CAR_Public/180625.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, June 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 126



                            Headlines


ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ADECCO USA: CMC in "Shepardson" Moved to Aug. 2
ALL STAR PAVING: Mendez Asserts FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Unreimbursed Expenses Suit
AMERICOLLECT INC: "Beltre" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Copp" Suit Over Merger With Eli Lilly
ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Franchi Sues Over $1.6-Bil. Sale to Eli Lilly
ATLANTA SUPERSOURCE: "Easton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BA PIZZA INC: Sued by Chavez for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA

BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dieffenbach" Suit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Still Pending
BCB BANCORP: Insurance Carrier Suit Related to "Kube" Concluded
BELL TRANS: Court Partially Stays "Oliver" Until Aug. 30
BLUE CROSS: Sued by Dilworth Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

BLUETARP FINANCIAL: Brown Lumber Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
BNP PARIBAS: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended "Kashef" Suit
CARDINAL COMPLIANCE: Misclassifies Employees, "Moore" Suit Says
CHALLENGE SECURITY: "Copeland" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
CHARLES WAGNER: "Barlow" Suit Seeks Insurance for Asbestos Claims

CHICAGO, IL: CTU's Bid to Strike 3rd Affirmative Defense Denied
COMMUNITY LOANS: Dietzen to Recoup OT Pay for Branch Managers
CONVERGYS CORP: Accused by "Roush" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
CORECIVIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dew" Suit Alleges
CRICKET COMMS: Bid to Strike Renewed Removal Notice Denied

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bethea Sues for Wage & Hour Law Violations
CVS HEALTH: Court Closes Suit Over HIV/AIDS Treatment
DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Moreno" Suit Alleges
DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: "Becerra" Suit Dismissed
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed

ENDOLOGIX INC: $750,000 "Ortiz" Settlement Funds Distributed
ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fee, Incentive Awards
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by "Thibodeaux" of Violating FDCPA
FACEBOOK INC: Burk Files Suit Over Data Breach
FIVE STAR PIZZA: Fails to Refund Delivery Drivers, "Cheeney" Says

FLUOR CORPORATION: Sued by Chun for Lying to the Investing Public
FRONTLINE ASSET: Can Compel Arbitration in "Fuller" FDCPA Suit
FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Moore" Suit Seeks Refund of Property Taxes
GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Baltic Stockholder Suit Upheld
GEO GROUP: Court Resets Deadlines in "Chen" Suit

GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Accused by "Deforest" Suit of Invading Privacy
GLOBE LIFE: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
GOPRO INC: Court Enters Schedule for Filing Reply to "Park" Suit
GUEST SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
HAVEN HEALTH: Faces "Downing" Class Suit Over Background Checks

HESKA CORP: "Fauley" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Estivene" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
HOUSING MANAGEMENT: "Christian" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
HOUSTON NFL: PGG Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Pays Out $1.9MM in Employees' Wage Suits

JANUS HENDERSON: Unit Faces Velocity Shares Daily Inverse Suits
KLONDEX MINES: Being Sold for Too Little, "Gunderson" Suit Claims
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Suit vs. ARCP
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit Over Miller Securities
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Dismiss All American Suit Granted

LASHMAX LLC: Coleman Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA
LOVETT FOOD: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Fajardo Files Securities Class Action
MATSON NAVIGATION: Unearned Wages Claim in "Dixon" Dismissed
MDL 2777: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid for Class Certification

MEDICINES CO: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal
MEDGUARD ALERT: Cunningham Files Suit Over Autodialed Calls
MFS GLOBAL: Violates TCPA's Do-Not-Call Provision, Fabricant Says
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Filing of Amended "Fowler" Suit
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss LOVENOX Suit Underway

MTGE INVESTMENT: "Dell'Acqua" Suit Challenges Sale to Annaly
MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces "Franchi" Suit Over Acquisition by Annaly
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4 Classes in "McNamee" FDCPA Suit Certified
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: "Gurto" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Youth Shelter Suit OK'd

NORTEL NETWORKS: Ct. Dismisses Amended "Lucescu" Securities Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit
OKLAHOMA: Court Reverses Certification of "Morehead" Class
ONE FIFTY: Court Certifies Class of Waiters/Servers in "Maor"

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs to Appeal Case Dismissal
POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Pending in New York
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Approve Class Settlement Underway
QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Action Still Ongoing
QUICK CAPITAL: Accused by Abante Rooter Suit of Violating TCPA

RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Suit Underway
REAL ESTATE EMPIRE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
RED WING: Web Site Not Blind-Accessible, "Olsen" Suit Says
RITRAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Noain" Suit Claims
ROME HOUSING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Barber" Suit

RURAL METRO: Bid to Compel RFPs Replies in "Calleros" Partly OKd
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Dismissal of Community Bank Suit Affirmed
SEALIFT INC: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in "Dziennik" OK'd
SECURITY BENEFIT: Sued by Ogles on Behalf of Annuity Purchasers
SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: "Encalada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

STAGE STORES: "Crosby" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
STANDARD FIRE: Summary Judgement Bid in "O'Hara" Suit Granted
STEVENS SECURITY: Must Show Docs Responsive to "Gunn" RFPs
SYMANTEC CORP: Faces "Broda" Securities Class Suit in California
SYRACUSE, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in "Winston" Partly Affirmed

TLRA DEBT: Collection Activities Violate FDCPA, "Day" Suit Says
TOUCHPOINT 360: "Arugu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Razak"
UNITED STATES: Court Allows "Pack" to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Suit

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Raul Files Suit Over Francisco Partners Merger
VOYA FINANCIAL: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, "Matzura" Suit Says
WEIS MARKETS: "Allen" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation
WINKING LIZARD: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WYNN RESORTS: Faces "Ferris" Securities Class Action

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Appellate Briefing to be Completed in July




                            *********


ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the District Court has granted the
plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss a class action lawsuit
without prejudice.

On November 17, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, by Michael Hague on behalf of stockholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between April 18, 2016 through November 14, 2017, which is
referred to as the purported class period.

The Company said, "The complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, including allegations that the company's stock was
artificially inflated during the class period because we and
certain current and former officers allegedly made
misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding
tozadenant, a pharmaceutical product candidate the company
acquired with Biotie Therapies in 2016."

"Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the company failed to
disclose, throughout the class period, tozadenant's safety risks
and approval prospects, and also that we overstated the benefits
of the Biotie Therapies acquisition. The complaint sought, among
other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs."

On March 13, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to voluntarily dismiss the class action without prejudice.

Acorda Therapeutics said "There is no settlement agreement
between us and the plaintiff, and each party is responsible for
its own costs and attorneys' fees."

Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing therapies that restore function and improve the
lives of people with neurological disorders. The company is based
in Ardsley, New York.


ADECCO USA: CMC in "Shepardson" Moved to Aug. 2
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California

The Plaintiff filed the proposed class action on Aug. 18, 2015.
The Defendant removed the action to the Court and filed a Motion
to Compel single Plaintiff arbitration pursuant to the Dispute
Resolution Agreement between the parties.  The Court granted the
Defendant's Motion to Compel pursuant to the arbitration
agreement, which contains a class action waiver.

After the Court ruled on the Motion to Compel in the case, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP,
held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements violate
the National Labor Relations Act.  The United States Supreme
Court granted review of the Morris v. Ernst & Young decision.
The matter was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.  The
Supreme Court held oral argument on Oct. 2, 2017, and, as of the
date of the Stipulated Order, the Supreme Court has yet to render
a decision.

Further, the Plaintiff's counsel will be out of the country from
June 14, 2018 through July 10, 2018.  Accordingly, the parties
request a 6-week continuance of the case management conference
("CMC").

Therefore, the parties stipulated, and Judge Chen granted, that
the CMC be continued six weeks to a date after July 10, 2018.
The CMC now scheduled for March 24, 2018 is continued and will be
scheduled to take place on Aug. 2, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2yh8j4K from Leagle.com.

Kaitlyn Shepardson, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C., John Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Righetti
Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com --
Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Clare
Eckstrom -- allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP &
Julie Westcott O'Dell -- Julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave
LLP.


ALL STAR PAVING: Mendez Asserts FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ENRIQUE MENDEZ v. ALL STAR PAVING & MASONRY, LLP, and THOMAS
CONNOR, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-09521 (D.N.J., May 21,
2018), is brought against the Defendants as a collective action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-
exempt laborers, for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

All Star is headquartered in North Brunswick, Middlesex County,
New Jersey.  Thomas Connor has been an owner, partner, officer or
manager of All Star.

The Defendants own and operate a paving and masonry company
servicing clients throughout the state of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
                  AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Unreimbursed Expenses Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, MSP RECOVERY, LLC, and
MSPA CLAIMS 1 LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
Case Nos. 17-cv-01340, 17-cv-02370 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R.
Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted without prejudice
Defendants' motions to dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the
Defendants' motions to dismiss or strike the class allegations.

The Plaintiffs, alleged assignees of legal claims held by
numerous unidentified Medicare Advantage Organizations, have
filed these two putative class action lawsuits against Allstate
and Esurance.  In both cases, the Plaintiffs seek double recovery
under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act
("MSP provisions"), for reimbursement of medical expenses that
the Plaintiffs allege various Medicare Advantage Organizations
paid on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries despite the Defendants'
obligation to pay under the MSP provisions.  The class action
complaints are virtually identical, involving the same
Plaintiffs, Defendants, allegations, and claims for relief,
except for the presence of an additional contract claim in case
number 1:17-cv-01340.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring claims on behalf of putative
classes that include entities that contracted directly with
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and/or their assignees
pursuant to Medicare part C, including but not limited to, MAOs
and other similar entities, to provide Medicare benefits through
a Medicare Advantage Plan and that made payments for benefits
that should have been paid by Defendants as primary plans under
the MSP provisions.  The Plaintiffs have brought at least 10 sets
of nearly identical lawsuits against different insurer Defendants
in various district courts across the country.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims in both cases
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing
that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief.  In the
alternative, they have also filed motions to dismiss or strike
the class allegations in both complaints.

Judge Wood notes that in the Auto Insurance Case, the necessity
of sufficient factual allegations regarding an assignment of
rights from an MAO to a Plaintiff applies with equal force to the
breach of contract claim as it does to the MSP claim.  While the
Plaintiffs claim that the MAOs have subrogation rights pursuant
to Medicare regulations to pursue their Medicare beneficiaries'
breach of contract claims against the Defendants, the complaint
still fails to plead facts sufficient to establish that the MAOs
then properly assigned those rights to the Plaintiffs.  The
complaints in both the Auto Insurance Case and the Tort
Settlement Case are therefore dismissed in their entirety without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing amended complaints containing
additional factual allegations regarding the alleged assignments.

Given that the complaints are dismissed without prejudice, the
Judge briefly touches on the merits in an attempt to conserve
time and resources if the Plaintiffs do choose to re-plead.  She
finds that the complaint contains such a dearth of factual
allegations regarding the contracts between the Defendants and
their insureds that the Court does not even have a basis for
analyzing the claim under any particular state's substantive
contract law.  At the very least, though, the Plaintiffs were
required to plead some basic facts regarding the contracts
themselves, the promises made, an insured's performance under the
contract, and a Defendant's breach.  Because the complaint
contains virtually no factual allegations regarding any contract,
this claim must be dismissed without prejudice as well.

For these reasons, Judge Wood granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.  The complaints are dismissed without prejudice.  The
Defendants' alternative motions to dismiss or strike class
allegations are therefore denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://goo.gl/wZxVEs from Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC & MSP RECOVERY, LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R. Brent Wisner --
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman,
P.c., Courtney Lynn Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Hundley --
dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P.,
Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Pedram Esfandiary, Baum
Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice.

MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R. Brent Wisner, Baum
Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.c., Courtney Lynn Stidham, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Hundley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Pedram Esfandiary, Baum Hedlund
Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice.

Allstate Insurance Company & Esurance Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Steven M. Levy --
steven.levy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey P. Lennard --
jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Kristine Marie
Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP
& Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


AMERICOLLECT INC: "Beltre" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Beltre, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Americollect, Inc., Case No.  1:18-cv-02456
(E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018), seeks damages for Defendant's
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff Jonathan Beltre is an individual who is a citizen
of the State of New York residing in Queens County, New York. The
Plaintiff is a consumer.

The Defendant Americollect, Inc., is a Wisconsin Corporation with
a principal place of business in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the District Court has entered
its final approval order approving the settlement of a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company
and certain of its current and former employees and directors on
behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints
were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in
general, include allegations that the company and certain of its
current and former employees and directors violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought
unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1,
2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On March 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead
plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On
November 5, 2013, the District Court dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice.

"On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On
March 20, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion and
dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his
appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
or Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering
brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. A panel of the
Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016.

"On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the
District Court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended
complaint and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. On January 25, 2017, the District Court
permitted us to submit a renewed motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2017, the company
filed the renewed motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2017, the
lead plaintiff filed his opposition, and on March 2, 2017, the
company filed its reply.

On April 28, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
renewed motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2017, the company and
the lead plaintiff signed a stipulation and agreement of
settlement, or Stipulation, to resolve the consolidated class
action.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, and in exchange for a release
of all claims by class members and a dismissal of the
consolidated class action with prejudice, the company has agreed
(i) the company's insurers will pay class members and their
attorneys a total of approximately $12.025 million and (ii) Arena
will pay class members and their attorneys approximately $11.975
million in either shares of the company's common stock or cash at
the company's election. On November 30, 2017, the District Court
preliminary approved the settlement and the form of notice to
potential class members of the proposed settlement and the
procedure by which they can become class members. On April 12,
2018, the District Court entered its final approval order
approving the settlement and the plan of allocation and request
for attorneys' fees and expense.

"In the third quarter of 2017, the company recognized $11.975
million of net expense for the portion of the settlement that we
will pay in either common stock or cash, and $24.0 million as a
current liability presented in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets for the gross settlement liability,
with a corresponding $12.025 million insurance recovery
receivable."

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing novel, small-molecule drugs with optimized
receptor pharmacology designed to deliver broad clinical utility
across multiple therapeutic areas. The company is based in San
Diego, California.


ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Copp" Suit Over Merger With Eli Lilly
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE COPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC., PETER VAN VLASSELAER, PH.D.,
XIANGMIN CUI, PH.D., CARL GORDON, PH.D., PIERRE LEGAULT, NAIYER
RIZVI, M.D., BETH SEIDENBERG, M.D., and STELLA XU, PH.D., Case
No. 3:18-cv-03109 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), arises from the
proposed merger between ARMO and Eli Lilly and Company.

On May 10, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with Lilly, by which Lilly will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of ARMO common stock
through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $50 per
share.  The Tender Offer commenced on May 23, 2018, and the
Company concurrently filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, recommending
that the Company's stockholders tender their shares for the
Tender Offer price.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain
material internal financial information about the Company, relied
on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the Tender Offer and
by the Company's financial advisor to render an opinion that the
Tender Offer is fair to ARMO stockholders, and certain material
information regarding the sale process leading up to the Tender
Offer, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and/or
misleading.

ARMO is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Redwood City, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

ARMO is a bio-technology company that develops immunotherapies
for treating cancer, as well as cardiovascular, fibrosis, and
inflammation diseases in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com


ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Franchi Sues Over $1.6-Bil. Sale to Eli Lilly
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC., PETER VAN VLASSELAER,
XIANGMIN CUI, CARL GORDON, PIERRE LEGAULT, NAIYER RIZVI, BETH
SEIDENBERG, STELLA XU, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and BLUEGILL
ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00805-UNA (D. Del., May
29, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
ARMO will be acquired by Eli Lilly and Company ("Parent") and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Bluegill Acquisition Corporation.

On May 9, 2018, ARMO's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger and reorganization
with Eli Lilly.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, that was set to expire June
21, 2018, to acquire all of ARMO's outstanding common stock for
$50 in cash for each share of ARMO common stock, or approximately
$1.6 billion, in an all-cash transaction.

ARMO is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Redwood City, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

ARMO is a late-stage immuno-oncology company that is developing a
pipeline of novel, proprietary product candidates that activate
the immune system of cancer patients to recognize and eradicate
tumors.

Eli Lilly is an Indiana corporation and is a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Eli
Lilly discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


ATLANTA SUPERSOURCE: "Easton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
James Corey Eaton and Steven Paul Smith, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Atlanta SuperSource, Inc.,
and Tim Martin, Case No. 1:18-cv-01791 (N.D. Ga., April 25,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
regular wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

James Corey Eaton began working for the Defendants on September
28, 2015 as a service technician.

Steven Paul Smith began working for the Defendants on July 25,
2017 as a service technician.

The Plaintiffs' job duties consisted of performing maintenance
and repair work on dish washers and laundry equipment for clients
of SuperSource, including restaurants, golf clubs, hotels, and
other businesses within Georgia.

The Defendants operate a domestic corporation registered and
licensed to do business in the State of Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BA PIZZA INC: Sued by Chavez for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. BA PIZZA INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; BA
PIZZA II, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; BA PIZZA III, INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation; and TOM VENITIS, individually, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00375-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2018), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Chavez alleges that the Defendants implemented illegal pay
procedures that deprived him of proper overtime compensation for
his hours worked in excess for 40 hours each week.

BA Pizza was a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place
of business in Lee County, Florida.  BA Pizza II was a Florida
Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Collier
County, Florida.  BA Pizza III was a Florida Profit Corporation
with a principal place of business in Lee County.

The Corporate Defendants were doing business as Leoni's Pizzeria.
Tom Venitis owned and jointly operated three pizzerias, doing
business as Leoni's Pizzeria, throughout Lee and Collier
counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com


BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dieffenbach" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER DIEFFENBACH and SUSAN WINSTEAD, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
17-2408 (7th Cir.), Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's
dismissal of the complaint, and remanded the case for proceedings
consistent with his Opinion.

In 2012, Barnes & Noble discovered that scoundrels had
compromised some of the machines, called PIN pads, that it used
to verify payment information. They acquired details such as
customers' names, card numbers and expiration dates, and PINs.
Some customers temporarily lost the use of their funds while
waiting for banks to reverse unauthorized charges to their
accounts.  Some spent money on credit-monitoring services to
protect their financial interests.  Some lost the value of their
time devoted to acquiring new account numbers and notifying
businesses of these changes.  In this suit under state law, the
Plaintiffs seek to collect damages not from the data thieves but
from Barnes & Noble.

The district court initially held that the representative
Plaintiffs had suffered no loss at all -- that they did not even
have standing to sue.  After the Court held in Remijas v. Neiman
Marcus Group, LLC, and Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.,
that consumers who experience a theft of their data indeed have
standing, the district court (acting through a different judge)
concluded that the complaint alleges injury.  But district court
judge nonetheless dismissed the complaint, ruling that it does
not adequately plead damages.

Judge Easterbrook finds that this seems a new label for an old
error.  To say that the Plaintiffs have standing is to say that
they have alleged injury in fact, and if they have suffered an
injury then damages are available (if Barnes & Noble violated the
statutes on which the claims rest).  The Plaintiffs have standing
because the data theft may have led them to pay money for credit-
monitoring services, because unauthorized withdrawals from their
accounts cause a loss (the time value of money) even when banks
later restore the principal, and because the value of one's own
time needed to set things straight is a loss from an opportunity-
cost perspective.  These injuries can justify money damages, just
as they support standing.

The fact that the federal rules do not require the Plaintiffs to
identify items of loss (except for special damages) means that
the complaint cannot be faulted as insufficient.  Still, a
district court could grant judgment on the pleadings, if none of
the Plaintiffs' injuries is compensable, as a matter of law,
under the statutes on which they rely.  He therefore turns to
state law.

The Judge explains that Dieffenbach dealt with Barnes & Noble in
California and contends on appeal that she suffered four kinds of
injury: (1) her bank took three days to restore funds someone
else had used to make a fraudulent purchase; (2) she had to spend
time sorting things out with the police and her bank; (3) she
could not make purchases using her compromised account for three
days; and (4) she did not receive the benefit of her bargain with
Barnes & Noble.  The fourth of these is not a loss; it is the
failure to obtain a gain from the transaction. But the first
three are losses, at least in economic terms.

Dieffenbach invokes two statutes: California's Customer Records
Act and its Unfair Competition Law.  The Records Act does not
define injury, nor does any state decision the Judge could find.
The district judge took this absence of a definition as
equivalent to conditioning recovery on satisfaction of the Unfair
Competition Law, which provides that "lost money or property"
supports recovery.  That's a problematic move; the statutes are
distinct, after all, as is their language.  But this does not
matter, because the first three losses that Dieffenbach
identifies fit within the phrase "lost money or property".

