresented on its website that the
cars came with capabilities designed to make highway driving
"safer."

The Tesla owners said they paid an extra $5,000 to have their
cars equipped with the Autopilot software with additional safety
features such as automated emergency braking and side collision
warning.

The features were "completely inoperable," according to the
complaint.

Under the proposed agreement, class members, who paid to get the
Autopilot upgrade between 2016 and 2017, will receive between $20
and $280 in compensation. Tesla has agreed to place more than $5
million into a settlement fund, which will also cover attorney
fees.

The case has been closely watched in the automotive and legal
communities, as it was the only known court challenge Tesla has
faced with regard to its assisted-driving technology.

Tesla's Autopilot system has come under increased scrutiny in
recent months after two Tesla drivers died in crashes in which
Autopilot was engaged. The most recent crash, in March, is being
investigated by safety regulators.

Tesla said in a statement it "wanted to do right" by its
customers and, as part of the proposed deal, agreed to compensate
car owners who had purchased the 2.0 version of Autopilot and
"had to wait longer than we expected" for the driving features to
become active.

"Since rolling out our second generation of Autopilot hardware in
October 2016, we have continued to provide software updates that
have led to a major improvement in Autopilot functionality," the
company said. Even though the settlement only covers U.S.
customers, Tesla said it would compensate "all customers globally
in the same way."

The proposed settlement does not mention the safety allegations
but focuses on the delay in making the promised features
available to consumers.

Steve Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- a lawyer for the car
owners, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The agreement, announced in a filing in San Jose federal court on
May 24, must be approved by U.S. District Judge Beth Labson
Freeman.

Autopilot, released in 2015, is an enhanced cruise-control system
that partially automates steering and braking. Tesla has said the
use of Autopilot results in 40 percent fewer crashes, a claim the
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration repeated in a
2017 report on the first fatality, which occurred in May 2016.
However, the agency said regulators had not assessed the
effectiveness of the technology.

The 2017 lawsuit in San Jose federal court named six Tesla Model
S and Model X owners from Colorado, Florida, New Jersey and
California who alleged the company had engaged in fraud by
concealment, and had violated various state consumer protection
and unfair competition laws.

They sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers.[GN]


TEZOS SECURITIES: Community Petitions End to Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
News Bitcoin reports that Tezos was conceived as a governance-
based blockchain to rival Ethereum, but it's become more
synonymous with protracted legal battles and internecine
conflict. As the latest class action lawsuit drags its way
through the courts, the Tezos community has petitioned for an end
to all the legal turmoil so that everyone can move on.

Tezos community leaders are sick of all the lawsuits, so much so
that they're preparing to go to court themselves -- to put an end
to all the courtroom battles. The Stop The Class Action Lawsuits
Against Tezos petition, which is to be filed in a San Francisco
Court, asserts that the class actions filed by various other
Tezos investors have no merit and should be dismissed. They
write:

"We do not feel the plaintiffs have been sufficiently harmed to
warrant a class action against the program, which further delays
and encumbers it by creating large legal difficulties which
becomes self-fulfilling and induced by the very plaintiffs
themselves who complain of delay. We denounce the plaintiffs as
having done more harm to Tezos than the delays inherent in
software and network development."

In essence, the Tezos community members behind the petition want
to draw a line under the sand and move on. Their goal is to show
the court that it is highly unlikely that the plaintiffs can form
a class. If enough people denounce the class, and there are just
six plaintiffs claiming they can form a class, the plaintiff's
case becomes much more difficult. The plaintiffs have claimed
that they are speaking on behalf of the entire Tezos community
. . . but it appears that a significant portion of that community
demurs.

"Everything else appears to be on track for the project now, just
the looming threat of legal action limits the foundation's
ability to speak," explained Shaun Belcher, a board of directors
member with Tezos Commons Foundation. He believes that what is at
stake has ramifications, not only for Tezos, but for the future
of blockchain projects in general, adding:

"We must understand that the Tezos class action case could set a
precedent for all ICOs, past and future. If the community can
prevail, not only will it help Tezos but it will immunize other
blockchain projects from facing a class action, because failure
here against Tezos would discourage law firms in the future."

        Bitcoin Suisse Also Washes Its Hands of Class Actions

Bitcoin Suisse AF, a BTC brokerage, also filed a motion seeking
to dismiss itself from the Tezos class action lawsuit is has been
named in, writing:

Bitcoin Suisse submits that it is not properly named as a
defendant in the Tezos litigation because of its lack of contacts
with both California and the United States sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction and because the alleged, limited
currency conversion services it provided, solely in Switzerland,
prior to the alleged Tezos ICO, and its alleged post-ICO conduct,
cannot establish liability under Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the
Securities Act.

With a betanet launch of the Tezos blockchain planned for late
June, the race is on to clear the air of all impediments that
could further delay proceedings. Before that can happen though
there's still code to audit, tokens to list on exchanges and
countless other development tasks to tick off. Meanwhile, the
class action lawsuit rumbles on while the Tezos community grows
ever weary.[GN]


TIGER RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiger Retail East
Coast, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Tiger Retail East Coast, LLC doing business as: Flying Tiger
Copenhagen, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05351 (S.D. N.Y., June
13, 2018).

Tiger Retail East Coast LLC is in the Real Estate Agents and
Managers business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Another Case Over Teen Pregnancy Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hansler, writing for CNN Politcs, reports that a federal
judge has ruled against the Department of Health of Human
Services' decision to end a grant program aimed at curbing teen
pregnancy -- the fifth such ruling against the agency.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the US District Court for the
District of Columbia on June 1 decided in favor of the plaintiff
in a class-action lawsuit against the agency.

The suit was filed in April by Healthy Futures of Texas, a
nonprofit that aims to reduce teen and unplanned pregnancies, on
behalf of itself and 61 other "similarly situated" organizations.
All of the organizations had received five-year program grants
from HHS's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, but were informed
last summer that their funding would end two years early on June
30, 2018.

Jackson ruled that HHS's early termination of the funding was
unlawful and ordered the department to proceed "as if the agency
had not undertaken to shorten these grantees' federal awards."
The judge had previously ruled against the termination of the
funding in April in a case brought by groups in North Carolina
and South Carolina.

"With this decision, our youth now have the chance for better
health, educational attainment and economic opportunities that
will change their lives," Evelyn Delgado, the president and CEO
of Healthy Futures of Texas, said in a statement.

Brown's decision is the fifth such ruling against HHS on the
issue, coming on the heels of a ruling out of Washington state.
The five district court decisions mean that virtually all of the
84 grant recipients will have their funding restored.

"There's really no legal action left at the district court
level," Sean Sherman, Esq. an attorney for Public Citizen
Litigation Group who represented the plaintiffs in the class-
action suit, told CNN. "All of the courts have now said
unanimously that all of these terminations were unlawful."

Caitlin Oakley, a spokesperson for HHS, called the ruling
"disappointing" and said studies had shown the program to be
ineffective.

"Continuing the program in its current state does a disservice to
the youth it serves and to the taxpayers who fund it. Communities
deserve better, and we are considering our next steps," Oakley
said in a statement.

Last summer, the Trump administration decided to end grant
funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. In an August
statement, the department said it was reviewing best approaches
after evaluating the first round of initiatives from the grant
funding. The program was created by a congressional directive in
2010 to fund youth-focused programs and study their effectiveness
in curbing adolescent pregnancy.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Mentally Disableds' Suit vs. DHS Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that
a federal class action has been allowed to proceed against the
state Department of Human Services, brought by a group of
mentally disabled Pennsylvania youths claiming they were left too
long in treatment facilities and not given access to proper
treatment.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denied DHS's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which
the agency claimed the named plaintiffs, between the ages of 10
and 19 -- representing a class of individuals under age 21
considered dependent -- had no valid claims.

Jones wrote in his opinion that the case "paints a picture of the
sad reality for various dependent youths in Pennsylvania."

"Many dependent children with mental disabilities end up in
large, congregate facilities for years while they wait for
appropriate placement from DHS," he continued. "Others end up
waiting for months or years in inappropriate settings, such as
psychiatric hospitals, juvenile detention facilities, and
residential treatment facilities ('RTFs') while they wait for
placement from DHS."

The plaintiffs alleged that DHS violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act and Title XIX of the Social Security Act, more
commonly known as Medicaid.

According to Jones' opinion, 18-year-old Teddy Smith was placed
in a secure state-operated youth development center where he was
assaulted by staff within the first two weeks. A 15-year-old,
N.C., was bounced around from foster home to foster home while
waiting for DHS to place him in a permanent home. Eventually his
caretakers had to look out of state.

S.R., a 10-year-old, completed his mental health treatment but
DHS kept him in limbo and 19-year-old Chrystal Steward has been
ready for discharge from her RTF for nearly one year, but DHS has
not given her an appropriate placement, Jones said.

DHS argued that the care provided to mentally disabled people
varies from individual to individual and that the plaintiffs'
claims should be handled administratively and not through federal
litigation.

However, Jones said the law spoke to the contrary and shot down
each of DHS's points for why the case should be dismissed.

Jones said DHS's motion to dismiss was based entirely on the
argument that the plaintiffs' claims are not privately
enforceable. But the judge disagreed, pointing to the mandate set
forth in U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(43)(A), requiring a state plan
for arranging Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) services for Pennsylvanians under 21 who are
eligible for medical assistance.

"We hold that the [Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment] mandate contains specific language and an
individualistic focus that demonstrates Congress' intent to
confer private rights of action to individuals," Jones said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gabriella Labella, Esq., and
Kelly L. Darr, Esq., of the Disability Rights Network of
Pennsylvania and Jeni Hergenreder, Esq., and Shanon S. Levin,
Esq., of Disability Rights Pennsylvania. The lawyers did not
respond to a request for comment on May 24.

DHS is represented by attorney Matthew J. McLees of the Office of
General Counsel. McLees also did not respond to a request for
comment.[GN]


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Witt" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine &
Kebartas, LLC. The case is styled as Dena Witt, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14223-RLR
(S.D. Fla., June 14, 2018).

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC is an accounting firm in Lawrence,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
   110 SE 6th St.
   17th Floor
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 907-1136
   Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Kelly" Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Kelly, as Parent/Guardian for
Infant G.S., on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00702-GTS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

      - and -

   Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
   9 Landgrove Drive
   Fayetteville, NY 13066
   Tel: (315) 400-5958
   Email: frankgattuso14@gmail.com


WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE: Alberta Court of Appeal Upholds Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Burns, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that three
former junior hockey players have filed a class action suit
against the Western Hockey League (WHL) for past wages and
benefits they say they are owed because they were employees of
their clubs during their playing days, and the Alberta Court of
Appeal has ruled the lawsuit can proceed largely as planned.

The representative plaintiffs, Lukas Walter, Travis McEvoy and
Kyle O'Connor, have filed a statement of claim against the WHL,
the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), and a number of hockey teams
both in Canada and the United States. The WHL is one of three
leagues featuring major junior hockey in Canada, the others being
the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) and the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League (QMJHL). All three operate under the umbrella of
the CHL.

The players claim when they played in the WHL they were employees
of the clubs for whom they played, and therefore were entitled to
receive minimum wage payments in accordance with legislation in
each of the four Canadian and two U.S. jurisdictions where the
WHL carries on business. They are seeking back wages, holiday
pay, vacation pay and overtime pay on behalf of former and
current players dating back to 2012.

And the Alberta Court of Appeal largely upheld the class that had
been certified by Justice R.J. Hall in Walter v. Western Hockey
League 2017 ABQB 382. In that case, Justice Hall ordered
certification for Canadian WHL clubs but held that it would not
be preferable to pursue the action against the U.S.-based clubs
in a Canadian court.

Appeal Court Justice Frederica Schutz said the class action
format is not a procedural structure that "entitles a court to
entertain the litigation of matters not within the jurisdiction
or competence of the certifying court" and upheld Justice Hall's
decision not to certify the action against the U.S. teams. But
Justice Schutz also affirmed the lower court's decision to
certify the action on behalf of current and former players of
teams in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, despite
concerns being raised that Justice Hall had allowed too many
common issues to be raised.

"A judge who certifies a proposed class action, in whole or in
part, with specified common issues and identified, un-conflicted
representative plaintiffs is making a procedural order," Justice
Schutz said in her decision (Walter v. Western Hockey League 2018
ABCA 188), which was brought down May 15. "While in general
terms, litigation is often not well served by a proliferation of
alternative and either redundant or inconsistent forms of claim,
such as contract, fiduciary duty, statute-based causes of action,
conspiracy and other torts, the certification stage is not
necessarily an appropriate stage to assess whether the pleading
of such alternatives creates problems or engenders injustice."

Steven Barrett, Esq. -- SBarrett@HRMML.com -- of Goldblatt
Partners LLP, who is representing the players, said they are not
currently classified as employees and receive a "reimbursement
for expenses" for their efforts, which falls below what is
required under minimum wage legislation in many jurisdictions.

"In the world of athletics, certainly when it comes to
universities and junior hockey teams, a lot of money is being
made off the players," he said. "From our perspective, on the
normal application of whether they're in an employment
relationship or not -- control -- they clearly look like
employees, and yet they're not even paid what we've already
agreed in society ought to be the minimum payment that people who
are providing these services ought to be paid."