Now for Illinois, Judge Easterbrook explains that Winstead, the
second representative Plaintiff, alleges that (1) her bank
contacted her about a potentially fraudulent charge on her credit
card statement and deactivated her card for several days; and (2)
the security breach at Barnes & Noble "was a decisive factor"
when she renewed a credit-monitoring service for $16.99 per
month.  An Illinois appellate court has held that a person who
purchases credit-monitoring services after a merchant discloses
personal information has not suffered actual damages.  To get
damages, the plaintiffs must show that a culpable data breach
caused the monthly payments, but the complaint cannot be
dismissed before giving the class an opportunity to do so.

Everything the Judge explained about California and Illinois law
concerns injury.  He has not considered whether Barnes & Noble
violated any of these three state laws by failing to prevent
villains from stealing the Plaintiffs' names and account data.
Barnes & Noble was itself a victim.  Its reputation took a hit,
it had to replace the compromised equipment plus other terminals
that had been shown to be vulnerable, and it lost business.  None
of the state laws expressly makes merchants liable for failure to
crime-proof their point-of-sale systems.

He finds that the Plaintiffs may have a difficult task showing an
entitlement to collect damages from a fellow victim of the data
thieves.  It is also far from clear that this suit should be
certified as a class action; both the state laws and the
potential damages are disparate.  These and other questions need
consideration on remand.  That the case has been pending for five
and a half years without a decision by the district court whether
the proposed class can be certified is problematic under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A).

All he holds is that the complaint cannot be dismissed on the
ground that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege compensable
damages.  Accordingly, Judge Easterbrook vacated the judgment,
and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's April 11, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/0Lq7Lk from Leagle.com.

Peter V. Baugher -- pbaugher@baugherlegal.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Erich Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Allyson Himelfarb -- allyson.himelfarb@arnoldporter.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Kenneth L. Chernof -- kenneth.chernof@arnoldporter.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss a
consolidated complaint in the Northern District of Illinois
district court is still pending.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection
with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions
subsequently were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Baxter International Inc. provides a portfolio of healthcare
products. The company operates through North and South America;
Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. It
offers peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, and additional
dialysis therapies and services; renal replacement therapies and
other organ support therapies focused in the intensive care unit;
sterile intravenous (IV) solutions, IV therapies, infusion pumps,
administration sets, and drug reconstitution devices; and
parenteral nutrition therapies. The company is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.


BCB BANCORP: Insurance Carrier Suit Related to "Kube" Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a lawsuit in relation to the Kube v. Pamrapo
Bancorp, Inc., et al., case has been concluded.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in
its own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a
shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc.,
et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County,
Chancery Division, General Equity (the "Action").

On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final
Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and
the remaining defendants was approved. Pursuant to the Judgment,
and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all
Released Claims (as that term is defined in the Stipulation) and
the dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against the Company
and the remaining defendants, the Company, on its own behalf and
on behalf of the remaining defendants, would pay $1,950,000 to
the Class. This settlement amount was paid in November 2015.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel
reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and
litigation expenses ("Fees Motion"). The maximum amount which
could have been awarded as a result of the Fees Motion was
$1,000,000. The plaintiff class's counsel made a Fees Motion to
the court seeking a final award of counsel fees and litigation
expenses of approximately $1,000,000. The Company and the
remaining defendants vigorously opposed that motion.

By Order, dated July 5, 2017, the court awarded counsel fees and
litigation expenses to the plaintiff's class counsel in the
amount of $1,000,000. The Company satisfied the Order by July 31,
2017.

The Company and the other defendants in the Action ("Plaintiffs")
brought suit (the "Carrier Suit") against Progressive Insurance
Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability
insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its
merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American
Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers'
Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the
merger. The Carrier Suit sought, among other claims,
indemnification, payment of and/or contribution toward the above
settlement, payment of and/or contribution toward the award of
attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and
reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred
by the Plaintiffs in defending the Action and pursuing the
Carrier Suit.

Progressive made a motion to dismiss the Carrier Suit in 2014.
The Plaintiffs opposed that motion. That motion was
administratively terminated by Order of the court, dated December
3, 2014. By Order of the court, dated December 3, 2014, the
Plaintiffs' motion to file an Amended Complaint was granted.

On or about January 6, 2015, Progressive again made a motion to
dismiss the Carrier Suit. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion.
That motion was denied by oral decision on October 22, 2015, and
by written Order, dated January 20, 2016.

A Mediation session ("Mediation") was held on March 11, 2015,
among the parties. Following the Mediation, the Plaintiffs and
Colonial agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against Colonial
for $1,750,000. A Settlement Agreement and Release, dated June
30, 2015, was entered into by the Plaintiffs and Colonial. The
Plaintiffs received the settlement amount of $1,750,000 from
Colonial on July 9, 2015.

The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their respective
claims at the Mediation. The Carrier Suit continued with respect
to these parties.

By Order of the court, dated August 10, 2016, the parties were
granted permission to serve and file motions for summary judgment
by November 9, 2016. Prior to consideration of these motions, a
Settlement Conference was held before the court on November 16,
2016. The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their
respective claims at that Settlement Conference.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment. These motions
were returnable before the court on December 5, 2016.
By Order, dated September 18, 2017, the court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and denied
Progressive's motion for summary judgment.

A Status Conference was held before the court on October 26,
2017. As a result thereof, a Settlement Conference was scheduled
for December 1, 2017, before the court.

A Settlement Conference in the Carrier Suit was conducted on
December 1, 2017, before the court. At the Settlement Conference,
the terms of a preliminary settlement were discussed by the
Plaintiffs and Progressive. A proposed Settlement Agreement and
Release ("Release") was circulated among the parties for review.

The last party to the Carrier Suit executed the Release on
February 20, 2018. Pursuant to the Release, in consideration for
the full settlement and release of all claims (as that term is
defined in the Release) and the dismissal of the Carrier Suit
with prejudice, Progressive agreed to pay the Company $2,200,000
by on or about March 10, 2018. Progressive timely made that
payment to the Company. The Carrier Suit is concluded.

BCB Bancorp, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, and is the holding
company parent of BCB Community Bank, or the Bank. The Company
has not engaged in any significant business activity other than
owning all of the outstanding common stock of BCB Community Bank.
The company is based in Bayonne, New Jersey.


BELL TRANS: Court Partially Stays "Oliver" Until Aug. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada has entered the stipulated order partially
staying the case, CAMERON E. OLIVER, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BELL TRANS, a Nevada
Corporation, and BRENT J. BELL, ECF Nos. 56, 63, 64, 70, 75
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00305-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.), until Aug.
30, 2018, except for the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 67; and
withdrawing the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56.

The parties, through their counsel of record, stipulated to
partially stay proceedings in the matter and withdraw without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56 seeking to circulate a
notice of pendency.

The Stipulation is submitted as part of the parties' good faith
efforts to present to the Court a class action settlement of the
litigation for the Court's approval.  Those efforts included the
Court's Order of June 19, 2017, ECF 45, granting the parties'
stipulation to stay the matter until July 27, 2017 in order to
allow the parties time to set forth in greater detail the terms
of the parties' proposed settlement, as well as to allow the
Plaintiff's counsel time to file a motion seeking the Court's
approval of the settlement terms.  That Order, ECF 45, was the
result of the parties' agreement during a mediation held on June
12, 2017 to present to the Court a proposal to settle, on a
collective and class-wide basis, all disputes and claims related
to this litigation and a related litigation (the related
litigation being Case No. 2:15-cv-01066-MMDPAL, Willie Thurmond
v. Presidential Limousine).

Owing to certain disagreements between the parties, the
settlement proposal contemplated by the parties at their
mediation was not presented to the Court for its approval.  As a
result, at a status conference held on Feb. 12, 2018 with
District Judge Dorsey, a minute order was issued and the case
returned to active litigation.

As a result of the return of the case to active litigation, the
Plaintiff re-filed a motion seeking to circulate a notice of
pendency under the Fair Labor Standards Act (ECF 56), that motion
having originally been filed prior to the parties' mediation on
April 26, 2017 (ECF 29), and denied without prejudice by the stay
effectuated by the Court's Order at ECF 45.

The Defendants in turn filed opposition to that motion (ECF 59)
and a now withdrawn motion for sanctions (ECF 65 withdrawn at ECF
74) with the Plaintiff filing a reply in support of their motion
for notice of pendency (ECF 66) and a motion to strike ECF 59
(ECF 67) and an opposition to the Defendants' motion for
sanctions (ECF 72).

Since the Court's Feb. 12, 2018 status conference, and the
foregoing sequence of motion filings, oppositions, and replies,
the parties have further conferred and committed to participate
in a binding mediation session on July 31, 2018 with JAMS
mediator and retired Judge Stewart Bell who also officiated at
the July 2017 mediation session.  The parties, except for one
issue discussed infra, have pledged to resolve their outstanding
differences, which the parties also agree are limited in scope,
and present to the Court a settlement proposal based upon their
agreement and whatever rulings Judge Bell makes at the mediation
session that are necessary to fully finalize such agreement.

The one issue that the parties cannot resolve is the Plaintiff's
pending motion ECF 67 which seeks to strike from the record the
Defendants' filing of certain materials at ECF 59 and 66 (along
with the striking of ECF 65 and 72 of the necessary response to
those materials).  They do not agree to stay the disposition of
the Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 67 and the parties request the
Court suitably rule on that motion in due course.

In light of this, the parties believe the litigation, with the
exception of the Court's consideration and disposition of the
Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 67, should be stayed until Aug. 30,
2018, which is 30 days after the currently scheduled July 31,
2018 binding mediation session and the status quo of the
litigation otherwise maintained without prejudice to any of the
parties' litigation positions.  The parties are confident that a
proposed class action settlement will be presented to the Court
for its consideration prior to the expiration of that stay.

They therefore stipulated that the case is stayed, except for the
Plaintiff's motion at ECF 67 which will be decided by the Court,
until Aug. 30, 2018; and that the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56 is
withdrawn without prejudice.

Based on the parties' stipulation, Judge Dorsey ordered that the
Motion for Circulation of Notice is deemed withdraw without
prejudice.  She denied as moot the stipulations for extension of
time to respond to that motion, and the Motion for Leave to File
Supplement re: Reply (ECF Nos. 63, 64, 70.  The Court will
address the Motion to Strike (65), Motion for Sanctions (ECF No.
67) in due course.  The Judge stayed the action is for all other
purposes until Aug. 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jSw7M5 from Leagle.com.

Cameron E. Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Sniegocki --
dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg & Leon Marc Greenberg --
leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Bell Trans & Brent J. Bell, Defendants, represented by Anthony L.
Hall -- ahall@hollandhart.com -- Holland and Hart LLP, Rico
Cordova -- rncordova@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP &
Peter D. Navarro, Holland & Hart LLP.


BLUE CROSS: Sued by Dilworth Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA DILWORTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, A DIVISION OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03732 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of causing multiple telemarketing calls to be made
using an automatic telephone dialing system to the Plaintiff's
cellular phone.

Ms. Dilworth contends that she never consented to receive these
calls, and the Defendant failed to honor her request to be placed
on its do-not-call list.  She brings this class action for
damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from the
Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, a health insurance
company, provides health plans for customers in Illinois, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.  The Company offers individual and
family, Medicare, student health, and Medicaid and Medicare-
Medicaid plans.  Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois was
formerly known as Hospital Service Corporation and changed its
name to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois in 1939.  The
Company was founded in 1936 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.
The Company operates as a subsidiary of Health Care Service
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  sg@girardgibbs.com


BLUETARP FINANCIAL: Brown Lumber Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown Lumber and Building Supply, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. BlueTarp Financial, Inc.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00173 (D. Maine, April 26, 2018), seeks damages
for Defendant's breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that BlueTarp cheated its customers by
failing to return money it collected from fees on items that were
returned to Dealers. The fee at issue in this case is established
in a written, pre-printed contract - which BlueTarp drafted -
which is uniform in all relevant aspects.  This uniform contract,
known as the Purchase Account Agreement, states that the Dealer
will pay BlueTarp a fee based on a percentage of the sales
transaction to a Customer.

Brown Lumber and Building Supply, Inc. is an Alabama corporation
with its principal place of business in Shelby County, Alabama.
The Plaintiff is a construction and building material supply
companies.

BlueTarp Financial, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Cumberland County, Maine. BlueTarp
does business in this judicial district. The Defendant sells
construction supplies to a local customer then provides accounts
receivable financing, also known as factoring, to its over 2,000
clients across the nation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard L. O'Meara, Esq.
      MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY
      75 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 9785
      Portland, ME 04104-5085
      Tel: (207) 773-5651
      Fax: (207) 773-8023
      E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com

          - and -

      Luke Montgomery, Esq.
      J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
      2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105
      Birmingham, AL 35233
      Tel: (205) 201-0303
      Fax: (205) 208-9443
      E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com
              brad@montgomeryponder.com
BNP PARIBAS: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended "Kashef" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Entesar Osman Kashef et al., Plaintiffs, v. BNP
Paribas SA et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-3228 (AJN) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

The putative class action case arises out of atrocities committed
by the Government of Sudan against its citizens between 1997 and
2009.  Victims of the Sudanese government's human rights abuses
bring a variety of state law claims against BNPP and its
subsidiaries and branches alleging that the bank funded the
Government of Sudan and assisted the government in circumventing
U.S. economic sanctions, allowing the Government of Sudan to
continue its genocidal campaign against the people of Sudan.

Beginning in 1997 and continuing through 2007, BNPP became the
primary bank of the Government of Sudan, through which it
accessed U.S. financial markets and circumvented U.S. sanctions.
BNPP created several schemes to avoid the sanctions, including
removing information from financial documents identifying that a
Sudanese entity was one of the parties involved in the financial
transaction, and using satellite banks in the United States
through which to funnel money.  According to the Second Amended
Complaint, Sudan's access to U.S. financial markets was critical
to funding the Government, including its continued atrocities
against its people.

BNPP's actions were investigated by numerous state and federal
agencies in the United States, and in 2014, BNPP pled guilty to
conspiring to violate the laws of the United States in connection
with circumventing U.S. sanctions on behalf of Sudan, Iran, and
Cuba.  BNPP also pled guilty to falsifying business records and
conspiracy under New York law.

Following the criminal actions against BNPP, the Plaintiffs
initiated the present action on April 29, 2016 by filing its
initial complaint.  On Jan. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint. In it, the Plaintiffs bring 20 state-
law claims on which they seek to hold BNPP liable.

The Plaintiffs allege that BNPP is liable for negligence per se
(Counts 1 and 2), conspiracy to commit battery (Count 3), aiding
and abetting battery (Count 4), conspiracy to commit battery in
performance of a public duty or authority (Count 5), aiding and
abetting battery in performance of a public duty or authority
(Count 6), conspiracy to commit assault (Count 7), aiding and
abetting assault (Count 8), conspiracy to commit false arrest and
false imprisonment (Count 9), aiding and abetting false arrest
and false imprisonment (Count 10), conspiracy to commit
conversion -- wrongful taking (Count 11), aiding and abetting
conversion -- wrongful taking (Count 12), conspiracy to commit
conversion -- wrongful detention, use, or disposal (Count 13),
aiding and abetting conversion -- wrongful detention, use, or
disposal (Count 14), intentional infliction of emotional distress
(Count 15), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count
16), commercial bad faith (Count 17), unjust enrichment (Count
18), conspiracy to commit wrongful death (Count 19), and aiding
and abetting wrongful death (Count 20).

On March 21, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint in its entirety.  They argue that the
Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under the act of state
doctrine.

Judge Nathan concludes that the act of state doctrine is
applicable in the case and bars its consideration of nearly all
of the Plaintiffs' claims because ruling on them would require
the Court to pass judgment on the acts of the Government of
Sudan.  The act of state doctrine provides that every sovereign
state is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within
its own territory.  Under the act of state doctrine, claims
against private entities may be barred when the causal chain
between a defendant's alleged conduct and plaintiff's injury
cannot be determined without an inquiry into the motives of the
foreign government.

In sum, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims alleged
in Counts 1-16 and 19-20 should be dismissed based on the act of
state doctrine.  Moreover, he concludes that the Plaintiffs'
claims contained in Counts 3-10 and 15 would also, alternatively,
be dismissed as untimely for all the Plaintiffs who were 18 or
older at the time of their alleged injuries.  Finally, he
concludes that Claims 17 and 18 are dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Nathan granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to all the Plaintiffs on all claims.  The Order
resolves Docket Number 65.  The Clerk of Court is ordered to
close the case and enter judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://goo.gl/V3zAVA from Leagle.com.

Entesar Osman Kashef, Alfadel Mosabal, Abubakar Abakar, Siama
Abdelnabi Hamad, Abbo Ahmed Abakar, Hawa Mohamed Omar, Jane Doe,
Nyanriak Tingloth, Reverend Anderia Lual, Nicolas Hakim Lukudu,
Turjuman Ramadan Adam, Johnmark Majuc & Joseph Jok, Plaintiffs,
represented by Deborah Drooz -- deb@droozlegal.com -- Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Matthew Philip Rand --
mrand@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Robert
Louis Palmer -- rpalmer@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith, Thomas
Bernard Watson -- twatson@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith, PC &
Kathryn Lee Crawford -- lboyd@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck LLP.

Rose Abraham Wulle & Clara Erneo Tabor, Plaintiffs, represented
by Deborah Drooz, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Robert
Louis Palmer, McKool Smith, Thomas Bernard Watson, McKool Smith,
PC & Kathryn Lee Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.

Halima Samuel Khalifa, Ambrose Martin Ulau, Sandi (Sunday)
Georgari Marjan & Shafika G. Hassan, Plaintiffs, represented by
Matthew Philip Rand, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Robert Louis
Palmer, McKool Smith, Thomas Bernard Watson, McKool Smith, PC &
Kathryn Lee Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.

Jane Roe, Judy Doe, Sara Noureldirz Abdalla & Amir Ahmed,
Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Philip Rand, McKool Smith
Hennigan, P.C., Robert Louis Palmer, McKool Smith & Kathryn Lee
Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.

BNP Paribas SA, a French corporation & BNP Paribas North America,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Lawrence
B. Friedman -- lfriedman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Avram E.
Luft -- aluft@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP &
Jonathan I. Blackman -- jblackman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb.


CARDINAL COMPLIANCE: Misclassifies Employees, "Moore" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. CARDINAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00155 (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime
protections and benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Moore, a former employee of Cardinal, performed work as a
health and safety employee.  She alleges that she worked more
than 40 hours in a work week for the Defendant but was not
compensated at a rate of time and a half her regular rate of
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work
week.

Cardinal is a foreign corporation that does business in the state
of Texas and Galveston County.  Cardinal is a staffing company
focused on placing health and safety employees, who provide
safety support for short-term and long-term projects throughout
multiple industries nationwide, including Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
          CEDILLOS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3801 Kirby Dr., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (832) 900-9456
          Facsimile: (832) 900-9456
          E-mail: moises@cedilloslaw.com


CHALLENGE SECURITY: "Copeland" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
ZUKEYNA COPELAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CHALLENGE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-01435-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), is brought for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4 and the California Business &
Professional Code.

Ms. Copeland alleges that the Defendant does not have sufficient
staffing to provide their security guards with timely meal and
rest breaks mid shift.  She contends that the Defendant fails to
pay its security guards for the additional premium wages that
result from the overtime and missed meal and rest periods, as
required by federal and state law, or for the additional time
that its guards are left waiting for their replacements.

Challenge Security Services, Inc., is a California corporation
located in Sacramento, California.  The Company provides
professional security services through licensed, trained,
uniformed guards.  Services performed by the Defendant's security
guards include: securing corporate, industrial, and retail
premises; patrolling and guarding residential complexes; and
providing event security.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


CHARLES WAGNER: "Barlow" Suit Seeks Insurance for Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT BARLOW v. CHARLES A. WAGNER CO., INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; and THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Individually and as Successors-In-Interest to THE ST. PAUL
COMPANIES, INC., as Successor-in-Interest to LONDON GUARANTEE
INSURANCE COMPANY; CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY
OF ILLINOIS; THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Individually and
as Successor-In-Interest to NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; RESOLUTE
MANAGEMENT INC. as administrator of certain liabilities assumed
from FFG INSURANCE COMPANY prior to sale; CHUBB INA HOLDINGS INC;
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Individually as Successor-In-Interest to ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2018-0393- (Del. Ch. Ct., May 31,
2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated journeymen, contractors, workers, and DuPont
employees at the Seaford Plant, and household members of same,
who were exposed to asbestos, who have not yet developed, but are
likely to develop, diseases resulting from asbestos exposure.