Barrett said the action was brought forward by former players
because current players would find it very hard to "rock the
boat" as most of them are playing with the dream of becoming
professionals.

"[The former players] have finished hockey and are no longer in
the position of worrying about whether they will get through and
play in the majors," he said. "Unlike professional players, who
are clearly employees and are represented by bargaining agents,
there is this issue for the junior hockey players as to whether
or not they are properly classified as employees. And if they
are, they can organize in addition to being entitled to minimum
employment standards."

Michael Lynk, who teaches labor and employment law at Western
University, said two issues arise in this case -- whether the
players are employees and therefore deserve the protection
offered by employment standards rules including the minimum wage,
and also whether they are employees and also have a right to
unionize under labor relations legislation.

"It's difficult to see how somebody who is playing major junior
hockey in Canada, who is given a stipend and actually works in
the sense that they perform hockey as a sport and as an
entertainment, is not an employee under the working definition of
the term," he said.

Lynk said the definition of "employee," whether it is under
employment standards or labor relations legislation, is meant to
be broadly interpreted.

"It's meant to extend protection to anybody who is in an
employer-employee relationship, or a reasonable facsimile of it,
in order to ensure that they receive the benefits of workplace
protection," he said. "So that certainly is the direction where
the Supreme Court has directed labor and employment law to go
with their rulings on the Charter and freedom of association, and
it would seem to me that liberal approach is what courts would
normally be likely to draw when they read the definition of
employee in its context."

Barrett said, if the claim were successful, the impact would be
the players would be treated more fairly, both in terms of
getting paid and being given the ability to choose a bargaining
agent along the lines of the NHL Players' Association to
represent them and negotiate other protections above the minimum
required.

"And I think we have to recognize that, although most of these
kids are hopeful that they're going to end up being professional
athletes, the reality is the overwhelming number of them won't
end up in that situation," he said. "They make enormous
sacrifices, and they ought to at least yield the benefits of
being paid for all the work they're doing."

Similar actions have been brought in Quebec against the QMJHL and
in Ontario against the OHL (Berg v. Canadian Hockey League 2017
ONSC 2608). In the latter action, Justice Paul Perell of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a claim for breach of
employment law statutes but did not certify action against U.S.
teams.

Sarah Whitmore, Esq. -- swhitmore@torys.com -- counsel for the
WHL, declined to comment on the story. Three former junior hockey
players have filed a class action suit against the Western Hockey
League (WHL) for past wages and benefits they say they are owed
because they were employees of their clubs during their playing
days, and the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled the lawsuit can
proceed largely as planned.

The representative plaintiffs, Lukas Walter, Travis McEvoy and
Kyle O'Connor, have filed a statement of claim against the WHL,
the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), and a number of hockey teams
both in Canada and the United States. The WHL is one of three
leagues featuring major junior hockey in Canada, the others being
the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) and the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League (QMJHL). All three operate under the umbrella of
the CHL.

The players claim when they played in the WHL they were employees
of the clubs for whom they played, and therefore were entitled to
receive minimum wage payments in accordance with legislation in
each of the four Canadian and two U.S. jurisdictions where the
WHL carries on business. They are seeking back wages, holiday
pay, vacation pay and overtime pay on behalf of former and
current players dating back to 2012.

And the Alberta Court of Appeal largely upheld the class that had
been certified by Justice R.J. Hall in Walter v. Western Hockey
League 2017 ABQB 382. In that case, Justice Hall ordered
certification for Canadian WHL clubs but held that it would not
be preferable to pursue the action against the U.S.-based clubs
in a Canadian court.

Appeal Court Justice Frederica Schutz said the class action
format is not a procedural structure that "entitles a court to
entertain the litigation of matters not within the jurisdiction
or competence of the certifying court" and upheld Justice Hall's
decision not to certify the action against the U.S. teams. But
Justice Schutz also affirmed the lower court's decision to
certify the action on behalf of current and former players of
teams in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, despite
concerns being raised that Justice Hall had allowed too many
common issues to be raised.

"A judge who certifies a proposed class action, in whole or in
part, with specified common issues and identified, un-conflicted
representative plaintiffs is making a procedural order," Justice
Schutz said in her decision (Walter v. Western Hockey League 2018
ABCA 188), which was brought down May 15. "While in general
terms, litigation is often not well served by a proliferation of
alternative and either redundant or inconsistent forms of claim,
such as contract, fiduciary duty, statute-based causes of action,
conspiracy and other torts, the certification stage is not
necessarily an appropriate stage to assess whether the pleading
of such alternatives creates problems or engenders injustice."

Steven Barrett of Goldblatt Partners LLP, who is representing the
players, said they are not currently classified as employees and
receive a "reimbursement for expenses" for their efforts, which
falls below what is required under minimum wage legislation in
many jurisdictions.

"In the world of athletics, certainly when it comes to
universities and junior hockey teams, a lot of money is being
made off the players," he said. "From our perspective, on the
normal application of whether they're in an employment
relationship or not -- control -- they clearly look like
employees, and yet they're not even paid what we've already
agreed in society ought to be the minimum payment that people who
are providing these services ought to be paid."

Barrett said the action was brought forward by former players
because current players would find it very hard to "rock the
boat" as most of them are playing with the dream of becoming
professionals.

"[The former players] have finished hockey and are no longer in
the position of worrying about whether they will get through and
play in the majors," he said. "Unlike professional players, who
are clearly employees and are represented by bargaining agents,
there is this issue for the junior hockey players as to whether
or not they are properly classified as employees. And if they
are, they can organize in addition to being entitled to minimum
employment standards."

Michael Lynk, who teaches labor and employment law at Western
University, said two issues arise in this case -- whether the
players are employees and therefore deserve the protection
offered by employment standards rules including the minimum wage,
and also whether they are employees and also have a right to
unionize under labor relations legislation.

"It's difficult to see how somebody who is playing major junior
hockey in Canada, who is given a stipend and actually works in
the sense that they perform hockey as a sport and as an
entertainment, is not an employee under the working definition of
the term," he said.

Lynk said the definition of "employee," whether it is under
employment standards or labor relations legislation, is meant to
be broadly interpreted.

"It's meant to extend protection to anybody who is in an
employer-employee relationship, or a reasonable facsimile of it,
in order to ensure that they receive the benefits of workplace
protection," he said. "So that certainly is the direction where
the Supreme Court has directed labor and employment law to go
with their rulings on the Charter and freedom of association, and
it would seem to me that liberal approach is what courts would
normally be likely to draw when they read the definition of
employee in its context."