Mr. Barlow asks the Court to order the Defendants, insurers of
Wagner and Wagner, to hold all remaining insurance policy
proceeds for asbestos-related claims against Wagner in
constructive trust for members of the Class.  He contends that
this class action seeks to prevent the unjust enrichment of the
Defendants, to the detriment of the Class, as a result of the
dissolution of Wagner.

Charles A. Wagner Company, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation
who conducted business in the state of Delaware.  Wagner ceased
to transact business in Pennsylvania in May 2014, but continued
its corporate existence in Pennsylvania until June 2, 2016.
Between 1958 and 1973, Wagner supplied the Seaford Plant with
approximately 38 raw tons of a "sweeping compound" that was
comprised of and laden with asbestos.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Travelers
Property Casualty Insurance Company, and The Travelers Indemnity
Company are insurance companies licensed to do business in the
state of Delaware.  Travelers insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc.
from January 2, 1963, to January 2, 1968.  CNA Financial
Corporation is a Delaware corporation.  CNA Financial Corporation
is successor-in-interest to National-Ben Franklin Insurance
Company of Illinois, who insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from
January 2, 1968, to January 2, 1971.

The Continental Insurance Company is an insurance company
licensed to do business in the state of Delaware.  The
Continental Insurance Company is a successor-in-interest to
National-Ben Franklin Insurance Company of Illinois, who insured
Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from January 2, 1968, to January 2,
1971.  Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is an insurance company
licensed to do business in the state of Delaware.  Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from
January 1, 1971, to January 2, 1972.

Resolute Management, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation transacting
business in Delaware.  Resolute Management is the administrator
of certain liabilities assumed from FFG Insurance Company prior
to sale and has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases
caused by exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping compound
supplied by Wagner.

Chubb INA Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  Chubb INA
Holdings, Inc., has paid claims relating to asbestos-related
diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping
compound supplied by Wagner.  Federal Insurance Company is an
insurance company licensed to do business in the state of
Delaware.  Federal Insurance Company has paid claims relating to
asbestos-related diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos-
laden sweeping compound supplied by Wagner.

National Indemnity Company is an insurance company licensed to do
business in the state of Delaware.  National Indemnity Company
has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases caused by
exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping compound supplied by
Wagner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raeann C. Warner, Esq.
          Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq.
          JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
          750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-5445
          Facsimile: (302) 656-5875
          E-mail: raeann@jcdelaw.com
                  pat@jcdelaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: CTU's Bid to Strike 3rd Affirmative Defense Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION LOCAL 1, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, Defendants,
Case No. 12 C 10338 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, (i) granted CTU's motion to dismiss the
counterclaim of the Board; and (ii) denied CTU's motion to strike
the Board's third affirmative defense.

In 2012, CTU, a labor organization representing teachers employed
by the Board, brought the class action under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.  CTU alleges the Board violated Title
VII by engaging in a pattern and practice of racial
discrimination through its layoff policy, which had a disparate
impact on African American teachers and para-professionals.

After CTU filed its Second Amended Complaint, the Board filed its
Answer, which included affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.
The Board's counterclaim alleges that CTU breached the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the 2007-2012
collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between CTU and the Board
by filing the class action case, which allegedly interferes with
the Board's right to receive the "fruits" of the CBA and violates
CTU's own constitution and bylaws to the extent it advocates on
behalf of some members to the detriment of others.

In its answer, the Board pleaded three affirmative defenses, the
third alleging that CTU lacks standing to be a class
representative.  The crux of the third affirmative defense, which
overlaps with parts of the counterclaim, is that CTU violated its
own constitution in bringing its lawsuit because CTU's House of
Delegates did not authorize the lawsuit and because the lawsuit
promotes the interest of some CTU members to the possible
detriment of other members.  CTU has moved to dismiss the Board's
counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) and to
strike the Board's third affirmative defense pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f).

CTU argues that the Board's allegations that CTU breached the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in the CBA by filing
the lawsuit fail to state a claim.  It argues that there is a
still more fundamental reason why the Board's counterclaim must
be dismissed: the claim is "preempted" by the Illinois
Educational Labor Relations Act ("IELRA"), the labor statute that
governs the CBA.

The Board's third affirmative defense states that CTU lacks
standing to be a class representative.  CTU moves to strike the
Board's affirmative defense, arguing essentially that CTU has
already been found to have standing and to be an adequate class
representative.  CTU argues the affirmative defense is therefore
an improper attempt to relitigate the issue and should be
stricken.

Judge Alonso holds that the Board does not identify any
provisions of the CBA that vest CTU with discretion either that
CTU exercised unfairly or that might have served as the basis for
the action that the Board complains of in its counterclaim, i.e.,
filing the lawsuit.  This deficiency warrants dismissal.  He
agrees with CTU that the Board does not state a claim for breach
of contract based on a theory of breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing in the CBA.

The Judge also holds that in Cessna v. City of Danville, in which
the Illinois Appellate Court held that an employee complaining
that she was discharged in violation of the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement governed by the Illinois Public Labor
Relations Act ("IPLRA"), could not assert a breach of contract
claim against her former employer in an Illinois circuit court.
Although the Board argues that cases like Cessna, decided under
the IPLRA, do not apply to the case because the CBA is governed
by the IELRA, the IPLRA was adopted in the same legislative
session as the IELRA, and the two acts together were an attempt
to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme for public sector
bargaining in Illinois.  The policy rationale driving the
decision in Cessna is applicable here, despite the fact that
Cessna addressed a different labor statute.  Because he concludes
that the IELRA divests trial courts of jurisdiction over claims
such as the Board's, he says he needs not address the parties'
arguments concerning supplemental jurisdiction.

With respect to the Motion to Strike, the Judge disagrees with
CTU's argument.  The Board's allegations, taken as true as they
must be, plausibly state that the instant suit could create a
direct detriment to the interest of some of CTU's members and
that the instant suit is not properly authorized.  In arguing to
the contrary, CTU's reliance on earlier decisions in the case is
misplaced.  Lastly, insofar as CTU argues the Board's affirmative
defense is not proper because it is not listed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(c), the list is, of course, nonexhaustive.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alonso granted in part and
denied in part CTU's motion.  It is granted as to the
counterclaim, which is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  It is denied as to the Board's third affirmative
defense.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://goo.gl/6rHGsr from Leagle.com.

Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, represented by Robin B. Potter --
robin@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC & Patrick James Cowlin
-- patrick@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC.

Terri Fells, Lillian Edmonds & Josephine Hamilton Perry,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robin B. Potter, Potter Bolanos LLC,
Patrick James Cowlin, Potter Bolanos LLC & Randall D. Schmidt --
r-schmidt@uchicago.edu -- Mandel Legal Aid Clinic.

Board Of Education City Of Chicago, a body politic and corporate,
Defendant, represented by Cary E. Donham -- cdonham@taftlaw.com -
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, John J. Hagerty --
jhagerty@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Allison
Emma Czerniak -- aczerniak@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister Llp, Daniel Reza Saeedi -- dsaeedi@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, J. Ernest Mincy, III, Board of
Education, City of Chicago & Lisa A. Dreishmire, Board of
Education of the City of Chicago Law Department.

Board Of Education City Of Chicago, a body politic and corporate,
Counter Claimant, represented by Cary E. Donham, Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP, John J. Hagerty, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Allison Emma Czerniak, Taft Stettinius & Hollister Llp,
Daniel Reza Saeedi, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, J. Ernest
Mincy, III, Board of Education, City of Chicago & Lisa A.
Dreishmire, Board of Education of the City of Chicago Law
Department.

Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO, Counter Defendant, represented by Robin B. Potter,
Potter Bolanos LLC & Patrick James Cowlin, Potter Bolanos LLC.


COMMUNITY LOANS: Dietzen to Recoup OT Pay for Branch Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DIETZEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-
00818-WCG (E.D. Wisc., May 29, 2018), is brought on behalf of the
Defendant's non-exempt branch managers for purposes of obtaining
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Community Loans of America is
a United States-based consumer lending organization, specializing
in auto title and payday loans.  The Company has operated
approximately 1,000 consumer lending institutions across the
United States.

The vast majority of the Company's consumer lending institutions
operate under regional-specific names, such as: Fast Auto Loans;
Cash Cow; Georgia Auto Pawn; Texas Care Title and Payday Loan
Services; and Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com


CONVERGYS CORP: Accused by "Roush" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA ROUSH v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION and CONVERGYS CUSTOMER
MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00777-WCG (E.D. Wisc.,
May 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated current and former non-exempt Customer
Service employees of the Defendants in the state of Wisconsin,
who were denied overtime compensation for each hour worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek because the Defendants failed to:

   (1) compensate said employees for computer "boot up" time
       prior to their scheduled shift start times; and

   (2) include all non-discretionary forms of compensation in
       said non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for
       overtime calculation purposes.

The Defendants provide customer management and information
management services for clients (third party companies) across
the United States, including in the state of Wisconsin.  The
Defendants manage and operate a Wisconsin location, located in
Appleton, Wisconsin.  The Defendants' corporate headquarters are
located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
                  mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com


CORECIVIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dew" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DEW Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CORECIVIC, INC., A Maryland Corporation, Case No.
8:18-cv-01500-GJH (D. Md., May 24, 2018), arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
the Plaintiff and others all earned overtime wages, and to
compensate them for all time worked.

CoreCivic is a public corporation organized under the laws of
Maryland.  CoreCivic is a company that provides private prison
services across the U.S.  CoreCivic manages more than 65 state
and federal correctional and detention facilities with a capacity
of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of
Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com

               - and -

          Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
          WYLY & COOK
          4101 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 236-8330
          Facsimile: (713) 863-8502
          E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com


CRICKET COMMS: Bid to Strike Renewed Removal Notice Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant. MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v.
CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. GLR-15-
3330, GLR-15-3759 (D. Md.), Judge George L. Russell of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (i) denied Scott's
Motion to Strike Renewed Notice of Removal and to Remand; (ii)
denied without prejudice Cricket's Motions to Vacate State Court
Class Certification Order and State Court Order Denying Cricket's
Motion to Compel Arbitration; and denied without prejudice
Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Between July 2013 and March 2014, Scott purchased two mobile
phones from Cricket.  The phones were only usable on networks
that utilized Code Division Multiple Access ("CDMA") technology.
The phones were also "locked" by Cricket so they could not be
used on an alternate network.  Cricket shut down its CDMA network
in 2015, and allegedly had planned on shutting it down as early
as July 2013, when AT&T acquired Cricket.

After Cricket shut down its CDMA network, the phones Scott
purchased stopped working.  The phones could no longer be used
for making telephone calls or for other forms of mobile
communication.  The phones also could not be transferred to and
used on another network because Cricket had locked the devices
exclusively to its own network.  As a result, Scott's devices,
which he purchased for hundreds of dollars each, are now
unusable.

Scott initiated a class action against Cricket in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on Sept. 24, 2015 ("Scott I").
The Complaint defined the class of persons on behalf of whom this
action was brought as all Maryland citizens who, between July 12,
2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile telephone from
Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's CDMA network.

In his Original Complaint, Scott alleges that Cricket knew the
phones it sold to Scott and similarly situated customers were
obsolete at the time of the sale.  Scott pleads that Cricket
continued to sell the CDMA phones as part of a systematic scheme
to sell customers defective phones that would have to be replaced
when the CDMA network shut down.  Scott maintains that this
scheme breaches express warranties and the implied warranty of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose in violation
of the MMWA.

On Oct. 30, 2015, Cricket removed Scott I to the Court.  Scott
filed a Motion to Remand to the state court on Nov. 23, 2015.
Cricket then filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on Dec. 16,
2015.  On Aug. 19, 2016, the Court granted Scott's Motion to
Remand.  On Aug. 29, 2016, Cricket filed for leave to appeal to
the Fourth Circuit which was granted with leave to appeal on Nov.
8, 2016.

On July 28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion vacating
the Court's judgment and remanding the case for further
proceedings.  It concluded that this Court had failed to make any
finding of fact as to the amount in controversy.  It held that
Cricket does not need to make a definitive determination of
domicile to show that at least 100 Maryland citizens purchased at
least $5 million worth of CDMA phones; Cricket only needs to
provide enough facts to allow the Court to determine that it is
more likely than not that Scott's case should be in federal
court.

Meanwhile, on Aug. 30, 2016, one day after Cricket filed its
petition to for leave to appeal with the Fourth Circuit, Cricket
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City a Motion to Stay
the proceedings in until the Fourth Circuit renders a final
decision on Cricket's appeal.  Scott filed a Consent to Stay on
Sept. 2, 2016.  The Circuit Court instituted a 90-day stay on
Sept. 29, 2016, pending the Fourth Circuit's ruling on Cricket's
petition.

On Jan. 13, 2017, while Cricket's appeal was still pending, Scott
filed a Motion to Lift Stay with the Circuit Court.  Cricket
opposed Scott's Motion, citing the still-pending Fourth Circuit
appeal.  On Feb. 3, 2017, the Circuit Court issued a one-page
Order lifting the stay.

On Feb. 17, 2017, Cricket filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the Circuit Court.  Scott filed an Opposition to Cricket's Motion
to Compel Arbitration on March 7, 2017.  The Circuit Court
ultimately issued an Order denying Cricket's Motion to Compel
Arbitration on May 11, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, Scott filed a Motion for Certification of the
Class in the Circuit Court.  Cricket filed an Opposition on May
1, 2017.  On June 9, 2017, the Circuit Court issued an Order
certifying the Maryland class.

On July 28, 2017, the same day the Fourth Circuit issued its
opinion in the case, Scott filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The First Amended Complaint contains allegations
identical to the Original Complaint, except it adds a nationwide
class.  The nationwide class is defined as all persons within the
United States who, between July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014,
purchased a CDMA mobile telephone from Cricket which was locked
for use only on Cricket's CDMA network.

On Aug. 11, 2017, Cricket filed a Renewed Notice of Removal in
the Court.  The Renewed Notice of Removal alleges that the Court
has jurisdiction under CAFA.  Scott filed a Motion to Strike
Renewed Notice of Removal and to Remand on Sept. 8, 2017.  Also
on Aug. 11, 2017, Cricket filed a Motion to Vacate State Court
Class Certification Order, Motion to Vacate State Court Order
Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Compel
Arbitration, and Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part.  All Motions
are opposed.

Judge Russell concludes that it will deny Scott's Motion to
Remand because Cricket's Renewed Notice of Removal was timely and
proper and Cricket establishes CAFA jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.  He finds that Scott amending his
Original Complaint to add a nationwide class was a new fact that
permitted Cricket to file another Notice of Removal, regardless
of when the Fourth Circuit's mandate issued.  The nationwide
class gives the Court a new basis for assessing federal
jurisdiction separate from the issue on appeal.  In short, the
Court will not protect Scott from the adverse consequences of his
own voluntary acts.

The Judge also finds that in citing Scott's addition of the
nationwide class in its Renewed Notice of Removal, Cricket is
able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy for the nationwide class is at minimum $9,552,000.
This amount in controversy satisfies CAFA's $5 million
jurisdictional requirement.  Consequently, the Court can exercise
federal jurisdiction over Scott's class action under CAFA.

At the outset, the Judge notes the inappropriateness of Cricket
conditioning the consummation of a settlement in Bond upon the
Court vacating the Circuit Court's order certifying a Maryland
class.  He will not permit its decision on a motion to be a
bargaining chip in the process of settlement.  Therefore, he will
deny Cricket's request to vacate the Circuit Court's order
certifying Scott's Maryland class on the basis of facilitating
the Bond settlement.

The Judge further finds that the Bond class encompasses both
Scott's Maryland class and his nationwide class.  A settlement in
Bond would, therefore, resolve Scott's claims.  Thus, he
concludes that a stay is warranted pending resolution of Bond's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  Accordingly, he
will grant Cricket's Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part.

Because he will stay the case, the Judge will deny without
prejudice Cricket's Motion to Vacate State Court Class
Certification Order, Motion to Vacate State Court Order Denying
Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  If the Bond settlement is not consummated and the
stay in the case is lifted, Cricket may file a line with the
Court renewing its Motions.

Based on these reasons, Judge Russell denied Scott's Motion to
Strike Renewed Notice of Removal and Remand, and granted
Cricket's Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part.  He denied
Cricket's Motion to the extent that it is premised on the Court
granting its Motion to Vacate State Court Class Certification
Order.  He granted Cricket's Motion to the extent that it seeks
to stay the case.

The Judge also denied without prejudice Cricket's Motion to
Vacate State Court Class Certification Order, Motion to Vacate
State Court Order Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration,
and Motion to Compel Arbitration.  A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://goo.gl/e77e4s from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Howard
Carney -- bcarney@GWCfirm.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd &
Martin Eugene Wolf -- mwolf@gordon-wolf.com -- Gordon, Wolf &
Carney, Chtd.

Cricket Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Archis A.
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP &
John Edward McCann, Jr. -- jmccann@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles
and Stockbridge PC.


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bethea Sues for Wage & Hour Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY BETHEA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01242
(N.D. Ohio, May 31, 2018), challenges policies and practices of
the Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well
as the Ohio wage-and-hour statute.

The Plaintiff, the Putative Class, and the Ohio Class on numerous
occasions worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek,
entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA and the
Ohio wage-and-hour statute, Ms. Bethea alleges.

The Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio,
with a principal place of business located in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.  The Defendant is a mortgage company with numerous offices
and/or branches throughout the United States and thousands of
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
                  mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: Court Closes Suit Over HIV/AIDS Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Sale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California closed the case, JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE
TWO, JOHN DOE THREE, and JOHN DOE FOUR, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARK,
L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; NATIONAL
RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-DSF-JPR (C.D.
Cal.).

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Notice of Erroneously Filed
Action and Request to Close File, the Judge ordered the action be
closed, having been erroneously filed in the District.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mBoIdK from Leagle.com.

John Doe One, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, John Doe Two, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, John Doe Three, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated & John Doe Four, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alan M. Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com
-- The Consumer Law Group of California, Benjamin Reese Powell --
ben@consumerwatchdog.org -- Consumer Watchdog & Gerald Sinclair
Flanagan -- jerry@consumerwatchdog.org -- Consumer Watchdog.


DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Moreno" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DELLA NONA CORP. (D/B/A BOCCA), IM WOO LEE, and E RAE
JO, Case No. 1:18-cv-04488 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), alleges that
the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hour's
compensation for the hours that he worked.

Della Nona Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian Restaurant,
located at 135 West 50th Street, in New York City, under the name
"Bocca."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: "Becerra" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANA BECERRA, Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05921-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied Dr Pepper's motion to transfer
venue but granted its motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Becerra alleges that she is a consumer of the soft drink product
Diet Dr Pepper.  She believed that Diet Dr Pepper would assist in
weight loss or healthy weight management due to the use of the
term "diet" in the name of the product and on its label, but has
since learned that studies and articles suggest that artificial
sweeteners, including those used in Diet Dr Pepper, may instead
cause weight gain.  She brings the putative class action on
behalf of herself and a California class of similarly-situated
consumers for damages and equitable relief, including an
injunction to stop Dr Pepper from marketing its Diet Dr Pepper
product as "diet."

The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and a California
class alleging false and misleading advertising, in violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as
well as breach of both express and implied warranty.

The Defendant moves to transfer venue to its home state of Texas
and to dismiss the action in its entirety.  While Dr Pepper moves
to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the case
belongs here -- it has a California Plaintiff who was injured in
California and chose the venue.  Dr Pepper also moves to dismiss
the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in its entirety.

Judge Orrick agrees with Dr Pepper's contention that it is not
plausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that drinking
Diet Dr Pepper would assist in weight loss, beyond the fact that
it has no calories.  Accordingly, he denied Dr Pepper's motion to
transfer venue but granted its motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's choice is entitled to some
deference, especially given the significant local interest in the
controversy.  She, as well as each member of the proposed class,
is either a resident of the district or a district within
California.  Moreover, her alleged injuries are the result of
purchasing and consuming Diet Dr Pepper within the state's
boundaries, and the action is based on California consumers
relying on California-specific marketing and sale efforts.