Barrett said, if the claim were successful, the impact would be
the players would be treated more fairly, both in terms of
getting paid and being given the ability to choose a bargaining
agent along the lines of the NHL Players' Association to
represent them and negotiate other protections above the minimum
required.

"And I think we have to recognize that, although most of these
kids are hopeful that they're going to end up being professional
athletes, the reality is the overwhelming number of them won't
end up in that situation," he said. "They make enormous
sacrifices, and they ought to at least yield the benefits of
being paid for all the work they're doing."

Similar actions have been brought in Quebec against the QMJHL and
in Ontario against the OHL (Berg v. Canadian Hockey League 2017
ONSC 2608). In the latter action, Justice Paul Perell of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a claim for breach of
employment law statutes but did not certify action against U.S.
teams.

Sarah Whitmore, counsel for the WHL, declined to comment on the
story.[GN]


WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action Over Maytag Aqualift Technology
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ricket, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
the only ingredients Barb Behnke was supposed to need to cook up
a clean oven were a little water, a sponge, 200 degrees and 40
minutes.

Instead, she ended up needing more than six months, an assist
from SOS and a different oven.

Ms. Behnke, of Madison, considers herself a pretty tidy cook, and
she expects the products she buys to perform as advertised.  So
she was miffed when she discovered that the self-cleaning feature
on her new Maytag oven didn't.

According to Maytag's manufacturer, Whirlpool, the oven's
AquaLift self-cleaning technology was developed in response to
customer dissatisfaction with traditional self-cleaning, which
works by raising the oven's temperature to as high as 800 degrees
for several hours.

AquaLift, by contrast, relies on about two cups of distilled
water, a much lower temperature and much less time to loosen
baked-on grime that supposedly can be sponged away.

This was not Ms. Behnke's experience, and she emailed SOS 15
photos of her still-dirty oven after five consecutive cleanings,
along with one showing a sponge mangled from her attempts to
remove the still-baked-on grime.

"I have had numerous phone calls and emails to Maytag," she wrote
SOS on April 11.  "They told me to try it more than once.  Then
they blamed me that I ran it with drips in there."

She said she also had multiple visits from Maytag service techs,
one of whom told her Maytag realized AquaLift isn't working and
would be discontinued.  In fact, in August 2016, attorneys filed
a federal class-action lawsuit against Whirlpool contending
AquaLift was a bust and Whirlpool has admitted as much.

SOS reached out to Whirlpool, Maytag, Grand Appliance and TV in
Sun Prairie where Ms. Behnke bought the oven, and Maytag's PR
firm, Ketchum, in early May and was rewarded with two phone calls
from the Whirlpool executive offices.

Long story short: Whirlpool would have preferred to replace her
oven with a different Maytag, but Ms. Behnke couldn't find one
she liked, so it's refunding her $894.64 for the AquaLift oven.

'Subscription' fee refunded

SOS had similar luck getting a $69.95 refund for Madison
grandmother Louise Goldstein, who pays for her granddaughter from
out of state to attend the Jewish Federation of Madison's Camp
Shalom.

The problem was the third-party firm the federation uses to
process camp payments.  When the granddaughter was signed up last
year, Active Network also signed her grandmother up for a
yearlong membership in its Active Advantage program, which
provides discounts on products and event registration fees.

Goldstein disputes Active's characterization of the membership as
an "opt-in" opportunity -- where the customer formally agrees to
the subscription -- rather than an "opt-out" opportunity -- where
the customer has to formally reject the subscription to avoid
automatic enrollment and charges.

She said Active refunded the $79.95 she was charged for Active
Advantage this year, but was holding firm on keeping 2017's
$69.95 fee -- at least until SOS stepped in and the $69.95
quietly showed up as a credit on her credit card statement. [GN]


YOGA WORKS: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yoga Works, Inc.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yoga Works, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05396 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2018).

YogaWorks is one of the largest and fastest growing providers of
yoga instruction in the U.S., with almost 3 million student
visits in 2016.[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


* 11th Cir. Affirms ADA Preemption of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jdsupra.com reports that Eleventh Circuit Affirms ADA Preemption
of Class Action Claims That Restrict Air Ambulance Operator's
Prices

Highlights:

Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts class action claims
seeking to enforce Florida statute that limits an air ambulance
operator's prices by prohibiting balance billing of unpaid
invoices.

McCarran-Ferguson Act does not reverse preempt the ADA because
the Florida statute does not regulate the "business of insurance"
-- the statute affects the billing and pricing practices of
medical providers only with respect to insureds, and has nothing
to do with the policy relationship between an insurer and an
insured.

In a significant decision for the air ambulance industry, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the
Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts enforcement of a Florida
law limiting an air ambulance operator's ability to collect
unpaid amounts on its invoices. The decision, Bailey v. Rocky
Mountain Holdings LLC, affirms the district court's dismissal of
a proposed class action against the operator.

The ADA, which applies to air ambulance operators, prohibits
states from enacting or enforcing laws "related to a price, route
or service of an air carrier."  The Eleventh Circuit panel agreed
with the district court that Florida's Personal Injury Protection
(PIP) statute improperly restricted an air ambulance operator's
prices by first limiting the reimbursement for such services to a
schedule of charges based on Medicare rates and then prohibiting
the operator from billing the insured for the balance of the
unpaid invoices.

District Court's Summary Judgment Holding
The action centered on air ambulance services provided to
transport plaintiff's son to a hospital following an automobile
accident. Seeking reimbursement, the operator billed the
plaintiff's automobile insurer for the air ambulance services.
The insurer reimbursed the operator pursuant to the PIP statute,
which permitted reimbursement at 80 percent of the statutory fee
for air ambulance services up to the policy's limits. The
operator sought the unpaid balance from plaintiff, as the
insured.

Plaintiff commenced a class action contending that the PIP
statute's "balance billing provision" prohibited the operator
from attempting to bill for "any amount in excess of such limits,
except for amounts not covered by the insured personal injury
coverage due the coinsurance amount or maximum policy limits."
The court disposed of the claim by granting summary judgment to
the operator on ADA preemption grounds, finding that the claims
"directly challeng[ed]" the operator's prices and "naturally
affect[ed]" its services.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Preemption Ruling
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and concluded that the
action "[fell] squarely within the preemptive intent behind the
ADA." The panel found that application of the PIP statute had a
"forbidden effect" on the operator's prices because it
"prohibit[ed] medical providers from charging in excess of the
fee schedule amount" and therefore "operate[ed] as a 'state-
imposed regulation' on air carrier rates."

Like the district court, the panel rejected the argument that the
McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA) reverse preempts the ADA. Under the
MFA, states retain authority to regulate the relationship between
insurance companies and their policyholders. As such, state laws
that regulate the business of insurance preempt any conflicting
federal law unless that federal law specifically relates to the
business of insurance.  To determine whether a state law was
enacted for the purpose of regulating the "business of
insurance," the law must satisfy a three-part test: "first,
whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading
a policyholder's risk; second, whether the practice is an
integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and
insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities
within the industry."

Because the "balance billing provision," i.e., the state law,
"affects the billing and pricing practices of medical providers
only with respect to insureds," the panel held that it "has
nothing to do with the relationship between an insurer and an
insured and therefore does not regulate the business of
insurance."

The Bailey decision joins several recent rulings that enforce the
preemptive effective of the ADA on state statutory and common law
challenges to air ambulance operators' prices and services.10 It
further underscores the reality that an air ambulance operator
often has an obligation to provide emergency transport
irrespective of the passenger's insurance coverage or ability to
pay for such services. [GN]


* Australia's Class Action Law Firms Warn Against Reforms
---------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that as the Australian class
action market heats up, lawmakers are investigating ways of
mitigating the harm caused to corporations by a legal climate
that promotes excess class actions.  However, some prominent
class action law firms such as Slater & Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn are warning that proposed reforms may end up "having
the effect of removing consumers' and investors' rights." [GN]


* Colorado Springs Attorney Files 2nd Suit v. PFC Manufacturers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Finley, writing for Denver Post, reports that two years
after revelations that one of mankind's hardest-to-eliminate
chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used on Peterson Air Force
Base, has contaminated groundwater tapped by communities south of
Colorado Springs, full investigation of the harm still isn't done
-- let alone environmental cleanup.

But Environmental Protection Agency officials developing a
national action plan for dealing with perfluorinated chemicals,
or PFCs, said that they'll visit Colorado to hear from residents.

And a University of Colorado Denver public-health study funded by
the National Institutes of Health will begin testing the blood of
200 residents, The Denver Post has learned.

No government agency has systematically investigated health
impacts of the contamination.  This area of southern El Paso
County is among the most populated of more than 70 places where
PFCs detected at levels up to hundreds of times higher than an
EPA health advisory limit are spreading from military bases that
used firefighting foam containing the chemicals.

Municipal firetrucks also carry the foam and PFCs are used in
consumer products, including fast-food wrappers.  They have
emerged as one family in a widening array of synthetic chemicals
detected in water that cannot be removed easily due to molecular
structures.

What appears to be government slowness feels "not good at all,"
said Rebecca Roderick, 51, who has lived in Security since 1994
and suffers health problems she links to ingesting PFCs.  She is
one of about 8,700 residents who have sued in federal court
seeking help from chemical manufacturers.

"They are not caring about we, the people who live here, and how
our standard of life is now or is going to be in the future,"
said Ms. Roderick, a customer service worker.  "Water is a
precious commodity.  This should be acted on immediately. Our
community is kind of sick."

Neither the Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment nor the EPA has been monitoring PFC levels in the
Fountain Creek watershed.  Tests done more than a year ago showed
contamination at levels far above the EPA health advisory limit.

CDPHE officials welcomed the EPA visit and said they're pushing
the Air Force to move faster into a planned 2019 "remedial
investigation" phase that would include tracking the spread of
PFCs in groundwater beyond the military base and airport.

"CDPHE takes this issue very seriously and has been working
closely with the Air Force to identify locations to be sampled
during the ongoing fieldwork," said Tracie White, the agency's
federal facilities remediation and restoration unit leader.  "We
would like to see the remedial investigation initiated as soon as
possible."

Ms. White spoke at an EPA summit on PFCs held in Washington
May 22 and 23.  She called the fact that Colorado was added to
the list of three states EPA officials will visit "very
significant and very positive."

"The intent is to better understand community concerns so that
those questions and concerns can be dealt with during their
development of a (PFCs) national management system," she said.

EPA officials declined requests to make agency experts available
to discuss PFC problems, including a pending recommendation by
the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of a
health limit that may be stricter than the EPA's current health
advisory limit issued in 2016.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt convened the summit, where agency
spokespeople said the EPA would "initiate steps to evaluate the
need for" setting a limit for some PFCs and begin "the necessary
steps to propose designating" two PFCs as official "hazardous
substances."  EPA officials also were said to be developing
groundwater-cleanup recommendations and "toxicity values" for
replacement chemicals.

Public health advocates questioned whether EPA involvement with
site visits is aimed at helping people or are intended to help
companies that could be held responsible for PFC contamination.

"It is really quite nebulous what the agency is actually going to
do," said Dave Andrews, a chemist with the Environment Working
Group, which advocates for cleaner water.  "We don't expect
strongly protective measures. And (PFC contamination) is an
enormous problem.  There's a lot the EPA could do in collection
of contaminants and identifying the sources of pollution.  Many
of these replacement chemicals may not be any better."

The CU public health study will focus on people exposed to PFCs
between 2012 and 2016, study leader John Adgate said.  "We
recruited more than 200 people from Security/Widefield/Fountain
who will be coming to our temporary clinic for the blood draws."

Air Force civil engineers provided their latest data to The Post
from an "expanded site investigation" on Peterson Air Force Base
and the adjacent Colorado Springs airport.  They'll drill 21 new
wells to measure PFC contamination of groundwater.

The testing found PFCs at levels exceeding the EPA health limit
contaminating 42 municipal water supply wells, which were shut
down, with seven now back in use after the installation of
treatment systems. (Fountain and Security stopped using wells for
water supply, shifting to water diverted from the Arkansas River.
Widefield bought and installed new water-cleaning systems to
filter out contamination.)

Air Force officials said they have found 37 private wells with
water containing elevated PFCs.

Air Force officials said they'll spend $38 million this year on
water-cleaning systems and providing bottled water in the area.

Meanwhile, Colorado Springs attorney Mike McDivitt, with
colleagues in Denver and New York, has filed a second massive
lawsuit in federal court, seeking funds from PFC manufacturers
for medical monitoring.  A federal judge is expected Aug. 2 to
rule on whether an earlier lawsuit can proceed as a class action.

"These toxic chemicals stay in your system and sometimes they
don't manifest for years, and it is too late," Mr. McDivitt said.
"With blood testing, you can detect them earlier, at the earliest
possible moment.  That's why we want money -- to pay for that
testing."

The pace of investigation and environmental cleanup "is very
disappointing," said Linda Oxley, 63, a Widefield resident. She
and her husband, Ken, claim health problems they believe are
related to water contaminated by PFCs.