The Defendant's strongest argument in favor of transfer is that
it will serve judicial economy, as it has also moved to transfer
the New York-based Excevarria v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.,
No. 1:17-CV-07957 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) action to the Eastern District
of Texas.  That has not happened yet.  Given that any such
transfer is speculative at this stage, and considering the local
interest in the controversy and deference to the Plaintiff's
choice of forum, the Defendant has failed to make the strong
showing of inconvenience necessary to grant transfer.

As to Dr Pepper's motion to dismiss, the Judge also finds, that
(i) given that California law is entirely consistent with and
indeed identical to the NLEA, there is no preemption of the
Plaintiff's claims; (ii) California's safe harbor doctrine does
not bar the Plaintiff's claims; (iii) the SAC fails to cite even
a single study that concludes that there is a causative link
between aspartame and weight gain; and (iv) because the Plaintiff
acknowledges in opposition that her implied warranty claims are
coextensive with her express warranty claims, her implied
warranty claim also fails.

The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/vHYUY1 from Leagle.com.

Ms. Shana Becerra, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack
Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Andrew B. Sacks, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC,
pro hac vice, John Kerry Weston, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC, pro
hac vice, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
-- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC & Trevor Matthew Flynn -
- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, PC.

Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ariel D.
House -- ariel.house@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Jessica
Elaine Underwood -- jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts L.L.P., Monica Hughes Smith -- monica.smith@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Stuart Christopher Plunkett
-- stuart.plunkett@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on June 4, 2018, entered an order
granting the Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Second Amended
Complaint without leave to amend in the case, In re Dynavax
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:16-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal.).

Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on November 18, 2016,
two substantially similar securities class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its executive officers,
in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et. al.,
("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et
al., ("Shumake").

The Soontjens complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and
November 11, 2016, the Company and certain of its executive
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements related to HEPLISAV-B. The Shumake complaint alleges
violations of the same statutes related to the same subject, but
between January 7, 2016 and November 11, 2016. The plaintiffs in
both actions are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions
that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the
District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In
re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31,
2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 17,
2017.

Dynavax said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2017. On
September 12, 2017, the District Court granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss, but gave lead plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss was due on November 3,
2017.

In its recent report, the Company disclosed that Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 3,
2017. A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss was set for
January 23, 2018, but the hearing was vacated by the Court on
January 18, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Court reset the hearing
on Defendants' motion to dismiss for May 8, 2018.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a fully-integrated
biopharmaceutical company focused on leveraging the power of the
body's innate and adaptive immune responses through toll-like
receptor ("TLR") stimulation. The company is based in Berkeley,
California.


ENDOLOGIX INC: $750,000 "Ortiz" Settlement Funds Distributed
------------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the $750,000 in settlement funds that were
deposited with the Class Administrator have been distributed in
the case, Steven M. Ortiz v. Endologix, Inc.

On September 9, 2016, former employee Steven M. Ortiz filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company in Orange County
Superior Court, claiming the Company's failure to pay all
overtime wages owing; failure to provide meal periods and failure
to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay all wages owed at
time of termination seeking waiting time penalties under Labor
Code section 203; failure to provide accurate wage statements;
violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and
alleging claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.

While the Company contests the allegations asserted in the
litigation, a mediation was held on February 24, 2017 at which
time the parties agreed to settle the case for $750,000. The
court gave final approval to the settlement agreement and the
$750,000 in settlement funds that were deposited with the Class
Administrator have been distributed.

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells
innovative medical devices for the treatment of aortic disorders.
The company is based in Irvine, California.


ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fee, Incentive Awards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harris Hartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit (i) reversed the attorney-fee and incentive awards, and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion; and
(ii) affirmed the district court's Order and Judgment Granting
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

These matters are before the Court on Chieftain's Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.  The Court also has a joint
response from the Appellants.  Upon consideration, the request
for panel rehearing is denied by the original panel members.

The underlying class action alleged underpayment of royalties by
the Defendants on gas from wells in Oklahoma.  The parties
reached a settlement for a cash payment of $52 million, to be
distributed pro rata to the class members after payment of
expenses and fees.  The Class counsel moved for attorney fees in
the amount of 40% of the settlement fund, plus interest; and the
Lead Plaintiff, Chieftain, requested an incentive award of 1% of
the fund.

Appellants Nutley and George were class members who objected to
these requests.  After a hearing on the settlement and fee
requests, the court awarded the class counsel 33 1/3% of the fund
($17,333.333.33) as attorney fees and awarded Chieftain 1/2% of
the fund ($260,000) as an incentive award.  The objectors
appealed each award.

Judge Hartz finds that the district court did not use the
lodestar method to calculate the class counsel's fee in the case.
The class counsel failed to provide the information necessary to
apply that method.  As already noted, in 1979 the Oklahoma
Supreme Court stated that attorneys seeking fees must present
detailed time records and evidence as to the reasonable value for
the services performed.  The class counsel did not come close to
performing this task.  Therefore, the Judge must set aside the
attorney-fee award.  The district court will have to decide in
the first instance whether any award can be made in light of the
absence of contemporaneous time records.  He says it is
unfortunate that the class counsel did not do the necessary
homework on Oklahoma law.

Turning to the incentive award, the Judge finds that the record
before him is devoid of evidence from which a computation could
be made.  The district court was not provided supporting
documents either when deciding to grant the incentive award or
when determining the amount of the award.  Instead, as can be
seen in the excerpt from the transcript, the counsel spoke
broadly about the tasks Mr. Abernathy had performed in the case
and offered an anecdote about a class member in a previous suit
who was grateful for his work there.  When discussing the time
Mr. Abernathy had expended on the case, the counsel did not
provide detailed contemporaneous records but offered only
approximations and generalities.  Therefore, in keeping with his
prediction of what the Oklahoma Supreme Court would command, he
must reverse for abuse of discretion and remand for further fact-
finding.

For these reason, Judge Hartz reversed the attorney-fee and
incentive awards, and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with his Opinion.  The Judge affirmed the district court's Order
and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The appeals cases are CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.;
ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; ENERVEST
ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC, L.P.; ENERVEST OPERATING,
L.L.C.; FOURPOINT ENERGY, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, and SM
ENERGY COMPANY, (including predecessors, successors and
affiliates), Defendant. DANNY GEORGE, personally and as Executor
of the Estate of Beverly Joyce George, Objector-Appellant.
CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY
INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL
FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC,
L.P.; ENERVEST OPERATING, LLC; FOURPOINT ENERGY, LLC, Defendants-
Appellees, and SM ENERGY COMPANY, including predecessors,
successors and affiliates, Defendant. CHARLES DAVID NUTLEY,
Objector-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-6022, 16-6025 (10th Cir.).

In the case, A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/B6KVqa from Leagle.com.,

John J. Pentz, Sudbury, Massachusetts, for Objector-Appellant
Danny George.

Eric Alan Isaacson, La Jolla, California (C. Benjamin Nutley,
Pasadena, California, and John W. Davis, San Diego, California,
with him on the briefs), for Objector-Appellant Charles David
Nutley.

Daniel S. Volchok -- daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale,
Washington, D.C. (Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -
-Susan Whatley -- swhatley@nixlaw.com -- and Jeffrey J.
Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, Austin, Texas, and Robert N. Barnes , and Patranell Britten
Lewis , Barnes & Lewis, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on the
briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellee Chieftain Royalty Company.

Mark D. Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com --
McAfee & Taft, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants-
Appellees, Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., et
al.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by "Thibodeaux" of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470 (M.D.N.C., May 31,
2018), alleges that the Defendant's debt collection efforts
attempted and directed towards the Plaintiff violated various
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

ERC is a "debt collector" with an address in Jacksonville,
Florida.  ERC is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due
another.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW
          4801 Glenwood Ave., Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: aedwards@maginnislaw.com

               - and -

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FACEBOOK INC: Burk Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Bridgett Burk, Mary Beth Grisi, and Jason Ariciu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc.,
and Cambridge Analytica LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02504 (N.D. Calif.,
April 26, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Stored Communications Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs file this class action on behalf of all Facebook
users who, without their consent and contrary to their privacy
settings, had their Facebook profile data misappropriated by
Cambridge Analytica, LLC. This personal profile data included
hometown, relationship status, friends, family, political views,
website visits and "likes" - electronic thumbs up or down on
articles, pictures, and comments. This personal information has
great value to researchers, as well as advertisers, and political
campaigns. The Plaintiffs, without their knowledge, consent, and
without compensation, had their personal information taken by
Cambridge Analytica and its agents, says the complaint.

Bridgett J. Burk is a citizen and resident of Orlando, Florida.

Mary Beth Grisi is a citizen and resident of Moseley, Virginia.

Jason Ariciu is a citizen and resident of Kansas City, Missouri.

The Defendant Facebook, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware, and
its principal place of business is in Menlo Park, California.
Facebook has operated www.facebook.com since at least 2004. This
social networking platform allows users to create online profiles
with personalized content such as their name, photos, videos,
messages, comments, names of other users they consider to be
"friends," and interest groups. Users can interact with each
other or the platform in a variety of ways, including by posting
comments, sharing photos or video, chatting, using apps, playing
online games, taking personality quizzes, or "liking" content by
pressing a thumbs-up icon.

The Defendant Cambridge Analytica LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with headquarters in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles Reichmann, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN
      16 Yale Circle
      Kensington, CA 94708
      Tel: (415) 373-8849
      E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com

          - and -

      Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
      Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
      Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW - Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
              dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
              shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com


FIVE STAR PIZZA: Fails to Refund Delivery Drivers, "Cheeney" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHEENEY, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. FIVE STAR PIZZA CO., INC.; 5 STAR PIZZA, LLC; DEFT BROTHERS,
LLC; E.R.A. PIZZA LLC; EAT PIZZA, and ERIC ARNTSON, Case No.
1:18-cv-00606 (W.D. Mich., May 30, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act by failing
to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-
related expenses, thereby, failing to pay drivers the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.

Five Star Pizza Co., Inc., is a Michigan corporation
headquartered in St. Johns, Michigan.  5 Star Pizza LLC is a
Michigan limited liability corporation headquartered in St.
Johns.  Deft Brothers, LLC, is a limited liability corporation
with its headquartered in St. Johns.  E.R.A. Pizza LLC is a
limited liability corporation headquartered in St. Johns.  Eat
Pizza LLC is a limited liability corporation headquartered in St.
Johns.  Eric Arntson owns and operates the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate approximately nine pizza restaurants --
Domino's Pizza Stores -- in the Lansing, Michigan area.  The
Defendants are part of a single integrated enterprise.  The
restaurants shared common management and were centrally
controlled and/or owned by Five Star Pizza.  Five Star Pizza
stores sells pizza and other food items to customers, whether
they dine in, carry out, or have their food delivered.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
          Robert M. Howard, Esq.
          BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
          990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 458-6814
          E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com
                  rhoward@bosglazier.com


FLUOR CORPORATION: Sued by Chun for Lying to the Investing Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIN-YIP CHUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FLUOR CORPORATION, DAVID T. SEATON, BIGGS C. PORTER
and BRUCE A. STANSKI, Case No. 3:18-cv-01338-S (N.D. Tex., May
25, 2018), accuses the Defendants of perpetrating a fraudulent
scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit
on purchasers of Fluor common stock by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.

According to the complaint, the scheme: (i) deceived the
investing public regarding Fluor's business, operations,
management and the intrinsic value of its securities, and (ii)
caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Fluor
securities at artificially inflated prices.

Fluor is incorporated in Delaware with its principal offices
located in Irving, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Fluor is a holding company providing through various entities
engineering, procurement, construction, fabrication and
modularization, commissioning and maintenance and management
services for clients (including the U.S. federal government) in
industries such as oil and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals,
mining and metals, transportation, power, life sciences and
advanced manufacturing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Lauten, Esq.
          Laurie G. Flood, Esq.
          BRIAN LAUTEN, P.C.
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 414-0996
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: blauten@brianlauten.com

               - and -

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


FRONTLINE ASSET: Can Compel Arbitration in "Fuller" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Janis Fuller, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 17 C 7901 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to stay the individual claims, dismiss the class claims,
and compel arbitration.

Fuller applied for and received a credit card from Credit One
Bank, N.A.  She ultimately defaulted on the amount owed, and
Credit One sold her account, which was ultimately transferred and
assigned to LVNV Funding, LLC.  The Plaintiff alleges LVNV is a
debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").

Frontline was hired to collect the debt.  On Nov. 1, 2016,
Frontline sent the Plaintiff a collection letter, which she
alleges threatened legal action against her that could not be
taken, and thus violated various subsections of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff sues the Defendants on behalf of herself and a
class of similarly situated individuals.  The Defendants move to
stay the individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and compel
arbitration.  They assert that the terms and conditions of the
Cardholder Agreement, Disclosure Statement, and Arbitration
Agreement that governs the Plaintiff's account with Credit One,
which is now owned by LVNV, prohibits lawsuits and requires
binding arbitration.

Judge Guzman finds, among other things, that because Credit One
sold its right, title, and interest in the account to LVNV, and
Frontline agreed to perform debt collection services through
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. ("RCS"), then, under the terms
of the Agreement, a valid agreement to arbitrate between the
Plaintiff and the Defendants exists.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary
are unavailing.  In the first instance, he notes that the
Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that LVNV subsequently
purchased the alleged debt, and through its servicer Resurgent
began collecting the alleged debt from the Plaintiff, which
constitutes a binding admission.  Even without this admission,
the Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the
arbitration agreement exists and was validly assigned.  The
Defendants attach to their memorandum in support of their motion
an affidavit by Gary Harwood, a Vice President of Credit One, who
attests that on or about July 13, 2015, Credit One sold all
rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff's account, which
were ultimately transferred and assigned to LVNV.

In addition, the Judge finds that the arbitration portion of the
Agreement expressly provides that claims subject to arbitration
include not only Claims that relate directly to the Defendants, a
parent company, affiliated company, and any predecessors and
successors, but also Claims for which we may be directly or
indirectly liable.  Thus, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Guzman granted the Defendants' motion to
stay the individual claim, dismiss the class claims, and compel
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/HmHksD from Leagle.com.

Janis Fuller, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman --
cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group,
Ltd., Andrew Finko, Andrew Finko P.C. & Michael Jacob Wood --
mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC & Resurgent
Capital Services, L.P., Defendants, represented by George D. Sax
-- gsax@scharfbanks.com -- Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, Manuel H.
Newburger -- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger PC &
Corinne Cantwell Heggie -- cheggie@wochnerlawfirm.com -- The
Wochner Law Firm.


FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Moore" Suit Seeks Refund of Property Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA MOORE, TRAVIS CARROLL, KRISTEN MAZOLA, FONG YUEN NG, and
MARIO ARTEISANO v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, CITY OF ATLANTA, CITY
OF ALPHARETTA, CITY OF JOHNS CREEK, CITY OF MILTON, CITY OF
ROSWELL, CITY OF MOUNTAIN PARK, CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, CITY OF
CHATTAHOOCHEE HILLS, CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, CITY OF EAST POINT,
CITY OF FAIRBURN, CITY OF HAPEVILLE, CITY OF PALMETTO, and CITY
OF UNION CITY, Case No. 2018CV305778 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton
Cty., May 29, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated, seeking a refund of taxes
erroneously or illegally assessed and collected on real property
for tax year 2016.

The Defendants are the taxing entities in Fulton County, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs assert that the taxing entities collected property
taxes from the Class in 2016 based on assessments provided by the
Fulton County Board of Assessors.  They allege that for tax year
2016, the FCBA illegally and dramatically increased assessments
on those homes sold during 2015 while leaving unchanged
assessments for neighboring properties.

This "sales chasing" resulted in assessments that were not
uniform, in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the Plaintiffs
argue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN, LLP
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
          Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 809-2591
          E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Lindsey Walker Hillis, Esq.
          THE HILLIS FIRM
          201 17th Street, NW #300
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 445-6783
          Facsimile: (404) 602-0144
          E-mail: lhillis@hillisfirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Palmer, Esq.
          JONATHAN PALMER LAW, LLC
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW
          Building One, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 720-0750
          Mobile: (202) 674-4667
          E-mail: Jonathan@JonathanPalmerLaw.com


GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Baltic Stockholder Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the New York State
Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of
the amended complaint.

In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On
May 26, 2015, the six actions were consolidated under the caption
In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No.
651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed
on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint").

The Consolidated Complaint is purported to be brought by and on
behalf of Baltic Trading's shareholders and alleges that the
then-proposed July 2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic
Trading's shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading. The
Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic
Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, and
the Company's merger subsidiary.

The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of
good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty,
including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii)
aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the
merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion
was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The
motion to enjoin the vote was denied on July 15, 2015.

Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary
restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division,
First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The
Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and
subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015.
Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew that appeal.

On June 30, 2015, defendants had moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently
served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and defendants directed
their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint. The motion to
dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was
dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016. By a Decision and
Order dated April 26, 2018, the New York State Appellate
Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of the amended
complaint. The plaintiffs have the ability to file a motion for
leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals.

Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a Marshall Islands company
that transports iron ore, coal, grain, steel products and other
drybulk cargoes along worldwide shipping routes through the
ownership and operation of drybulk carrier vessels.


GEO GROUP: Court Resets Deadlines in "Chen" Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAO CHEN, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert
J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Deadlines and For Status
Conference.

The Plaintiff seeks relief from deadlines for the class
certification, joinder, and the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class
Certification.  He also requests a status conference to establish
new dates.

The Amended Scheduling Order set out deadlines of March 25, 2018
and March 30, 2018 for class certification and joinder motions,
respectively.  The Plaintiff timely filed his motion for class
certification on March 23, 2015.  The Court re-noted the motion
to May 7, 2018 for consideration after reaching the merits of a
motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant.  The Defendant's motion
to dismiss was denied on April 26, 2018.  The Defendant deposed
Plaintiff Chao Chen, the proposed class representative, on April
25, 2018.  At the deposition, Mr. Chen invoked his right to
remain silent in response to questions about criminal conduct,
inquired into under the theory that GEO could not "employ" Mr.
Chen due to his unsuitable background.

The Plaintiff's counsel represents that he notified the opposing
counsel on April 27, 2018 that, following his deposition, Mr.
Chen decided it would not be in his best interest to continue as
the proposed class representative.  The Defendant filed a Motion
to Deny Class Certification on April 30, 2018, a decision that
its counsel represents she made based on assurances by the
Plaintiff's counsel about the timing of his withdrawal of the
motion for class certification.  On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff
withdrew the motion for class certification and filed the instant
motion for relief.  The Plaintiff's Response to the motion for
class certification was due by May 2, 2018.

Judge Bryan finds that the Plaintiff has made a sufficient
showing of diligence, and there is minimal prejudice to the
Defendant for deadlines to be extended as set out.  The Plaintiff
formally filed the motion for relief from deadlines on May 1,
2018, less than one week after he withdrew as the proposed class
representative.

The Defendant criticizes the competency of the Plaintiff's
counsel, arguing that the Plaintiff knew or should have known of
Mr. Chen's liabilities undermining his ability to be a class
representative.  The Judge finds the Defendant's argument
speculates with no basis in the record.  The broader procedural
history of the case supports the Plaintiff's counsel's diligence,
and the Court lacks a record to the contrary.

The only prejudice the Defendant points to, he says, is the delay
of discovery and need for more depositions.  Under the new
deadlines, the delay will amount to approximately two months,
which, viewed in the broader context of a typical class action
case and in light of the time remaining for discovery, until Nov.
5, 2018, is minimal prejudice.  He is cognizant of the increase
in costs to the Defendant.  To minimize costs, only a brief
extension of deadlines should be granted.  The Plaintiff's
counsel represents that he has already begun conversations with
other prospective class representatives, so only minimal
extensions are necessary to maintain the flow of litigation.

Therefore, Judge Bryan granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for
Relief from Deadlines.  The deadlines are reset as follows:

     i. Motion for Joinder and/or Motion to Amend: May 24, 2018

     ii. Motion for Class certification: June 21, 2018

     iii. Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification: Renoted
to July 13, 2018

The deposition of any proposed class representative should occur
prior to the filing of a motion for class certification by the
Plaintiff.

The Judge denied in part the Plaintiff's motion as to the request
for a Status Conference.  He directed the Clerk to send
uncertified copies of the Order to all the counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3MGFRk from Leagle.com.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-
law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr --
devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead --
whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay
Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R.
Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented
by Charles A. Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com --
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Joan K. Mell --
info@3brancheslaw.com -- III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea
D'Ambra, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Charles A.
Deacon, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Emery,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Adam J. Berger,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr, SUNBIRD LAW
PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay
Halm, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free, LAW OFFICE OF
R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.


GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Accused by "Deforest" Suit of Invading Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB d/b/a SUNSET GETAWAYS
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
8:18-cv-00895 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), accuses the Defendants
of negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Global Exchange Vacation Club, doing business as Sunset Getaways,
is a marketing company.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBE LIFE: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON ECKSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
3:18-cv-01037-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), seeks damages and
remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions
in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Globe Life is a telemarketer, who sells life and accident
insurance policies.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOPRO INC: Court Enters Schedule for Filing Reply to "Park" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONG MIN PARK, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS D.
WOODMAN AND BRIAN T. MCGEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00193-
EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
has entered an order setting schedule for filing response to
consolidated complaint, and continuing case management conference
and associated deadlines.

The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against the Defendants.  Pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which sets
forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities
class actions, on April 19, 2018, the Court issued a Minute Order
conditionally appointing the Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead
Counsel, and ordering that the Consolidated Amended Complaint be
filed within 60 days (i.e., June 18, 2018).

On April 26, 2018, the Court gave final approval of the
appointment of Julie Wiegand and Michael Birlenbach as the Lead
Plaintiffs.  Following that appointment, the parties have met and
conferred and agreed on a schedule for the Defendants' responses
to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to the proposed briefing schedule, the parties
respectfully submit that good cause exists to vacate the July 12,
2018 initial case management conference and associated ADR
deadlines until such time as the Court has the opportunity to
rule on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, they stipulated and Judge Chen approved, that the
Defendants will answer, move or otherwise respond to the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Aug. 12, 2018.  In the event
that the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, the Lead Plaintiffs
will file an opposition to the motion on Aug. 23, 2018.  The
Defendants will file any reply on Sept. 6, 2018.  The Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss will be noticed for hearing on
Sept. 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the initial case management
conference scheduled for July 12, 2018 will be vacated, along
with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for Sept. 20, 2018
at 1:30 p.m. and all associated ADR Multi-Option Program
deadlines likewise be deferred.

Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants waive their rights to
seek from each other or the Court adjournments or extensions of
the deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HnCBSp from Leagle.com.

Jong Min Park, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Larry Ladd, Plaintiff, represented by Patrice L. Bishop --
pbishop@ssbla.com -- Stull, Stull & Brody.

Julie Wiegand & Michael Birlenbach, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jacob Alexander Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Nathan Dye, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Vikas Aora, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP, Hui M. Chang -- hchang@pomlaw.com-- Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac
vice, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh H. Smollar --
lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC, pro hac vice.

GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman & Brian McGee, Defendants,
represented by Catherine Duden Kevane -- ckevane@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus -- mbafus@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP, Susan Samuels Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP & Vincent Barredo -- vbarredo@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP.


GUEST SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Clarke, Jessica Williams, Katerina Skordas, and Kyon Brown,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Guest
Services, Inc., Guest Services Company of Virginia, LLC, and
Guest Services Management, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00353-HEH (E.D.
Va., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out of
the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Guest Services, Inc., is a Washington, D.C. corporation.  Guest
Services Company of Virginia, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company.  Guest Services Management, LLC, is a Delaware
limited liability company.

The Defendants, which purport to have its principal office in
Fairfax, Virginia, are related entities in the hospitality
industry that operate the Fairfield Inn & Suites in Ashland,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


HAVEN HEALTH: Faces "Downing" Class Suit Over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN DOWNING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HAVEN HEALTH GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-08109-DLR (D. Ariz., May 23,
2018), alleges that the Defendant fails to provide lawful notices
and disclosures to its job applicants and employees when
obtaining background checks about them, in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Haven Health Group, LLC, is an Arizona limited liability company
with its principal place of business located in Phoenix, Arizona.
Haven Health operates numerous long-term care facilities
throughout Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (480) 833-1001
          E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


HESKA CORP: "Fauley" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to face a class action
suit filed by Shaun Fauley.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging that the company's
transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action seeking stated
damages of the greater of actual monetary loss or five hundred
dollars per violation."

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter
and at this time is unable to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss.

Heska Corporation sells advanced veterinary diagnostic and
specialty products. The company offerings include Point of Care
diagnostics laboratory instruments and consumables, Point of Care
digital imaging diagnostics products, vaccines, local and cloud-
based data services, allergy testing and immunotherapy, and
single-use offerings such as in-clinic diagnostic tests and
heartworm preventive products. The company is based in Loveland,
Colorado.


HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Estivene" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD ESTIVENE and other similarly-situated individuals v. HOST
INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a HMS HOST RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:18-cv-
22088-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2018), seeks to recover regular
wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Host International, Inc., also known as HMS Host Restaurant, is a
foreign corporation authorized to perform business in Florida.
The Company is a chain of restaurants doing business at prime
locations in Florida and throughout United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOUSING MANAGEMENT: "Christian" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Christian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Housing Management Corp., Case No.
1:18-cv-00347 (W.D. Tex., April 26, 2018), seeks damages for
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Texas Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Hays County, Texas. The Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant as a Property Manager from
approximately May 16, 2017 to March 19, 2018.

The Defendant is a nonprofit corporation, which operates,
maintains, and manages approximately 42 housing properties within
the state of Texas.  These properties are located in Burnet,
Llano, Blanco, Gillespie, Williamson, Brazos, Lubbock, Hemphill,
McLennan, and Midland counties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
      Holt M. Lackey, Esq.
      Ellwanger Law LLLP
      8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 190
      Austin, TX 78731
      Tel: (737) 808-2260
      Fax: (737) 808-2262
      E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law
              hlackey@equalrights.law


HOUSTON NFL: PGG Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.G.G., PLAINTIFF for herself and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON
TEXANS and ALTOVISE GARY, Case No. 4:18-cv-01662 (S.D. Tex., May
21, 2018), is primarily a collective action to recover
compensation for hours worked but not recorded or paid ("off-the-
clock work"), and for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation.

Houston NFL Holdings is a Delaware limited partnership doing
business in Texas.  Coach Alto is an individual and manager of
the Houston Texas Cheerleading squad.

The Defendants collectively own, operate, and manage the NFL
football team known as the Houston Texans.  The Houston Texans
are in the business of promoting and playing professional
football games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruse Loyd, Esq.
          JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD, L.L.P.
          4400 Post Oak Pkwy, Suite 2360
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 225-9000
          Facsimile: (713) 225-6126
          E-mail: bruse@jgl-law.com


ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Pays Out $1.9MM in Employees' Wage Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
ICTS International N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company has paid out
approximately $1.9 million in a class action suits related to
proper minimum wage.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, by an employee of the Company. The employee
alleges the Company failed to pay the proper minimum wage in
violation of the City of Sea Tax Municipal Code.

Additional two lawsuits were filed against the Company in the
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Huston
Division and in the Superior Court of Washington, King County, on
the same subject.

During the year ended December 31, 2017 the three legal disputes
for back wages due to the SeaTac, WA Minimum Wage ordinance were
settled in the courts and the Company paid out approximately $1.9
million.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company has an accrued amount of
approximately $1.6 million (inclusive of interest amounting to
approximately $0.3 million) for the reminder of the settlement.

Approximately $1.1 million (including interest) of this amount is
included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and is
due in 2018. The additional $0.5 million (including interest) is
shown as a long term liability in other liabilities since payment
is due in 2019.

ICTS International N.V., together with its subsidiaries, provides
airport security and other aviation services in the United
States, the Netherlands, Germany, and internationally. It
operates through Airport Security and Other Aviation Services;
and Technology segments.


JANUS HENDERSON: Unit Faces Velocity Shares Daily Inverse Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary faces
multiple class action suits related to Velocity Shares Daily
Inverse.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC ("Janus
Index"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of investors who purchased Velocity Shares Daily
Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018
and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus
Index). Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named
as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege Credit Suisse and Janus Index disseminated
and/or approved materially false and misleading intraday
indicative values for XIV, causing inflated values of XIV at
market close on February 5, 2018.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Index
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Credit Suisse and Janus Index. The Halbert and Qui allegations
generally mirror the Eisenberg complaint, although the Halbert
claim is not a class action lawsuit.

Janus Henderson said "The Group believes the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and is strongly defending the
actions."

Janus Henderson Group plc operates as an investment management
company. The Company provides investment advisors for equities,
fixed income, property, and private equity sectors. Janus
Henderson Group serves customers worldwide.


KLONDEX MINES: Being Sold for Too Little, "Gunderson" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GUNDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RICHARD J. HALL, BLAIR
SCHULTZ, RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY, PAUL ANDRE
HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, HECLA MINING COMPANY, and
1156291 B.C. UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-00256-
LRH-VPC (D. Nev., May 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
agreeing to a proposed sale transaction, which undervalues
Klondex and is the result of a flawed sales process.

Mr. Gunderson brings the lawsuit for alleged violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary
duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company
to Hecla Mining Company ("Parent") and 1156291 B.C. Unlimited
Liability Company (the "Merger Sub" and collectively with Parent,
"Hecla"), as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price,
and to enjoin the stockholder vote on a proposed stock for stock
transaction valued at approximately $462 million.

Klondex is organized under the laws of the Canadian Province of
British Columbia and has its United States' principal place of
business in Reno, Nevada.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Klondex acquires, explores, develops, and produces mineral
properties in the United States and Canada.  The Company
primarily explores for gold and silver deposits.

Parent is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.  Parent is a mining company that discovers,
acquires, develops, produces, and markets silver, gold, lead, and
zinc.  Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent that was
created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed
Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Aldrich, Esq.
          ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
          1601 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 160
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 853-5490
          Facsimile: (702) 227-1975
          E-mail: jaldrich@aldrichlawfirm.com

               - and -

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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Suit vs. ARCP
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case related to American Realty
Capital Partners, Inc.'s (ARCP) note offerings has been granted.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals,
ARCP's auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014
$1,656,000 common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three
prior note offerings. The complaints have been consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of
the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's
July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on financial reporting of
expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from
operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley
certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal
controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of
federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, as well as other relief. In June 2016, the court denied
the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint. In August
2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment
research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading,
wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services
through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America
("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities
Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS
Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"),
Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage
("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services
("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit Over Miller Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in two purported class action complaints filed
in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were
filed in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors
of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's
auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings
in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated
valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants
removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were
consolidated. In August 2017, the court granted in part and
denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment
research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading,
wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services
through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America
("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities
Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS
Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"),
Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage
("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services
("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Dismiss All American Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has granted
the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
with prejudice and entered final judgment for the defendants.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that
in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to
the purported class action.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial
public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that
the offering materials were misleading based on representations
concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's
pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of
federal securities laws.

In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered
final judgment for the defendants.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment
research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading,
wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services
through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America
("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities
Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS
Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"),
Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage
("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services
("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida.


LASHMAX LLC: Coleman Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA COLEMAN v. LASHMAX, LLC; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP ONE, INC.;
LASH INVESTMENT GROUP TWO, INC.; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP THREE,
INC.; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP, FOUR, INC.; LAN AI NGUYEN, AN
INDIVIDUAL; HA THI LE, AN INDIVIDUAL; TRUNG QUY NGUYEN, AN
INDIVIDUAL, Case No. 4:18-cv-01747 (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2018), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lashmax, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company.  Lash
Investment Group One, Inc., Lash Investment Group Two, Inc., Lash
Investment Group Three, Inc., and Lash Investment Group Four,
Inc., are Texas for profit corporations.  The Individual
Defendants are employees, officers or agents of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Lash Defendants own and operate six "Amazing Lash Studio"
franchises in the Houston area.  "Amazing Lash Studios" are
beauty salons that apply false eyelashes on people.  The Lash
Defendants' corporate headquarters are in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Thompson Drake, Esq.
          THE DRAKE LAW FIRM, PC
          4101 Washington Ave
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 230-8712
          Facsimile: (713) 456-2084
          E-mail: nicola@nicoladrake.com


LOVETT FOOD: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syed Owais Ahmed, and all others similarly situated v. Lovett
Food, LLC, Akber Ali Allauddin and Abid Ali Allauddin, Case No.
4:18-cv-01307 (S.D. Tex., April 25, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Syed Owais Ahmed is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff
was an employee who worked as a gas station/convenience store
clerk owned and operated by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate related business establishments
engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for
interstate commerce in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Tel: (713) 223-1300
      Fax: (713) 255-0013
      E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Fajardo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fajardo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, James
Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam Stewart, and Richard D. Courtney, Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities law and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Macquarie's securities between February 22,
2016 and February 21, 2018, both dates inclusive.

The complaint says the Plaintiff acquired Macquarie securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns, operates, and invests
in a portfolio of infrastructure businesses. The Company's
businesses consist of its IMTT business, a bulk liquid terminals
business, airport services, gas processing and distribution, and
a portfolio of contracted power and energy investments.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Macquarie. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 697-6484
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


MATSON NAVIGATION: Unearned Wages Claim in "Dixon" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALPHONSE DIXON, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Civil
17-00368 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

The putative class action arises under admiralty law.  The
Plaintiff alleges he has suffered illness or injury in the
service of the Defendant's vessel(s) on high seas voyages
wherefore unearned wages were payable, and proceeds to assert two
claims.

First, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant wrongfully calculated
the amount of unearned wages owed in breach of its general
maritime law obligations.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges
the Defendant failed to include in his unearned wages the amount
of overtime wages, which he would have earned, had he not been
prevented from working by his illness or injury ("Count I").

Second, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant improperly determined the
duration of its obligation to pay him unearned wages ("Count
II").  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that, because he has
dependents, he was entitled to unearned wages until his sickness
or incapacity was declared to be of a permanent character, per
the Shipowners' Liability Convention.

On Oct. 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.  It seeks dismissal of Count
II, arguing that shipowners are only obliged to pay unearned
wages until the end of the voyage.

The Plaintiff filed his memorandum in opposition on Oct. 25,
2017, and the Defendant filed its reply on Jan. 12, 2018.  The
matter came on for hearing on Jan. 29, 2018.

Judge Kobayashi finds that the Plaintiff has made no reference to
the parties' employment contract.  The Plaintiff relies solely on
the Convention as authority for his alleged entitlement to
relief.  Because the Convention was not enacted to change
materially American standards, Count II is premised on a legal
theory contrary to controlling authority.  Count II therefore
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and must
be dismissed.  The Judge holds that the dismissal must be with
prejudice because it is clear that any amendment would be futile.

On the basis of the foregoing, Judge Kobayashi granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint,
filed on Oct. 23, 2017, and dismissed with prejudice Count II of
the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint under Rule 9(h), filed
July 28, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ATAaTN from Leagle.com.

Alphonse Dixon, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Dennis M. O'Bryan -- info@obryanlaw.ne -- O'Bryan
Baun Karamanian.

Matson Navigation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marker
E. Lovell, Jr. -- mlovell@gibsonrobb.com -- Gibson Robb & Lindh
LLP.


MDL 2777: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-md-
02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, has entered an order establishing deadlines regarding
the Class Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' Amended
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint, and granted leave
to amend certain of their claims.  The Class Plaintiffs intend to
amend certain of their claims, and the Defendants may move to
dismiss some or all of the claims.

The parties previously raised a dispute in the April 3, 2018
Joint Case Management Conference Statement concerning the
scheduling of class certification depositions, the schedule for
class certification briefing, and the Class Plaintiffs' request
to bifurcate class certification briefing.  They've met and
conferred and resolved the dispute in an attempt to avoid any
undue delay in these proceedings, such that, subject to Court
approval, the Class Plaintiffs will file their amended complaint
and then move for class certification on all claims asserted in
the amended complaint during the pendency of the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss claims in the amended complaint.

The agreed-upon schedule sets forth a briefing schedule for the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' amended
complaint and a revised schedule for briefing class certification
of all claims.

The parties stipulated and the Judge Approved the following
deadlines are established regarding the Class Plaintiffs' amended
complaint and the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss:

     a. April 23, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will file the Second
Amended Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("SAC").

     b. May 23, 2018: The Defendants will answer, move to
dismiss, or otherwise respond to the SAC.

     c. June 22, 2018: The Plaintiffs will file any response in
opposition to any motion to dismiss made by Defendants.

     d. July 13, 2018: The Defendants will file any reply(ies) in
support of their motions to dismiss.

The Class Plaintiffs will move for class certification of all
claims in the SAC, and the following deadlines are revised in
that regard:

     a. April 16, 2018 -- June 6, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will
file their motion for class certification of all claims in the
SAC.  All remaining class-certification depositions of Defendants
will be completed sufficiently in advance of this deadline.

     b. May 14, 2018 -- June 22, 2018: The Defendants will
disclose experts on which they will rely for their opposition to
the class certification motion.

     c. May 29, 2018 -- July 23, 2018: the  Defendants will file
their brief(s) in opposition to the Class Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  All remaining class-certification
depositions of the Class Representatives will be completed
sufficiently in advance of this deadline.

     d. June 25, 2018 -- Aug. 20, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will
file a reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification.

     e. Sept. 17, 2018 at 2:15 p.m.: Hearing on motion for class
certification

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/WlA938 from Leagle.com.

Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson --
jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller --
epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi
-- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody
& Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-
legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor --
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon
S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William
Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP,
Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey --
bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com --
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. --
joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak --
lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S.
Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko ,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne.

Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP,
Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings,
Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr,
Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne &
Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro
hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice,
David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron &
Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R.
Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron
and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen -
- pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K.
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson
McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser.

Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green,
Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan,
Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby
Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron
& Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron
Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser.

Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis,
Baron Budd, P.C.

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi --
niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H.
Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert --
ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas
Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of
Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP.

Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. --
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC,
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B.
Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice.

Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust
Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow &
Millrood, LLC.

VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne,
Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business
as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant,
represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se.

The People of the State of California, Interested Party,
represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General.


MEDICINES CO: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Court has granted final approval of the
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

In February 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers alleging,
among other things, that the company and certain of its current
and former officers violated federal securities laws because the
company and certain current and former officers allegedly made
misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding
the results of clinical trials which tested the efficacy and
safety of one of our recently divested products.

On February 12, 2016, the parties executed a stipulation for a
proposed class settlement, subject to court approval, and on June
7, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

Medicines Company is a biopharmaceutical company driven by our
purpose to solve major medical, societal and economic challenges
in healthcare. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


MEDGUARD ALERT: Cunningham Files Suit Over Autodialed Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MEDGUARD ALERT, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00897 (D.
Conn., May 29, 2018), alleges that the Defendant, using an
autodialer, called the Plaintiff and the class using a
prerecorded or artificial-voice, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Medguard is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of
business located in Middletown, Connecticut.  The Company tried
to sell to the Plaintiff a medical alert system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


MFS GLOBAL: Violates TCPA's Do-Not-Call Provision, Fabricant Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MFS GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a FLOWRICH CAPITAL;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-04381 (C.D.
Cal., May 23, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions.

MFS Global, Inc., doing business as Flowrich Capital, is loan
provider.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN: Court Denies Filing of Amended "Fowler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIAN FOWLER and KITIA HARRIS, Plaintiffs, v. RUTH
JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, Defendant, Civil Case No.
17-11441 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
(i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' request to file their
motion for class certification at this time.

This is a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
Defendant's practice, pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws Section
257.321a, of suspending the driver's licenses of individuals who
fail to pay court-ordered fines, costs, fees and assessments
resulting from traffic violations.

Plaintiffs Fowler and Harris are Michigan residents who claim to
have had their driver's licenses suspended pursuant to Michigan
Compiled Laws Section 257.321a.  While living in Georgia from
2008 to 2012, Ms. Fowler was issued three tickets for civil
traffic infractions, which she was not able to pay.  When she
moved back to Michigan in 2012, Ms. Fowler tried to renew her
Michigan driver's license and was informed that it was suspended
because she had not paid her Georgia court debts.  The Defendant
explains that Michigan law precludes the Secretary of State from
issuing a driver's license to someone whose license is revoked or
suspended in another state.  According to the Defendant, Georgia
suspended Ms. Fowler's license for nonpayment of court debts.

In October 2016, a Ferndale police officer stopped Ms. Harris and
issued her a ticket for "impeding traffic."  According to Ms.
Harris, the officer instructed her to call a number to see how
much she owed for the ticket.  Ms. Harris called the number a
couple of days later and was told the cost was $150.  Unable to
pay that amount, Ms. Harris asked the person on the phone if she
could be placed on a payment plan.  According to Ms. Harris, she
was told no and that she had to pay the amount in full.  She was
further informed that if she waited too long to pay, her license
would be suspended.  She avers that she was never told to come to
court to discuss a payment plan or provided other alternatives to
paying the fine in full.