"This is very concerning for children, animals, just about
everybody," she said.  "It's very disappointing that it is taking
them so long to worry about our health. We're supposed to have
safe water." [GN]


* DC Plan Executives Wind Up in Crosshairs of ERISA Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
in providing capital preservation options for investment menus,
some defined contribution plan executives have wound up in the
crosshairs of participants' lawsuits alleging fiduciary breaches
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Some sponsors have been sued because they offered a money market
fund instead of a higher-return stable value fund.  Sponsors and
providers have been sued for offering a stable value fund whose
fees were too high. Or because the funds were too conservative.
Or because the funds were too aggressive.

"They can get sued no matter what choice they make," said Patrick
DiCarlo, Esq. -- pat.dicarlo@alston.com -- Atlanta-based counsel
for the law firm Alston & Bird LLP, which represents sponsors in
ERISA cases.  "The variations in plaintiffs' complaints are more
so than I have ever seen before."

Despite some settlements  --  such as the preliminary agreement
in May by Philips North America LLC to pay $17 million  --  many
defendants have prevailed as federal district court judges and
appeals court judges have rejected plaintiffs' arguments.

For example, judges have rebuffed complaints that the CVS Health
Corp. stable value fund was too conservative and that Chevron
Corp. should have offered a stable value fund instead of a money
market fund.

Still, trade groups, ERISA attorneys and DC plan consultants urge
executives to be careful in their investment-menu planning to
reduce the risk of losing or settling Choosing a capital
preservation option "requires a trade-off of risk vs. return,"
said Brian Netter, Esq. -- bnetter@mayerbrown.com -- a
Washington-based partner for Mayer Brown LLP, which represents
sponsors in ERISA cases. "You must make reasoned, documented
decisions.  Find the answer that is most suitable for your
company."

Leaping to the defense
Amidst the flurry of ERISA lawsuits, trade organizations have
leaped to the defense of plan sponsor defendants by filing
friend-of-the-court briefs.

"Judge them by their process -- not on hindsight," said
Jan Jacobson, senior counsel for retirement policy at the
American Benefits Council, Washington, who argued that
plaintiffs' lawyers "cherry pick" data in their ERISA complaints.

The council has filed several amicus briefs in capital
preservation cases including one in February in White et al. vs.
Chevron Corp., now before the federal appeals court in San
Francisco.  A federal district judge in Oakland, Calif., twice
dismissed the complaint, in 2016 and 2017, that alleged six ERISA
violations, including the "imprudent" strategy of offering a
money market fund instead of a higher-return stable value fund.

The judge rejected the argument, noting ERISA requires plans to
offer "some type of low-risk capital preservation option" and
doesn't require executives to predict winners.  The plaintiffs
had failed to provide information supporting allegations that
Chevron officials failed to consider the "advantages and
disadvantages" of different capital preservation strategies, the
judge wrote.

The participants appealed. The council and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce filed a brief saying plaintiffs were asking judges to
accept "second-guessing of a fiduciary's discretionary choice
among several options."  ERISA governs fiduciaries "not for the
outcome of their decisions but for the process by which those
decisions were made," they wrote.

The Chevron case illustrates that capital preservation complaints
are often components of multipronged ERISA lawsuits against
sponsors.  Also, in Ramsey et al. vs. Philips North America LLC,
for example, the preliminary settlement document said 47% of the
award was related to the money market/stable value issue. Another
47% was attributed to the allegation of high record-keeping and
investment fees, and 6% was based on criticism of a diversified
real asset fund.  Philips admitted "no wrongdoing or liability
with respect to any of the allegations or claims," the document
said.

Another key legal hurdle for defendants is whether a court
certifies a complaint as a class action, thus adding thousands or
tens of thousands of plaintiffs to a complaint.  "If the court
denies the class, it's not as economical (for a plaintiff's
attorney) to pursue the case," said James P. McElligott Jr., the
Richmond, Va.-based counsel for McguireWoods, which represents
defendants in ERISA cases.  "Any time you have a large number of
participants, it's big numbers for class-action lawsuits."

Pressure on providers
Class-action status can put pressure on stable value providers,
which have defended a series of ERISA lawsuits targeting the
style, management and investment choices of their funds.  In
December 2017, eight months after a judge granted class-action
status, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. agreed to settle a stable-value
complaint for $75 million, ending nearly six years of litigation.

The case represented the consolidation of suits from participants
in nine 401(k) plans.  They alleged that J.P. Morgan violated its
ERISA duties of prudence by including highly leveraged and risky
underlying investments in its stable value fund.  The company
admitted no wrongdoing and added the settlement was made to
"avoid the ongoing cost of litigation."

Although J.P. Morgan settled, other stable value providers have
prevailed recently, including Fidelity Management Trust, Voya
Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. and Galliard Capital
Management, which was a co-defendant in the CVS Health Corp.
case.

Litigation isn't driving clients' capital preservation decisions,
DC consultants said.  Sponsors cannot prevent being sued, but
they can practice good governance such as monitoring fees and
conducting benchmark studies, said Robyn Credico, Arlington, Va.-
based defined contribution consulting leader for Willis Towers
Watson PLC.  "Just show good process and hope the suit will be
dismissed."

ERISA lawsuits attacking the offering of money market funds
instead of stable value funds allege the latter produce higher
returns than the former, especially in recent years of low
interest rates.  However, DC consultants said stable value might
not be appropriate or desirable for some plans.

Stable value is harder to explain to participants, more difficult
to administer than money market funds and might have multiple
restrictions imposed by the provider and, especially, the wrap
provider, which offers insurance to maintain book value for
investors in the underlying bonds.

Wrap contracts can restrict a plan's offering so-called competing
investments such as money market funds and short-term bond funds.
Wrap providers can impose penalties and restrictions based on
employer-generated events, which can be a merger, a spinoff,
bankruptcy, a re-enrollment or the adding of a self-directed
brokerage account depending on the contract.

"You need to know what you are buying and what are the provisions
of the contract," said Preet Prashar, associate director,
Pavilion Advisory Group, Chicago.  "Chasing yields is not the
highest priority. You must know the risks before making an
informed choice."

Questions to ask
Among the questions executives should ask, he said, are:

   -- Is the stable value investment portable if a participant
moves to another DC plan?
   -- What happens if the sponsor decides to terminate the
investment?
   -- What events can trigger penalties?

"Make sure you pick a strategy that you are comfortable with and
that's appropriate for your participants," said Benjamin Taylor,
a San Francisco-based senior vice president at Callan LLC.  They
may select money market funds due to their ease of use,
participants' familiarity with the option, simplicity and
conservatism.  But sponsors must document why this was the best
choice, he said.

His clients who offer stable funds are comfortable with their
strategies. "I haven't seen sponsors express concern as long as
their process is prudently diligent," Mr. Taylor added. [GN]


* GDPR Non-Compliant APAC Firms Liable for Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
CDO Trends reports that GDPR may be here, but many APAC firms are
still unprepared.

Consulting firm EY, which made this key observation, noted that
many firms in the region are yet to develop sufficient compliance
plans to address GDPR requirements.

More sobering is the fact that many have not even started to
examine whether GDPR impacts their activities and operations.

"The GDPR is a game changer, establishing a new global gold
standard in data protection.  Its reach adds to the complexity of
compliance and no organization can afford to be complacent.  This
presents significant challenges for Asia-Pacific organizations
attempting to meet consumers' increasing privacy expectations and
comply with privacy requirements across Asia-Pacific borders,"
Nicola Hermansson, Director, and EY Asia-Pacific Privacy Leader,
said.

Due to GDPR's vast extraterritorial reach, four industries in the
Asia Pacific region stand to lose the most with GDPR: Banking,
tourism/leisure, airline, and retail.

Specifically, APAC firms that process personal data of
individuals located in the EU (at the time of any processing) may
need to comply with the regulation, including:

   -- APAC banks monitoring their customers' transaction activity
while they are traveling within the EU
   -- APAC tourism companies using cookies to track and analyze
EU located customers' browsing and purchase histories to figure
out their preferences, hobbies, and habits
   -- APAC retailers selling products on their websites and
allowing customers based in the EU to make orders and settle
payments in Euros
   -- APAC insurers emailing existing or former customers now
located in the EU to renew their policies or offer additional
insurance products

Firms that fail to comply with the new GDPR regime will be liable
for penalties of up to 4% of their worldwide annual revenue or
EUR 20 million, as well as class action lawsuits from individuals
and proliferation on processing personal data.

EY noted that financial penalties are not the only concern; non-
compliant firms stand to lose customer trust.

Instead, EY urged firms to take a proactive look and consider it
as an initiative to build customer trust.

"A low level of alert and preparedness could have far-reaching
implications than just financial penalties, as organizations'
failure to protect and respect their customer's personal data
will lead to customer trust being eroded.  Rather than seeing it
as purely a compliance issue, organizations should be proactive
and consider that the GDPR is an opportunity to reaffirm their
resolute commitment to managing customers' data securely,"
Ms. Hermansson said. [GN]


* Hershner Hunter Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Lewis, Esq., of Hershner Hunter, in an article for the
Register-Guard, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court is often
tasked with resolving conflicts between competing laws. In an
important, hard-fought battle before the Supreme Court, employers
came out on top.

The dispute involved two depression-era statutes.  The Federal
Arbitration Act, adopted in 1925, requires courts to respect and
enforce parties' private agreements to arbitrate their disputes
rather than litigate their claims in court.  In an arbitration
proceeding the parties choose the arbitrator and the procedural
rules that apply.  As a result, arbitration is generally viewed
as a quicker, cheaper and less formal process of resolving
disputes.

Over the years arbitration became increasingly popular, and a
cottage industry of professional arbitration services soon
developed.  Companies large and small built arbitration clauses
into their business agreements, and soon employers followed suit,
requiring employment disputes with their workers to be resolved
through binding arbitration.

Ten years after Congress passed the Arbitration Act, it adopted
the National Labor Relations Act.  The NLRA grants employees the
right to engage in concerted activity regarding the terms and
conditions of their employment, and to organize unions and
bargain collectively.

For many years the Arbitration Act and the NLRA coexisted
peacefully.  In the meantime, courts began to recognize the
independent concept of a "class action" lawsuit -- a collective
effort by multiple claimants to join together in a single lawsuit
against a defendant.  The leverage that comes from strength in
numbers proved effective.  According to one survey, companies
spent $2.17 billion on class action lawsuits in 2016.  Forty
percent of that amount was spent on labor and employment class
actions alone.

In an effort to reduce those costs, employers began inserting
language in their arbitration agreements prohibiting employees
from joining together and suing employers as a class.  Employers
correctly believed that by requiring employees to file their
claims individually, workers would be less inclined to pick a
fight.

Class action lawyers quickly challenged those efforts, claiming
that employees' rights to engage in concerted activity under the
NLRA included the right to join together in a class action
arbitration proceeding.  Employers countered that the Arbitration
Act gives employers and employees broad power to set the ground
rules for an arbitration, and if the parties agree to resolve
their disputes on an individual basis, courts must respect that
decision.

The debate landed before a Supreme Court whose majority is
perceived to be ideologically aligned with employers.  In a 5-4
opinion written by newly appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, the
majority noted that the court's role is not to assume that
statutes "are at war with one another," but that acts of Congress
should, if possible, be read "as a harmonious whole."

With that principle in mind, the court found no conflict between
the Arbitration Act and NLRA, because while the NLRA governs
workplace conduct, the Arbitration Act addresses an entirely
different matter -- how judges and arbitrators resolve legal
disputes.  As a result, the majority held that the Arbitration
Act requires courts to respect an agreement between employees and
employers to resolve disputes between them through one-on-one
arbitration.

The court's decision is a significant victory for employers.
While arbitration has its advantages and disadvantages, those
employers who have adopted arbitration as the preferred method of
resolving workplace disputes -- and who may be vulnerable to
class action lawsuits -- should carefully consider whether to
include class action waivers as part of their arbitration
agreements. [GN]


* Mississippi Supreme Court Blocks Class Actions in State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that the
Mississippi Supreme Court historically has decided to not allow
for class action lawsuits in its state courts, making Mississippi
the only state in the nation in which there are no class actions
available to its citizens at the state level, said attorney
Richard T. Phillips of Batesville, who filed a petition seeking
for the state legislature to approve these lawsuits, termed "Rule
23," moving forward.

"The absence of a class-action procedure in Mississippi denies,
as a practical matter, the Mississippi courts, including this
Mississippi Supreme Court, the ability to address the rapidly
increasing number of disputes and issues involving state law
which arises from contracts and other transactions," Phillips
said.  His petition states further, "The purpose of this request
is to provide a Rule 23 Class Action procedure to afford citizens
of the State of Mississippi a procedure by which the contract and
other legal issues which arise today may be resolved in a viable
and practical manner in the State Court legal system."

Simply put, Phillips feels a state class action procedure is
needed to allow Mississippi citizens and businesses the same
rights afforded to those in other states.  However, his motion
was denied by the high court in a 7-2 ruling in May.

In the court's order, the majority opinion indicated there were
numerous comments filed by individuals, law firms, businesses,
and other organizations concerning the issue.  The court's
advisory committee ultimately voted against recommending
approval.  One of the national groups opposed to class action in
state courts was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal
Reform.