About a month later, Ms. Harris received a notice in the mail
reflecting that the amount she owed had increased and that her
license had been suspended because of her failure to pay the
fine. Ms. Harris claims that she received three additional
suspensions of her license for failure to pay fines in November
2017.

On the day they initiated the action, the Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendant from
suspending the driver's licenses of individuals unable to pay
their traffic debt.  Concluding that the Plaintiffs are likely to
prevail on their claim that the Defendant violated their
procedural due process rights by suspending their driver's
licenses without first affording them an ability to pay hearing,
the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and entered a
preliminary injunction on Dec. 14, 2017.  Specifically, the Court
ordered that the Defendant is enjoined from enforcing Michigan
Compiled Laws Section 257.321a to suspend the driver's licenses
of people unable to pay their traffic debt.

The Defendant appealed and asked the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals to stay the injunction.  On Dec. 28, 2017, the Sixth
Circuit issued an order stating that the Defendant had not
demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its
challenge to the district court's ruling on procedural due
process.  Nevertheless, it stayed the injunction for 30 days and
remanded the matter for the limited purpose of modifying the
injunctive relief granted  to provide direction to the State as
to the type of process required to comply with the court's order.

In response to the Sixth Circuit's remand order, the Court issued
an order on Jan. 5, 2018, clarifying its injunction.  The Court
ultimately concluded that the Sixth Circuit's remand order did
not permit it to consider new evidence and revisit the merits of
Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim.

On Jan. 24, 2018, the Court entered an Amended Preliminary
Injunction that enjoined the Defendant from suspending any
further driver's licenses of individuals because of nonpayment of
any fine, cost, fee or assessment under Michigan Compiled Laws
Section 257.321a unless and until the Defendant or another
entity: (1) offers drivers the option to request a hearing where
they have the opportunity to demonstrate their inability to pay a
fine, cost, fee and/or assessment; (2) provides a hearing when
requested; (3) provides reasonable notice to drivers of the
hearing opportunity; and (4) institutes alternatives to full
payment for those unable to pay (e.g., realistic payment plans or
volunteer service).

The Defendant filed an appeal and an emergency motion to stay.
In the motion, she argued that the Plaintiffs lack standing
because, even if they had suspensions for failure to pay, they
also had suspensions for failure to appear in state court.
According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs could not benefit from
the injunction as their licenses had been suspended on grounds
alternative to failure to pay.

On Feb. 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit entered an order remanding the
matter to address standing.  On remand, the Plaintiffs filed a
"Brief and Declaration in Support of Standing" to which they
attach amended declarations from Ms. Harris and Ms. Fowler.  The
Defendant responded to the Plaintiffs' filing, the Plaintiffs
filed a reply brief, and the Defendant filed a sur-reply.  The
Plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended
complaint and a motion for class certification.  The parties have
fully briefed that motion.  Further, the Defendant moved to
strike the Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the motion under the Sixth Circuit's
limited remand order.  The Defendant's motion to strike also has
been fully briefed.

Judge Parker concludes that Ms. Harris has standing to pursue the
lawsuit and that her claims have not been rendered moot by the
additional infractions she incurred after the action was filed.
Ms. Jones lacks standing, however.  Further, Ms. Rankin's claims
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  As such,
the Judge concludes that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to
amend their complaint to add Ms. Jones or Ms. Rankin as
Plaintiffs.  Therefore, she denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file an amended complaint, as well as the Plaintiffs'
request to file their motion for class certification at this
time.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/pDezwS from Leagle.com.

Adrian Fowler & Kitia Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony
D. Paris, Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center, Catherine B.
Sevcenko, Equal Justice Under Law, John C. Philo --
jphilo@sugarlaw.org -- Sugar Law Center, Rebecca R. Ramaswamy,
Equal Justice Under Law & Phil Telfeyan --
ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- Equal Justice Under Law.

Ruth Johnson, Defendant, represented by John G. Fedynsky --
fedynskyj@michigan.gov -- State of Michigan Attorney General's
Office Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division.


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss LOVENOX Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that three motions by the Company
and Sandoz to dismiss an amended class action complaint remains
pending.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the
September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and
Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from
selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude
competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation
of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21,
2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company
and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for
NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same
opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add
a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security
Plan, or DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages
under the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a
putative class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic
enoxaparin. On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a
brief opposing the motion to amend the complaint. On December 14,
2017, the Court granted NGH's motion to amend.

In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals said "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses
on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars, and
novel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases in the United States.
The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MTGE INVESTMENT: "Dell'Acqua" Suit Challenges Sale to Annaly
------------------------------------------------------------
GIAMPAOLO DELL'ACQUA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MTGE INVESTMENT CORP., GARY D. KAIN, RANDY
E. DOBBS, JULIA L. CORONADO, ROBERT M. COUCH, ANNALY CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., and MOUNTAIN MERGER SUB CORPORATION, Case No.
8:18-cv-01528-DKC (D. Md., May 25, 2018), arises out of the Board
of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Annaly Capital
Management, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary Mountain
Merger Sub Corporation.

The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on May 2, 2018, when
MTGE and Annaly announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which Annaly will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of MTGE in a mix of cash and
stock that values MTGE at approximately $19.65 per share.  The
deal is valued at approximately $900 million and is expected to
close in the third quarter of 2018.

MTGE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Maryland.  The Company's principal executive offices
are located in Bethesda, Maryland.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

MTGE invests in and manages real estate-related investments,
including residential mortgage-backed securities structured from
mortgages guaranteed by a government-sponsored entity.  The
Company is managed by MTGE Management, LLC, a subsidiary of AGNC
Investment Corp.

Annaly Capital Management, Inc. is a Maryland corporation based
in New York.  Mountain Merger Sub Corporation is a Maryland
corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Annaly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

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


MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces "Franchi" Suit Over Acquisition by Annaly
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MTGE INVESTMENT CORP., RANDY E. DOBBS,
JULIA L. CORONADO, ROBERT M. COUCH, ANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
INC. and MOUNTAIN MERGER SUB CORPORATION, Case No. 8:18-cv-01563-
PJM (D. Md., May 30, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which MTGE will be acquired by Annaly and Merger Sub.

On May 2, 2018, MTGE'S Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Annaly.  Pursuant
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer to acquire all of MTGE'S shares of outstanding common
stock.

MTGE is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Bethesda, Maryland.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

MTGE is a hybrid mortgage real estate investment trust that
invests in agency mortgage-backed securities, non-agency mortgage
investments, other mortgage-related assets and skilled nursing
and senior living facilities operated by third parties.

Defendant Parent is a Maryland corporation.  Merger Sub is a
Maryland corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent.
Both are parties to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4 Classes in "McNamee" FDCPA Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES D. McNAMEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-1948 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

The case concerns Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
consequences of letters that the Defendant sent to Plaintiff
Charles McNamee and others similarly situated.  Nearly a decade
ago, Mr. McNamee took out a mortgage on his home in
Mechanicsburg, Ohio, through American Eagle Mortgage Co.  He
executed a Note in the amount of $181,936, payable to American
Eagle.  Eventually, American Eagle endorsed the Note to an
intermediary mortgage company, which, in turn, endorsed the Note
to Bank of America, N.A.

In 2012, Mr. McNamee found himself in default on the Note.  He
and his wife filed jointly for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Mr. McNamee received a Chapter 7 discharge in September 2012,
and, upon the request of Bank of America, the Chapter 7 Trustee
abandoned the bankruptcy estate's interest in the property.
After the bankruptcy, Bank of America assigned the mortgage on
the property to Defendant Nationstar.

Nationstar began to send Mr. McNamee correspondence that would
ultimately become the focal point of the litigation.
Specifically, it sent Mr. McNamee two letters on Dec. 17, 2012,
informing him that it took over debt servicing for the mortgage.
On Dec. 31, 2012, it sent a letter indicating that it was seeking
to collect $22,439.32 on the mortgage on behalf of Ginnie Mae.
And once a month from January 2013 to January 2015, Nationstar
sent Mr. McNamee a "Mortgage Loan Statement" that specified,
among other things, an "Amount Due" and "Payment Due Date," and
warned him not to delay payment lest Nationstar report his
account to credit bureaus.

As it continued to send the Mortgage Loan Statement letters to
Mr. McNamee, Nationstar commenced an in rem foreclosure
proceeding in the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas.  In
October 2013, it obtained a final decree of foreclosure on the
property.  Nationstar then acquired force-placed insurance on the
property, advancing $4,552 to pay for coverage.  The company
began sending Mr. McNamee Forced-Placed Insurance letters telling
him that the cost of the insurance would result in costs to him.

As of the time Mr. McNamee filed his Motion for Class
Certification, Nationstar has not yet sold the house.  It is Mr.
NcNamee's contention that the Mortgage Loan Statements and the
Force-Placed Insurance communications were in the nature of debt
collection, and that the continuous and voluminous collection
activity against him after he vacated the house was in violation
of the FDCPA and 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a).

In 2013, Mr. McNamee filed suit against Nationstar in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking an
order of contempt and sanctions on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated.  Nationstar filed a Motion to Dismiss, which
the Bankruptcy Court granted as to Mr. McNamee's request to
represent a nationwide class but denied as to Mr. McNamee's
request to represent a district-wide class.

Mr. McNamee then filed the FDCPA class action in October 2014,
alleging claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, which generally
proscribes false and misleading representations in debt
collection, and Section 1692f, which prohibits the use of unfair
or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect debts.

Nationstar moved to dismiss Mr. McNamee's Section 1692f claims;
the Court granted the motion on Sept. 4, 2015.  Only the Section
1692e claims remain.

The Plaintiffs now seek to certify the following classes as to
the Section 1692e claims:

     CLASS 1 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) who received a Chapter
7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan.
31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention
therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an
intention to surrender residential real property that was/is
security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after
vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or
more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the
attached Exemplar Exhibit A;

     CLASS 2 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7
bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii)
who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11
U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
residential real property that was/is security for a debt
serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real
property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed
Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar
Exhibits B and C;

     CLASS 3 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar
Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) who
received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case
filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after
Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and
served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
residential real property that was/is security for a debt
serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real
property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan
Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar
Exhibit A;

     CLASS 4 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar
Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) received a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after Jan. 1, 2012
and the present; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of
Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an
intention to surrender residential real property that was/is
security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after
vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least
one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the
attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C.

Nationstar argues that the proposed classes are subject to
several fatal defects, namely: (A) they are not ascertainable,
(B) they are overly broad, (C) they do not satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, (D) the putative class representative does not
have claims typical to the classes, and (E) they do not satisfy
the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ultimately, Judge Marbley holds that none of these arguments
defeat Mr. McNamee's Motion for Class Certification.  He finds
that the Plaintiff's proposed class definition carries all the
indicia of objective criteria: if an individual received specific
letters from Defendant after filing a Statement of Intent and
vacating the property, that individual is a class member.
Whether an individual received a debt collection letter after
filing a Statement of Intent and vacating the property is an
inquiry based solely on objective criteria.  Far from being
hopelessly unascertainable, the contours of the class could not
be clearer.

He also finds that the records form a sufficient basis upon which
to conclude that the property has been vacated and no longer is
the principal residence of the debtor.  No further individualized
proof would be required, let alone a series of individualized
mini-trials.  He therefore concludes that the classes are not
overly broad.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs meet the commonality
and typicality requirements, as well as the Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements of predominance and superiority.

For these reasons, Judge Marbley certified the action as a class
action, and designated the Plaintiff as the representative of the
four classes outlined below:

     a. CLASS 1 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) who received a Chapter
7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan.
31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention
therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an
intention to surrender residential real property that was/is
security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after
vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or
more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the
attached Exemplar Exhibit A;

     b. CLASS 2 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability
and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7
bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii)
who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11
U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
residential real property that was/is security for a debt
serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real
property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed
Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar
Exhibits B and C;

     c. CLASS 3 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether
Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i)
who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy
case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or
after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed
and served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
residential real property that was/is security for a debt
serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real
property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan
Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar
Exhibit A;

     d. CLASS 4 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether
Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i)
received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case
filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after
Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and served a
Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A)
stating an intention to surrender residential real property that
was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who,
after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at
least one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified
by the attached Exemplar Exhibits B and

In addition, Judge Marbley designated the law firm of Nobile &
Thompson Co., LPA as the Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  He directed the
Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for the Defendant to meet and
confer, and to provide the Court with a proposed plan for
providing notice to the potential class action members.  The
parties will report to the Court within 30 days of the Order with
such proposed plan. If the parties are unable to agree on notice,
the parties will submit separate proposed notices by the same
date.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://goo.gl/zBH6c5 from Leagle.com.

Charles D McNamee, Plaintiff, represented by Eric E. Willison &
James E. Nobile -- jenobile@ntlegal.com -- Nobile & Thompson Co.,
L.P.A.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen A.
Weigand -- sweigand@ficlaw.com -- Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart &
Dusing PLL & D. Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.


NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: "Gurto" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gurto, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Nationwide Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00490
(E.D. Va., April 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia.

The Defendant is a collection agency located in Norcross,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Youth Shelter Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, C.W.; D.S.; M.C.; A.H.; S.G.; EX.; S.A.; F.E.; I.F.;
G.B.; and D.G., by his next friend, THEO LIEBMANN; and other
similarly situated youth, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-7376 (SJ)(VVP)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Sterling Johnson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
New York, granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment.

The Plaintiffs, all but one of whom were 17- or 18-year-old
homeless youths at the time the action was commenced, bring the
class action against the City, alleging that the City violated
their rights under federal law, the New York City Human Rights
Law, and a state statute -- the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of
1978 ("RHYA") -- by failing to provide, or ejecting them from,
youth shelters.

The Defendant now moves for partial summary judgment, arguing
that the RHYA does not obligate the City to provide youth-
specific shelter to any 18- to 20-year-old homeless youth who
seeks it.

The case is a civil rights action commenced by homeless
individuals, aged 17 to 20, who, at some juncture, have been
denied access to a youth shelter and/or ejected from such a
shelter.  The Amended Complaint alleges that in denying youth
shelter to homeless youth ages 16 to 20 and ejecting them from
shelter to the street without fair process, the City has violated
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the RHYA, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New
York City Human Rights Law. Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs principally seek injunctive relief, including an
order requiring the City to provide youth shelter and services to
any homeless youth aged 16 to 20 who seeks them and prohibiting
the City from denying youth shelter or services to any homeless
youth aged 16 to 20 or ejecting such youth from a shelter without
fair process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The instant motion pertains solely to the Plaintiffs' claim that
the City has violated the RHYA.  According to the Amended
Complaint, the RHYA envisions a straightforward system in which
homeless youth have unfettered access to youth shelter and
services.  The pleading alleges that section 532-b of the New
York Executive Law entitles any homeless youth to crisis shelter,
which includes a bed and services such as food, clothing, medical
care, education, and counseling.  The pleading further alleges
that sections 532-a and 532-d provide that homeless youth who
cannot find alternative living arrangements during their stay at
the crisis shelter will move into transactional independent
living programs ("TILs"), from which they will transition to
independent living.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that the RHYA "does not permit
the City to discharge runaway or homeless youth from shelter back
to the street under any circumstance.  With respect to runaway
youth, the pleading implies that N.Y. Exec. Law Section 532-b
requires reunification with family, foster care placement, or
housing according to any other suitable plan upon discharge from
crisis shelter.  With respect to homeless youth, the pleading
alleges that sections 532-a and 532-d permit them to remain in
crisis shelter until they secure a bed in a [transactional
independent living] program or find suitable shelter elsewhere.

Judge Johnson is not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' attempts to
analogize the provisions of the RHYA to statutory schemes such as
the IDEA and SSA, which obligate a state that accepts federal
funding to extend benefits to all eligible beneficiaries.  To be
sure, courts may, on occasion, be able to learn the purpose of
legislation by referring to other similar legislation.  However,
the Plaintiffs have not pointed to any similarities between the
RHYA and these other statutes that suggest it would be
appropriate to look to the IDEA or SSA in order to divine the
purpose behind the RHYA.

Since he finds that the plain meaning of the statutory scheme at
issue does not support the Plaintiffs' contention that the RHYA
obligates the City to provide youth-specific services to any 18-
to 20-year-old homeless individual who seeks them, the Judge
needs not consider the Plaintiffs' arguments relating to
legislative history.  Nonetheless, he notes that the legislative
history does not support the Plaintiffs' suppositions regarding
the RHYA's purpose.  Nothing in the legislative history suggests
that the legislation required counties or municipalities which
accepted the State aid to meet 100% of the demand for shelter
from runaways and homeless youths.  While the legislation imposed
certain reporting and oversight requirements on participating
municipalities, there is nothing in the legislative history to
suggest that those municipalities which elected to fund programs
for runaway and homeless youths were required to ensure that the
programs created would meet the needs of the runaways and
homeless adults in those municipalities.

For the reasons stated, Judge Johnson granted the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs' RHYA claim
is dismissed with respect to all the Plaintiffs who were age 18
or older at the time the action was commenced.  The Judge
expressed no opinion regarding whether the RHYA imposes a duty on
the City to provide youth-specific shelter to runaway and
homeless youths who are 16 or 17 years of age since that issue is
not presented by the instant motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://goo.gl/XN9UHn from Leagle.com.

C.W., D.S., M.C., A.H., E.L., S.A., F.E., D.G., by his next
friend & Theo Liebmann, and other similarly situated youth,
Plaintiffs, represented by Judith A. Goldiner, Legal Aid Society,
Kimberly Forte, Legal Aid Society, Lisa E. Cleary --
lecleary@pbwt.com --Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP,
Muhammad U. Faridi -- mfaridi@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb
& Tyler, Susan L. Lawless, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Beth
Christine Hofmeister, The Legal Aid Society, Courtney Christensen
Camp, The Legal Aid Society, Daniel Aaron Friedman --
dfriedman@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jane
Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
LLP, Lisa Freeman, The Legal Aid Society & Theresa Beth Moser,
The Legal Aid Society.

The City of New York, Defendant, represented by Andrew James
Rauchberg, New York City Law Department, Eric Brent Porter, NYC
Law Department & Kate Fay McMahon, NYC Law Dept.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Ct. Dismisses Amended "Lucescu" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended case, DAVID LUCESCU, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MIKE ZAFIROVSKI and
PAVI BINNING, Defendants, Case No. 09cv4691 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.).

Nortel was a supplier of end-to-end networking products.  Its
principal place of business was in Toronto, Canada.  Its stock
traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock
Exchange.

In 2004, an accounting fraud came to light at Nortel.  This led
to the restatement of billions of dollars in revenue.  Defendant
Zafirovski was brought in as Nortel's CEO in November 2004 to
revitalize the company.  In late 2005, under Zafirovski's
guidance, Nortel commenced a Business Transformation Plan that
was designed to return Nortel to profitability.  Binning served
as Nortel's CFO from Nov. 12, 2007 to March 2, 2009, and is named
as the second Defendant in the action.  The class period runs
from May 2, 2008 and Jan. 13, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court issued an Initial
Order in Nortel's Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act
("CCAA") proceeding.  That Initial Order stayed all proceedings
against Nortel and its current and former officers and directors.
On Feb. 27, 2009, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court recognized Nortel's
CCAA proceeding as a "foreign main proceeding" and stayed all
proceedings against Nortel and its officers and directors.

Lucescu filed the complaint in the action in the district on May
18, 2009.  Judge Shira Scheindlin placed the case on the suspense
docket on Nov. 9, 2010.  In January 2017, the Ontario Superior
Court approved Nortel's plan of reorganization and lifted the
CCAA stay on May 15.  On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware recognized the Ontario Superior
Court's May 15 order.  Accordingly, the securities fraud class
action lawsuit, which was filed in 2009 and asserts claims
against two Nortel executives for activities in 2008, is once
again active.

This lawsuit was reassigned to the Court on July 11, 2017, and
was reopened on July 17.  At an initial conference with the
parties on Aug. 4, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint and set a briefing schedule for a
motion to dismiss.  On Aug. 14, it allowed the case to continue
with two lead Plaintiffs, Minto and Chen.

The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on Sept. 21, 2017.  The FAC extends
the Class Period to Jan. 14, 2009 and adds allegations concerning
the first and second quarter 2008 Form 10-Q filings and the
second quarter 2008 earnings release.  It asserts that the two
individual Defendants made materially false statements in 2008
about Nortel's relationship with key customers and failed to
timely write down over $2.3 billion of goodwill, which they knew
was impaired as of May 2, 2008.  According to the FAC, the
Defendants were motivated to delay writing down the goodwill so
that Nortel could conduct a private placement.  The FAC also adds
allegations from 13 confidential witnesses ("CWs"), none of whom
is alleged to have had any direct contact with either Defendant
and only one of whom is alleged to have worked in Nortel's
headquarters.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on Oct. 6, 2017.  The
motion became fully submitted on Nov. 10.

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs rely on
two sets of alleged misstatements.  First, they assert that
Zafirovski's statements surrounding Nortel's first and second
quarter results are misleading and false to the extent that he
did not discuss the reduction in capital investments by certain
Nortel customers.  Second, they assert that the statements in
Nortel's first and second quarter financial reports -- the Forms
10-Q, signed by Defendant Binning -- that the company's financial
results were reported in compliance with GAAP were false.

Judge Cote holds that neither set of alleged misstatements
supports a claim.  She finds that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
a claim that Zafirovski was required to discuss specific
customers to correct or complete his statements regarding
customer momentum and other customer-related statements.
Zafirovski's statements were general statements about the goals
and progress of the company in providing service to its
customers.  The public was aware that some Nortel customers had
cut back business with Nortel or were generally reducing their
capital expenditures.

The Judge also finds that estimates of goodwill are not matters
of objective fact.  They are statements of opinion, and
understood as such by investors.  To be actionable as a false
statement, the FAC must adequately plead that Binning did not
believe the statements regarding Nortel's goodwill.  None of the
Plaintiffs' contentions actually speak to Defendant Binning's
state of mind when making statement.  In the very particular
circumstances of this company and the economic climate of 2008,
the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to state a claim
that the assurances that Nortel complied with GAAP were false.

Even if the Plaintiffs had adequately pled that either Defendant
made a misstatement or omission of material fact, the Judge finds
that they have not adequately pled that either Defendant acted
with scienter.  The Plaintiffs do not assert in opposition to
this motion that either Defendant was motivated to engage in
fraud because of a "concrete and personal" benefit he would
receive from the fraud.  Instead, they contend that the FAC
pleads conscious or reckless misbehavior.

For these reasons, Judge Cote granted the Defendants' Oct. 6,
2017 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  She directed the
Clerk of Court to enter final judgment for the Defendants and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/UMMp1e from Leagle.com.

Kien Chen & Moreno Minto, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by David
Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

David Lucescu, Individually & David Lucescu, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Samuel
Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Corey D. Holzer -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- Holzer &
Holzer, LLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A. Berens, Dyer & Berens
L.L.P. & Robert J. Dyer, III, Dyer & Berens L.L.P.

Mike Zafirovski & Pavi Binning, Defendants, represented by Joel
Charles Haims -- jhaims@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Michael Gerard, Morrison & Foerster LLP & James Joseph Beha, II -
- jbeha@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RODZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00783-NJ (E.D.
Wisc., May 22, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged
collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

Northland Group, LLC, formerly known as Northland Group, Inc., is
a debt collection agency with its principal place of business
located in Edina, Minnesota.  Northland is engaged in the
business of a collecting consumer debts originally owed to
others, using the mails and telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment dismissing the case, JOSEPHENIE
ROBERTSON, M.T.T., individually and as the Representative,
Officer and Matriarch of the Traditional Authority and Miskitu
Government-In-Exile, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF
NICARAGUA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-17156 (9th
Cir.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Appellate Court holds that the district court properly
dismissed Robertson's action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Robertson alleged claims that presented a
political question.  The district court also did not abuse its
discretion by denying her motion for appointment of counsel
because Robertson did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

In addition, it holds that to the extent that she sought to
maintain the action as a class action lawsuit, Robertson cannot
do so because she is not an attorney.  It rejects as unsupported
by the record Robertson's contentions regarding the district
court's denial of her motion for sanctions and treatment of her
requests to amend her complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/G6TtQj from Leagle.com.


OKLAHOMA: Court Reverses Certification of "Morehead" Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth L. Buettner of the Court of Civil Appeals of
Oklahoma, Division III, reversed the trial court's order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action June 22, 2007.  They claim
the Oklahoma Health Care Authority ("OHCA") violated 63
O.S.Supp.1996 Section 5051.3 in administering its Medicaid lien
program.  The Plaintiffs claim that Medicaid liens were filed and
calculated in violation of 63 O.S. Section 5051.3.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim liens were placed on the
homesteads of Medicaid recipients who received less than one year
of compensated care in violation of Section 5051.3(A).  They
argue other liens were placed on the homesteads of Medicaid
recipients who received more than one year of compensated care,
but the lien amounts were calculated to include the costs of the
first year of compensated care in violation of Section 5051.3(C).
The Plaintiffs also contend the OHCA failed to provide notice
pursuant to Section 5051.3(B) and that, since 2004, the OHCA sold
and assigned the liens to third parties pursuant to an informal
policy without any statutory authority and in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on Nov. 4,
2013.  The trial court dismissed the case for lack of venue May
20, 2014.  The Plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Civil Appeals,
in Case No. 112,946, reversed the trial court's decision and
remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The trial court had a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification Sept. 27, 2016.  On Dec. 20, 2016, the trial court
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  It certified a class of Medicaid recipients who
received medical assistance for inpatient nursing home care upon
whose homestead a Medicaid lien was filed by the OHCA, including
their heirs, devisees, and representatives.

The trial court also certified three subclasses:

     A. All Medicaid recipients who received less than 12 months
of compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and
whose homestead property have been subjected to liens filed by
the OHCA, including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of
any such individual (Subclass A);

     B. All Medicaid recipients who received more than 12 months
of compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and
whose homestead property have been subjected to liens for the
first twelve months of compensated care filed by the OHCA,
including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of any such
individual (Subclass B);

     C. All Medicaid recipients who received compensated
inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and whose
homestead property have been subjected to liens filed by the
OHCA, which liens were sold and assigned by the OHCA to third
parties, including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of
any such individual (Subclass C).

The trial court also appointed the Plaintiffs as class
representatives and appointed the class counsel.  The OHCA
appeals.

Judge Buettner holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate numerosity for the subclass of all Medicaid
recipients who received compensated inpatient nursing home care
funded by Medicaid and whose homestead property have been
subjected to liens filed by the OHCA, which liens were sold and
assigned by the OHCA to third parties, including the
representatives, heirs, and devisees, of any such individual
(Subclass C).  He also holds that the  Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate they will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class of Medicaid recipients who received medical
assistance for inpatient nursing home care upon whose homestead a
Medicaid lien was filed by the OHCA, including their heirs,
devisees, and representatives (Subclasses A, B, and C).

For these reasons, the Judge reversed the trial court's order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
remanded for further proceedings.

The case is JOAN ELLEN MOREHEAD, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Henry Andrew Morehead, deceased,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BETTY RUTH LOVE,
individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Claud
H. Love, deceased; and RUTH MAYNARD as Guardian of George O.
Taylor, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.
OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff/Appellant, and R. KENNETH KING, ESQ., an individual;
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company; BLUE HORIZON PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oklahoma
Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #1, LLC,
an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY
HOLDINGS #2, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company;
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #3, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #4, LLC, an
Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS
#5, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST
PROPERTY HOLDINGS #6, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company;
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #7, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company; XYZ CORP. 1; XYZ CORP. 2; XYZ CORP. 3; XYZ
CORP. 4; XYZ CORP. 5; XYZ CORP. 6; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE
DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, Defendants, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Third-Party Defendant,
Case No. 115711 (Okla. Civ. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JbmJVz from Leagle.com.

Philip W. Redwine, Douglas B. Cubberley, LAW OFFICES OF REDWINE &
CUBBERLEY, Norman, Oklahoma, and.

Robert N. Naifeh, Jr., DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

Nicole M. Nantois, Susan L. Eads, OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff/Appellant State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Health
Care Authority.

John J. Dewey, Travis Smith, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Third-Party Defendant.


ONE FIFTY: Court Certifies Class of Waiters/Servers in "Maor"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARSHALL MAOR, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ONE FIFTY FIFTY SEVEN CORP
d/b/a RUSSIAN TEA ROOM; RTR FUNDING GROUP, INC., GERALD LIEBLICH
and any other related entities, Defendants, Docket No.
158840/2014 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Jennifer G. Schecter of the
Supreme Court for the New York County (i) granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment to the limited extent that the unjust
enrichment cause of action is dismissed; (ii) granted the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Gina
Garcia as a named Plaintiff; and granted the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902.

The Defendants operate a restaurant and event venue known as The
Russian Tea Room.  Permanent wait staff are employed for the main
dining room, which serves primarily as a restaurant.  For all
banquets and catered events, they hire workers through Ambitious
Staffing (Ambitious).  After the event, the Defendants pay
Ambitious a flat rate per waiter or waitress and Ambitious then
pays the wait staff.  Banquet wait staff are paid three to four
times the tipped minimum wage amount.

Named Plaintiff Maor and proposed named Plaintiff Garcia are
professional banquet waiters.  Maor worked at approximately three
events at The Russian Tea room over a two month period in 2009.
Garcia also worked as a banquet server at the Defendants' catered
events on numerous occasions from 2008 through 2010.

Maor commenced the action, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, seeking recovery of unpaid gratuities
pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 196-d.  The Plaintiff
alleges that customers seeking a banquet or catered event are
provided a contract that includes a "service charge," typically
22%, without disclosing that the collected fees are not paid to
the wait staff.  He maintains that without a disclaimer on the
Defendants' banquet "service charge," a reasonable customer would
presume that such a charge was, in fact, a gratuity, and that,
because he and other wait staff were not paid these gratuities,
the Defendants violated the Labor Law.

The Defendants move for summary judgment urging that the action
should be dismissed because Maor was an independent contractor,
not an employee; therefore, the statute does not apply to him.
The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants maintained
sufficient control over banquet wait staff, a question of fact
precludes summary judgment particularly at this early stage
before discovery has been completed.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of himself and a
putative class of individuals who worked in food-service
capacities for the Defendants since September 2008.  He seeks an
order (1) certifying the action as a class action, (2)
designating Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, PC as
the class counsel, (3) approving for publication the proposed
Notice of Class Action Lawsuit and Publication Order and (4)
leave to amend the complaint to add Garcia as a named Plaintiff.

As to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Schecter
finds that Defendants have not met their heavy burden of
establishing that Plaintiff was not an employee covered by the
Labor Law as a matter of law because there is a question of fact
as to the control Defendants exercised over the results produced
or the means used to achieve the results.  In addition and based
on the limited discovery conducted, they've not established that
the action should be dismissed as against Gerald Lieblich and RTR
and that as a matter of law they are not employers under Labor
Law Article 6.

The Defendants have, however, demonstrated that the unjust
enrichment claim must be dismissed, the Judge finds.
Significantly, the cause of action is based on the exact same
allegations that form the basis of the Labor-Law claim.  If
ultimately there is no viable claim pursuant to Labor Law Section
196-d, it would be because the Legislature did not intend for
workers such as Maor to receive a portion of the service charge
as a gratuity and there would be no injustice or inequity to be
redressed.

Turning to the Plaintiff's motions for class certification, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites
of CPLR 901.  Additionally, in the action, the Plaintiff and the
proposed Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the members of the
class as they worked for Defendants in food service roles at
various times from 2008 through the present.

Because Maor and Garcia seek to recover unpaid gratuities for
themselves and the members of the proposed class and would be
represented by competent counsel, they may adequately and fairly
represent the interests of the class.  A class action is the most
efficient method for the fair adjudication of this controversy.

Finally, leave to amend the complaint to add Gina Garcia will be
granted pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) as she has sufficient knowledge
of the claims, is similarly situated to the class members and her
addition as a named representative in no way prejudices the
Defendants.

Accordingly, Judge Schecter granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment to the limited extent that the unjust enrichment
cause of action is dismissed.  The breach of contract cause of
action, moreover, has been withdrawn and is therefore no longer
part of the action.  She granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend the complaint to add Garcia as a named Plaintiff, and
the caption will be amended accordingly.  She directed the
Plaintiffs to serve a copy of the Order on the Clerk of the Court
and the Clerk of the Trial Support Office who are directed to
amend the Court's records.  Lastly, the Judge granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under CPLR 901 and
902.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0fHOZV from Leagle.com.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs to Appeal Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs have filed
a notice of intent to file an appeal of dismissal.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara
County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached
the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage
culvert. Following the release, the company shut down the
pipeline and initiated its emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was
established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation
operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has
been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the
Unified Command has been dissolved. The company's estimate of the
amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and
information, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the
company estimates that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established
a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. The company
has received a number of claims through the claims line and the
company is processing those claims for payment as the company
receives them. In addition, the company has also had nine class
action lawsuits filed against it, six of which have been
administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release.

To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of claimants
and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. The
sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas;
(ii) individuals or businesses who were employed by or had
contracts with certain designated oil platforms and related
onshore processing facilities in the vicinity of the release as
of the date of the release and (iii) beachfront property and
easement owners whose properties were oiled.

The company is petitioning for leave to appeal the oil industry
and property class certifications. The company is also defending
a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California brought on
behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking
injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages.

There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership
and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants.
The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the
allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on March
29, 2017, the Court ruled in the company's favor dismissing all
claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled their complaint
and the company is opposing their claims.

In its recent SEC report, the Company said that on April 2, 2018,
the Court dismissed all of the refiled claims against all
defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notice of intent
to file an appeal of the dismissal.

Plains All American said "Consistent with and subject to the
terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the
extent applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and
funded the defense costs of our officers and directors in
connection with this lawsuit; we have also indemnified and funded
the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of
the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such
underwriters."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operate midstream
energy infrastructure and provide logistics services primarily
for crude oil, NGL and natural gas. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2018, that the company is facing a purported collective
and class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, filed by assistant managers of the company.

In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated
the FLSA and NYLL by not paying overtime compensation to our
assistant managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-
hours pay. Potbelly believes the assistant managers were properly
classified under state and federal law.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. This case
is at an early stage, and Potbelly is therefore unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if
any, that might arise from this matter.

Potbelly Corporation is a neighborhood sandwich concept offering
toasty warm sandwiches, signature salads and other fresh menu
items served by engaging people in an environment that reflects
the Potbelly brand. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Approve Class Settlement Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the parties have filed motion for
class settlement approval in the case entitled, In re PTC
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits
were commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming
as defendants the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
former Chief Financial Officer.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into one action captioned In
re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM)
(the "Securities Class Action"). A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on January 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company about its business,
operations, and prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna
for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA
in December 2015.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 6, 2014
and February 23, 2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On
February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On August 28, 2017, the motion to
dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On September 25,
2017, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On January 10, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle of all legal claims, subject to court approval, the
motion for which was filed on March 2, 2018, which will be funded
by the Company's insurance subject to the applicable deductible.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc. is a science-led global biopharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of clinically-differentiated medicines that
provide benefits to patients with rare disorders. The company is
based in South Plainfield, New Jersey.


QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action complaint entitled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network
Specialists, Inc., et al.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against
Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.

Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that
TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies.  The plaintiff
class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages,
penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest
periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment
motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a
joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

Quanta Services said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that during the third quarter of
2017, a final motion for summary judgment on damages was filed by
the plaintiff class seeking approximately $11.1 million for its
claims.

In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that in February
2018, a hearing was held on a final motion for summary judgment
on damages filed by the plaintiff class seeking approximately
$11.1 million for its claims; however, a final determination
regarding the amount of damages was not made.

Quanta believes the court's decision on liability is not
supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.

Quanta Services, Inc. a leading provider of specialty contracting
services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily to the
electric power, oil and gas and communications industries in the
United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America and select other
international markets. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


QUICK CAPITAL: Accused by Abante Rooter Suit of Violating TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUICK CAPITAL FUNDING LLC; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03126-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
May 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated seeking damages resulting from the
Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Quick Capital Funding LLC is a loan provider.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by Ingrid Barahona, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively,
the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted
for temporary employees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the
putative class, seeks damages and penalties under California law,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the
subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including
certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-
related expenses.

Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the
staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms.
Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that they are
liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way,
and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon
a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal
standards.

The company said "If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail
on all claims the Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be
liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not
significant when evaluated against either the Company's assets or
current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material
when judged against the Company's earnings in the particular
quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all. However,
based upon the Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it
does not believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at
all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages
remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii)
the Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be
characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant
Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii)
wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for
amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of
the uncertainty with litigation and the difficulty in taking
these types of cases to trial; and (iv) Ms. Barahona has
indicated her desire to resolve this matter through a mediated
settlement."

Ms. Barahona admitted in a report to the court that she is unable
to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records
she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or
Accountabilities ("Debtors"), and the case has been stayed as to
them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings. In 2017, Ms. Barahona dismissed the Debtors from
this litigation so they could lawfully seek discovery from them
(specifically, the "Employment Records"). Between January 2016
and April 2018, the court held at least three status conferences
to address the status of Ms. Barahona's counsel's efforts to
obtain the Employment Records from the Debtors.

To date, Ms. Barahona's counsel has failed to obtain the
Employment Records. In the meantime, in 2017, DBA and Radiant
informally obtained some records from the Debtor's Trustee's
counsel and produced copies of those records to Ms. Barahona.
However, those records consist of incomplete employee lists and
do not contain the requisite timekeeping, payroll and personnel
records that are necessary to analyze the legal issues raised by
this case and to credibly identify the putative class members.

The court set a new deadline of May 25, 2018, for Ms. Barahona to
file her motion for class certification, and set a further status
conference for June 8, 2018. A mediation was conducted on April
26, 2018.  The Company has said it is not optimistic that the
case will settle (at least not on a class-wide basis) because the
Plaintiff still lacks the Employment Records needed to ascertain
who are the class members, to file a successful motion for class
certification, and to file a motion for preliminary and final
approval of a class-wide settlement.

At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the likely outcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics
company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics
services primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
is based in Bellevue, Washington.


REAL ESTATE EMPIRE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE REAL ESTATE EMPIRE GROUP, INC., Case
No. 1:18-cv-22160-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of negligently contacting the Plaintiff through SMS or
"text" messages on his cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

The Real Estate Empire Group, Inc., is a Florida profit
corporation with principal address in Doral, Florida.  RE Empire
is a real estate brokerage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Justin H. Jaffe, Esq.
          LOWERCASE, PLLC
          3250 NE 1st Ave., Suite 305
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (833) 569-3335
          E-mail: justin@lowercaselaw.com


RED WING: Web Site Not Blind-Accessible, "Olsen" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:18-
cv-03027 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2018), arises from the Defendant's
alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Web site, http://www.redwingshoes.com/,to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Red Wing is a foreign business corporation that is organized
under Minnesota law, and authorized to do business in the state
of New York.  Red Wing owns and operates stores throughout the
United States.  The Company sells at these stores, boots, leather
goods, shoe care products and similar items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com


RITRAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Noain" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO NOAIN, on behalf of himself and a class of those
similarly situated v. RITRAN, INC., dba International House of
Pancakes, Case No. 3:18-cv-01303-K (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant violated the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
Class Members the required overtime rate during weeks in which
they worked over 40 hours.

Ritran, Inc., doing business as International House of Pancakes,
is a Texas for-profit corporation.  The Company operates a
restaurant under the name International House of Pancakes
("IHOP") in Rockwall, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shana Khader, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          1250 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 455
          Dallas, TX 75247
          Telephone: (469) 228-4233
          Facsimile: (469) 941-0861
          E-mail: skhader@equaljusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Philip J. Moss, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          8301 Broadway Street, Suite 309
          San Antonio, TX 78209
          Telephone: (210) 308-6222
          Facsimile: (210) 308-6223
          E-mail: pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org


ROME HOUSING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Barber" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss  the case, JOHN W. BARBER, DEBRA L. BURTON, DAVID R.
GRINNELL, TIMOTHY J. LEES, MARSHALL L. THOMAS, individually and
on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial at any
time from December 2013 to date, Plaintiffs, v. ROME HOUSING
AUTHORITY, JAMES BALDWIN, individually and as Executive Director
of Rome Housing Authority, DARCEL PULEO, individually and as
Property Manager of Colonial II Apartments, Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-1529 (MAD/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.).

On Dec. 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for
injunctive and compensatory relief.  They allege that the Rome
Housing Authority ("RHA"), its Executive Director, Baldwin, and
the property manager of the Colonial II Apartments are liable
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law.  On March 22, 2017,
the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The Colonial II Apartments is a seven-story apartment building
that caters to elderly and disabled adults and is owned and
managed by RHA.  In 2008, Colonial II's residents began
complaining to the Building's management that bed bugs were
infesting their apartments.  By 2013, Colonial II faced a severe
infestation.  That year, the Defendants hired a local, two-person
extermination company, Rid-O-Vit, to inspect and chemically treat
the infestation unit-by-unit.  The Building's residents
complained to the Defendants that the inspections and spraying
were not eradicating the bed bug problem, and were spreading the
problem to new apartments and other areas of the building.  The
Defendants continued to use Rid-O-Vit despite these complaints.

According to the amended complaint, Defendants did not mention
the infestation to prospective tenants or residents renewing
their leases.  Further, the Defendants did not mention the
infestation in resident meetings, notices, or other
communications, and told at least one resident to keep quiet
about the bed bugs.  Further, the Defendants told one or more
residents that they should refrain from visiting family and
friends in other apartments within the building, or in homes or
apartments outside the building, because of the risk of spreading
bed bugs, or bringing bed bugs into the Colonial II building.

The infestation has been traumatic for the tenants.  Some have
had difficulty sleeping due to anxiety about being bitten, they
risked infections and allergic reactions, and have been subjected
to the general stigma associated with bed bugs.  Some residents
have left their homes to sleep in other places. Many residents
have been anxious about spending time with their friends and
family due to a fear of carrying the bed bugs with them.  The
Plaintiffs are tenants of Colonial II and represent the class of
residents that have lived in Colonial II at any time after
December 2013.  They allege that this infestation has resulted in
significant hardship.

In 2014, Legal Services of Central New York, Inc., acting on
behalf of Plaintiff Barber, provided the Defendants with reports
from various federal agencies that guide public housing
administrators in preventing and managing bed bug infestations.
One report, a joint statement on bed bugs issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Center for Disease
Control ("CDC") noted that control in multi-family homes is much
more difficult than in single family homes because bed bugs
frequently travel between units, either by direct transport by
humans or through voids in the walls.  The same report noted that
aside from the direct harms associated with bed bugs, there is
also a public health concern arising from the risks associated
with tenants attempting to combat an infestation themselves.
These reports also included guidelines promoting Integrated Pest
Management ("IPM"), an economical approach aimed at preventing
and treating bed bug infestations by focusing on extensive
monitoring and community awareness and the judicious use of
pesticides.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 because their efforts to treat the bed bug
infestation violated Plaintiffs' rights to substantive due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  They claim
that the Defendants exacerbated the infestation through their
continued use of Rid-O-Vit, and that their extermination methods,
failure to disclose the infestation to current tenants, and
occasional decision to not treat apartments after bed bug reports
were egregious actions that injured the Plaintiffs.  The
Plaintiffs also seek relief against Defendants for the state law
claims of statutory deceptive acts and practices, negligence,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of habitability,
and breach of contract.

Currently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Judge D'Agostino holds that although the Plaintiffs have alleged
that in recent years the chemical treatment became ineffective,
the Defendants persisted in their attempts to deal with the
infestation by treating individual apartments, as many as twenty
times over a three-year period.  The case is distinct from Okin
v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dep't.  The decision in
Okin was not based solely on the defendants' failure to act in
the face of an obvious risk. Instead, the panel concluded that
the risks associated with the defendants' conduct was so obvious
that a jury could have found that the defendants were aware that
their actions exacerbated the risk.  Conversely, in the case at
hand, it was by no means obvious that the unit-by-unit treatments
would cause the infestation to spread.  Thus, the amended
complaint fails to plausibly allege that the Defendants knew, or
should have known, the alleged effects of their actions.

The Judge also holds that taking all of the well-pleaded facts in
the amended complaint as true, he finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege any conduct so egregious, so outrageous, that it
may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.  Given
that the complaint fails to satisfy the conscience shocking prong
of the state-created danger test, he declines to rule on whether
Defendants' conduct constitutes an affirmative act.  For the
foregoing reasons, he will grant the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for a violation of substantive due
process.

Given that the only remaining claims are based in state law, the
Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any
such claims and dismisses them without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3).

After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in the
Defendants' favor and close the case and will serve a copy of
this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance
with the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/nMbQrc from Leagle.com.

John W. Barber, individually, and on behalf of all persons who
currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided
therein at any time from December 2010 to date, Debra L. Burton,
individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside
in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any
time from December 2010 to date, David R. Grinnell, individually,
and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II
Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December
2010 to date, Timothy J. Lees, individually, and on behalf of all
persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or
formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date &
Marshall L. Thomas, individually, and on behalf of all persons
who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly
resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ashley Kaplan Marullo, Legal Services
of Central New York, Inc., Thomas C. Buckel, Jr., Legal Services
of Central New York, Inc., Jeffrey M. Lipman, Lipman Law Firm,
P.C., pro hac vice & Samuel C. Young, Legal Services of Central
New York.

Rome Housing Authority, James Baldwin, individually and as
Executive Director of Rome Housing Authority & Darcel Puleo,
individually and as Property Manager of Colonial II Apartments,
Defendants, represented by John W. Liguori --
john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm & Mark T.
Houston -- mark.houston@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm.


RURAL METRO: Bid to Compel RFPs Replies in "Calleros" Partly OKd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REUBEN CALLEROS AND RALPH RUBIO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in the State of
California, Plaintiffs, v. RURAL METRO OF SAN DIEGO, INC., RURAL
METRO CORPORATION, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 17cv686-CAB(BLM) (S.D.Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L.
Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to compel further responses to specific Requests for
Production ("RFPs") and Interrogatories ("ROGs").

The instant class action matter was removed to the Court on April
5, 2017 from the San Diego Superior Court.  The Plaintiffs,
ambulance crew employees, allege that the Defendants failed to
authorize and permit rest periods and violated California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated allege that they were not
provided with rest periods during which they were relieved of all
duties because they were required to remain on call at all times
and were required to carry pagers, cell phones, radios, or other
electronic devices to keep those devices on, and to remain
vigilant and responsive to calls when the need arose.

On May 24, 2017, the Defendants served RFPs and ROGs on the
Plaintiffs seeking documents and information regarding the
Plaintiffs' communications about the instant matter.  On Aug. 21,
2017, they filed a motion to compel further responses to specific
RFPs and ROGs.

The Defendants sought an order from the Court requiring the
Plaintiffs to further respond to discovery regarding the personal
activities the Plaintiffs engaged in during their shifts and the
Plaintiffs' knowledge of locations where violations allegedly
occurred.  On Oct. 3, 2017, the Court issued an Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Compel.  It
granted in part the Defendants' request to compel further
response to ROG No. 21.

ROG No. 21 request the Plaintiffs to describe in detail the
substance, nature and date of each communication they had with
any person other than with their attorneys concerning the facts,
issues or other matters involved in the case.

The Court found that while the request, including the definition
of "describe in detail" is overbroad and disproportional, it does
seek relevant information.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are
ordered to provide a supplemental response identifying the
person(s) with whom they had such communication, the approximate
date of the communication, the general substance of the
communication, and the identity of any witness(es) to the
communication.

On Feb. 12, 2018, the Defendants deposed Plaintiff Calleros.  On
Feb. 13, 2018, they deposed Rubio.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs should be compelled to
supplement their responses to the following RFPs: 5, 8, 9, 17,
29, 34, and 37.  They explain that all of these RFPs required the
Plaintiffs to produce emails and text messages and yet the
Plaintiffs have not produced any text messages or emails
containing responsive communications.  The Defendants complain
that the inadequacy of the Plaintiffs' response is highlighted by
the fact that the latter testified in their depositions to having
engaged in such communications and to having deleted some
messages.

The RFPs seek production of:

     i. RFP No. 5: All documents that relate to, refer to,
describe or support any of the claims or allegations in the
complaint.

     ii. RFP No. 8: All documents that relate to, refer to,
describe or support the Plaintiffs' allegation that RMSD or any
other Defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct of any kind.

     iii. RFP No. 9: All documents that relate to, refer to,
describe or support the Plaintiffs' allegation that the officers,
employees, agents, or representatives of RMSD or any other
Defendant in any way acted improperly and/or unlawfully.

     iv. RFP No. 17: All documents that relate to, refer to, or
describe any oral or written communications made by any officer,
agent, employee or representative of RMSD or any other Defendant
concerning any allegation in the complaintor pertaining to the
lawsuit, related administrative or judicial actions, or their
subject matters.

     v. RFP No. 34: All documents consisting of, or relating or
referring to, any statements taken from or given by the
Plaintiffs regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit.

     vi. RFP No. 37: All documents not otherwise requested above
that refer or relate to the subject matter of the action and/or
the relief prayed for in the complaint."

The Defendants argue that Rubio violated Rule 26 and the Court's
Oct. 3, 2017 order by failing to provide a complete supplemental
response to ROG No. 21.  They acknowledge that each Plaintiff
provided a supplemental response after the Court's order but
assert that Rubio's supplemental response was incomplete and
subsequently contradicted by his deposition testimony.

ROG No. 21 asked the Plaintiffs to describe in detail the
substance, nature and date of each communication they had with
any person other than with their attorneys concerning the facts,
issues or other matters involved in the case.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs should be found in
contempt of Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 37 for
failing to obey the Court's discovery order.  Additionally, they
argue that the Plaintiffs should not be permitted to use any of
the information or documents they concealed for any purpose at
all in the case.  Finally, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs should be sanctioned monetarily.

The Magistrate Judge finds that in the RFP, the Defendants
defined the term "documents" with an extremely detailed and
comprehensive description, including digital correspondence.  As
such, the RFPs requested emails and text messages that contained
communications responsive to RFPs 5, 8 and 9.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs failed to object to the requests and, therefore, have
waived their objections.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are ordered
to supplement their responses to RFPs 5, 8 and 9 by producing
emails and texts that contain communications that are responsive
to the RFP request.  The Plaintiffs are further ordered to
supplement their response to RFP No. 17 by providing emails,
texts and other documents that contain information responsive to
this Request.

The Plaintiffs note that they responded to RFP No. 29 with
objections on July 20 and 21, 2017 and that the Defendants failed
to file a motion to compel regarding this request within 30 days
as required by the Court's Scheduling Order.  Accordingly, they
have no duty to supplement their responses.  In their reply, the
Defendants withdraw their request to compel further response to
RFP No. 29.  Accordingly, the request is denied as moot.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's supplemental
response does not comply with the Court's order as it states that
Rubio communicated with numerous unidentified people and fails to
provide the required details regarding each communication.

Magistrate Judge Major (i) granted the Defendants' request to
compel further responses to RFPs 5, 8, 9, and 17; (ii) denied the
Defendants' request as to RFPs. 34 and 37; (iii) denied as moot
as to RFP No. 29; and (iv) granted ROG No. 21 as to Rubio.  The
Plaintiffs are ordered to provide supplemental responses in
accordance with the Order by April 25, 2018.

The Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' request for a
contempt order.  She finds that civil contempt is not an
appropriate remedy.  Rubio is warned that another failure to
comply with the Court's order could result in a recommendation
for contempt to the District Judge.

She also denied the Defendants' request for evidentiary
sanctions.  She finds that the prejudice articulated by the
Defendants is that they were not able to investigate the
individuals with whom Rubio communicated about the case before
the deposition and that they had to waste deposition time to
obtain the information that should have been provided in the
interrogatory.  To remedy this harm, the she sanctioned Rubio by
authorizing the Defendants to depose Rubio for an additional one
hour.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' request for
monetary sanctions.  First, the Defendants' RFPs are not as clear
and precise as they could be.  While she has interpreted some of
them as requiring a supplemental response, the Plaintiffs
interpretations are not unreasonable.  Second, while Rubio's
supplemental response to ROG No. 21 did not fully comply with the
Court's order, the Defendants obtained most of the responsive
information during the Plaintiff's deposition and the evidentiary
sanction of additional disposition time is more appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eAa8az from Leagle.com.

Reuben Calleros, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated in the State of California & Ralph Rubio,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in
the State of California, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Mark Pope
-- pope@popeberger.com -- Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP,
Harvey C. Berger -- berger@popeberger.com -- Pope, Berger,
Williams & Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope, Berger,
Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., Rural Metro Corporation, American
Medical Response, Inc. & Envision Healthcare Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Michael S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com --
Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Dismissal of Community Bank Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case,
COMMUNITY BANK OF TRENTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2146 (7th
Cir.).

In late 2012, hackers infiltrated the computer networks at
Schnuck Markets, a large Midwestern grocery store chain based in
Missouri and known as "Schnucks."  The hackers stole the data of
about 2.4 million credit and debit cards.  By the time the
intrusion was detected and the data breach was announced in March
2013, the financial losses from unauthorized purchases and cash
withdrawals had reached into the millions. Litigation ensued.

Like many other recent cases around the country, the case
involves a massive consumer data breach.  Unlike most other data-
breach cases, however, the proposed class of Plaintiffs in the
case is comprised not of consumers but of financial institutions.
Card-issuing banks and credit unions are required by federal law
to indemnify their card-holding customers for losses from
fraudulent activity, so the four Plaintiff-Appellant banks bore
the costs of reissuing cards and indemnifying the Schnucks
hackers' fraud.

The Plaintiff banks, which may or may not have received some of
those reimbursement funds, filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking to be
made whole directly by Schnucks.  The banks dismissed their first
complaint voluntarily and then filed the action in the Southern
District of Illinois in October 2015.  They amended their
complaint in October 2016.  The banks contend that despite the
existence of the contractual remedies, issuing banks cannot
always recoup the reimbursed fraudulent charges and must pay
other fees and bear card reissuing costs, which these banks seek
to recover from Schnucks.

In effect, the banks seek reimbursement for their losses above
and beyond the remedies provided under the card network
contracts.  They say their losses include employee time to
investigate and resolve fraud claims, payments to indemnify
customers for fraudulent charges, and lost interest and
transaction fees on account of changes in customer card usage.
The Plaintiffs estimate their damages in the tens of millions of
dollars, placing the lawsuit in the same league as some others
between financial institutions and breached retail merchants.

In a thorough order, the district court dismissed all of the
Plaintiff banks' claims against Schnucks.  The proposed Plaintiff
class of banks includes both Illinois and Missouri citizens;
Schnucks is a citizen of Missouri; and the matter in controversy
exceeds $5 million.  The parties agreed that both Illinois and
Missouri laws apply, given the proposed Plaintiff class.  None of
the Plaintiff banks' claims made it past the pleadings.  The
complaint was dismissed for failing to state a plausible claim
under any of the banks' theories.

Judge Hamilton holds that the principal issues in the case
present fairly new variations on the economic loss rule in tort
law.  The central issue is whether Illinois or Missouri tort law
offers a remedy to card-holders' banks against a retail merchant
who suffered a data breach, above and beyond the remedies
provided by the network of contracts that link merchants, card-
processors, banks, and card brands to enable electronic card
payments.  The Plaintiff banks assert claims under the common law
as well as Illinois consumer protection statutes.

The legal issues raised by the Plaintiff banks are similar to the
issues that arise in large construction projects with layers of
contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and so on.
There may be no direct contractual relationship between a
negligent subcontractor and other businesses that suffer from
delays and expenses it caused.  Yet all participants are tied
into a network of contracts that allocate the risks of sub-
standard or slow work.  He does not see either a paradigmatic or
doctrinal reason why either Illinois or Missouri would recognize
a tort claim by the issuing banks in the case, where the claimed
conduct and losses are subject to these networks of contracts.

The Judge holds that the Appellate Court's role as a federal
court applying state law is to predict how the states' supreme
courts would likely resolve these issues.  He predicts that both
states would reject the Plaintiff banks' search for a remedy
beyond those established under the applicable networks of
contracts.  He agrees with the district court that neither
Illinois nor Missouri would recognize any of the Plaintiff banks'
theories to supplement their contractual remedies for losses they
suffered as a result of the Schnucks data breach.  Accordingly,
he affirmed the district court's dismissal of the banks'
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's April 11, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/H0xwTr from Leagle.com.

Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Russell Kenneth Scott -- rks@greensfelder.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

John J. Driscoll, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sam A. Camardo -- scamardo@bakerlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


SEALIFT INC: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in "Dziennik" OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SYLVESTER DZIENNIK, MIECZYSLAW KIERSZTYN, FERDYNAND
KOBIEROWSKI, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEALIFT, INC., FORTUNE MARITIME, INC.,
SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC., VICTORY MARITIME, INC., Defendants.
MIECZYSLAW KIERSTIN, Plaintiff, v. M/VADVANTAGE, Defendant. JOSEF
FELSKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. SEALIFT, INC., SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 05-CV-4659 (DLI)(JO), 06-CV-5305(DLI)(JO),
04-CV-1244 (DLI)(JO)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action against the Defendants
alleging violations of federal maritime law, specifically,
sections 10313 and 11107 of the Seamen's Wage Act, codified at 46
U.S.C. Section 10301, et seq.  The Class Plaintiffs worked as
seaman aboard U.S. flag vessels under the control of one or more
of the Defendants.  The class is composed of 209 seafaring
employees, 113 of whom are Polish citizens and 96 of whom are
Filipino citizens, employed on these vessels during various
periods since Jan. 1, 1999.  They seek recovery of unpaid wages,
overtime wages, and statutory penalties from the Defendants under
employment contracts and federal maritime law.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Nov. 20, 2015
motion for partial summary judgment1 on the meanings of the terms
"engaged" and "engagement," as used in 46 U.S.C. Section 11107,
which states that an engagement of a seaman contrary to a law of
the United States is void.  A seaman so engaged may leave the
service of the vessel at any time and is entitled to recover the
highest rate of wages at the port from which the seaman was
engaged or the amount agreed to be given the seaman at the time
of engagement, whichever is higher.

On March 26, 2010, the Court adopted a report and recommendation
from Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go.  The report and
recommendation adopted as modified by 2010 WL 1191993 holds that
the Defendants engaged the Plaintiffs contrary to the law of the
United States by failing to comply with the requirements of 46
U.S.C. Sections 10302, 8103(b), 8710, and that 46 U.S.C. Section
11107 provides the remedy for the Plaintiffs' claims in the form
of a statutory default to prevailing market wages in the case of
an invalid contract.

The parties do not dispute that the Class Plaintiffs were hired
and signed employment contracts at two foreign ports: Gdynia,
Poland, and Manila, Republic of the Philippines.  The parties
disagree, however, on whether the signing of employment contracts
constitutes an "engagement" and whether the Class Plaintiffs were
engaged at the time and place of hire, as those terms are used in
46 U.S.C. Section 11107.  The Defendants contend that the terms
should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is "to
hire" or "to employ," and the Plaintiffs argue that such an
interpretation creates an absurd result, and that the place of
embarkation, not the port of hire, is where a seaman is engaged,

Judge Irizarry finds that "engage" and "engagement" have their
plain and ordinary meaning and the Class Plaintiffs were engaged
at their port of hire.  He finds that the application of the
statute's plain meaning does not create an absurd result.
Holding that a seaman can be engaged before he joins the vessel
does not create inconsistencies in the statute, since a seaman
may be engaged prior to joining the vessel, but such an
engagement does not become contrary to law until the seaman joins
the vessel.  The Class Plaintiffs argue that holding that seamen
can be engaged somewhere other than the port of embarkation
eviscerates the protections afforded to seafarers.  The Judge
finds that the Class Plaintiffs offer little support for this
argument, other than simply stating the truisms that the laws at
issue were adopted to protect seafarers, and Defendants
unlawfully engaged the Class Plaintiffs.   These conclusory
statements do not convince him that he should ignore the plain
language of the statute, which the legislative history clearly
suggests controls, and which does not create an absurd result.

While the Class Plaintiffs may be correct that in some instances
the port of hire and port of embarkation are distinct and
separate places, that fact does not demand the result they urge.
The Judge has rejected the Class Plaintiffs' argument that
"engage" and "engagement" refer to the port of embarkation, as
the language of the statute suggests that seamen are "engaged"
and the place of "engagement" is the port of hire.

To the extent the Defendants argue that construing the statutory
text according to its "plain meaning" is the law of the case, the
Court's previous interpretations of other portions of the
relevant statutory sections does not bind its interpretation
here.  Moreover, the fact that sections 10302