Harold Kim, executive vice president of the Institute for Legal
Reform, said citizens already have an adequate forum for bringing
concerns normally handled by class actions in federal court.
Therefore, allowing them to do so at the state level is
unnecessary.  What's more, government enforcement actions have
proven to be a more effective way to address many of the issues
brought forward by class actions.

Allowing class actions would also expand a system that is already
known to be widely abused by attorneys and would negatively
affect the state's overall economic competitiveness.  These
lawsuits, according to the high court, encourage the type of
intrastate forum shopping Mississippi has experienced in the past
and has worked hard to eliminate.  Adding a state court class
action procedure would add an unnecessary and heavy burden to an
already overworked and understaffed state judiciary.

Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure simply omits class actions
and has done so since the rules were first adopted in 1981.
Instead, it allows for joinder, which says, "All persons may join
in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief
jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences, and if any question of law or fact
common to all these persons will arise in the action."  Yet, the
state high court has interpreted and reinterpreted the joinder
rule over the years, deciding to not allow many joinder cases.
[GN]


* Nevada Senator Calls for Diabetes Drug Pricing Transparency
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverman, writing for Managed Care, reports that as rising
drug prices became a hot political issue, Yvanna Cancela was
looking for a way to make a difference.  So early last year, the
Nevada state senator introduced a transparency bill that would
require drugmakers to report pricing, costs, and rebates-but only
concerning diabetes medications.

The move quickly gained notice.  Transparency bills were being
studied by legislators around the country, and California and
Vermont had already taken the next step by enacting laws. But
these efforts did not distinguish among medications for different
diseases.  Ms. Cancela, however, thought diabetes needed extra
attention.

"Drug costs across the board are high, but the increase in
insulin costs, an almost century-old drug, seemed outrageous to
me," says the Nevada Democrat, who previously worked as political
director of the Culinary Workers Union.  "I think patients
deserve to understand why their drugs are expensive.

"No one really has access to data to understand why the cost of
medications has increased for diabetes patients in the last
decade," she continues.  "At all levels of the drug-pricing
chain, different entities present different information, and
without unbiased data, it's difficult to make policy decisions."

Pharma on edge
Cancela was motivated to introduce the bill after looking at the
numbers in Nevada.

In 2014, state figures showed spending was nearly $2.5 billion
for diabetes-related medical costs, while prediabetes care cost
$194 million.  As of 2016, more than 280,000 adult Nevadans-which
works out to be about one in every eight adult residents-had been
diagnosed with diabetes, according to the American Diabetes
Association.  That prevalence puts Nevada in the middle of the
pack of other states.

Ms. Cancela's timing focused still more national attention on
diabetes drugs.  In the months before Cancela introduced her
bill, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a federal
investigation into alleged collusion among the big three insulin
makers -- Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.  Soon afterward, a
high-profile class-action lawsuit filed by consumers in federal
court in Boston made the same claim.

These events put the pharmaceutical industry on edge. But despite
fierce opposition from drugmakers, the Nevada bill was signed
into law last fall, although not before being modified.  To
assuage political opponents, pharmacy benefit managers must
disclose rebates paid to health plans.

Fearing other states would quickly follow suit, two industry
trade groups -- the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America and the Biotech Innovation Organization -- went to court,
arguing that the Nevada law was "unprece-dented and
unconstitutional."  The trade groups complained the Nevada law
interferes with well-established patent law by robbing drugmakers
of their right to protect trade secrets.  In hopes of preserving
the law, state officials crafted a draft regulation that would
allow companies to mark certain diabetes drug pricing data as
confidential when they begin complying with a new transparency
law this spring.  Nonetheless, the lawsuit is proceeding.

Despite the litigation, other state legislators are emulating
Ms. Cancela.  In recent months, lawmakers in four other states --
Colorado, Hawaii, South Carolina, and Mississippi -- have
introduced transparency bills concerning diabetes drugs,
according to the National Academy of State Health Policy, an
independent group of state policymakers that is working with
state legislators to draft bills.

Whether any of these legislative efforts achieve their goals is
uncertain.  Vermont lawmakers, for instance, are searching for
ways to bolster their own law, which gathers pricing data from
drugmakers, but so far has not translated into any meaningful
action.

As for Ms. Cancela, she concedes there are no guarantees, but
argues the bill has made a difference already.

"The law is already a success, because it forced a conversation
in Nevada about why diabetes care is so expensive and brought
others to the table to talk about drug pricing in the regulatory
process.  Hopefully, the dialogue will result in lower prices for
patients." [GN]


* SCOTUS Green Lights CA Waivers in Major Win for Employers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jdsupra.com reports that the United States Supreme Court ruled
earlier that employees must submit claims to arbitration on an
individualized basis when their employment agreements require it,
even when those claims could be brought as class or collective
action under federal legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that
parties to an arbitration agreement are bound by their agreement,
as the Federal Arbitration Act envisioned. The Court cited the
long history of supporting private arbitration agreements as an
efficient and cost-effective means of handling disputes between
parties, including parties to an employment agreement who have a
dispute over wages.

The Plaintiffs had argued that the requirement to arbitrate
claims individually instead of through class or collective
actions conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act's focus
on collective activity. Nothing in the NLRA, the Court observed,
granted employees the right to bring class or collective claims.
Likewise, the Court disagreed that there was any Chevron
deference (deference to an administrative tribunal such as the
NLRB) that required collective treatment of claims outside of the
law the NLRB was charged to enforce. In other words, Plaintiffs
could not use the NLRA to craft an argument that they were
entitled to litigate collectively under the FLSA.

The opinion was the result of three cases that came before Court.
One, the Ernst & Young case, involved a class-wide challenge to
the company's use of an FLSA exemption. Because the parties had
an agreement to arbitrate employment claims through individual
arbitration, the company moved to compel arbitration. The
employer was successful before the district court, only to have
the appellate court overrule it. But the High Court fully
embraced the mandate of the Federal Arbitration Act and remanded
the case where arbitration will now be compelled over the
individual wage claim only. We can expect a flurry of motions to
compel individualized arbitrations to hit the dockets in class
and collective claims currently pending throughout the country.

This represents a major victory for employers. Barring amendments
to laws such as the FLSA to carve out class/collective treatment
from the Federal Arbitration Act, this opinion will have a
significant impact on the use of employment agreements to stem
the tide of costly, time-consuming collective and class actions
in federal court. We recommend a carefully crafted employment
agreement with a properly tailored arbitration provision that
requires arbitration of all employment claims on an individual,
not class or collective, basis. Grant the arbitrator the ability
to award all benefits set forth in the statue so that full relief
can be granted. These provisions should go a long way to limiting
an employer's exposure to future federal class and collective
claims. [GN]




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *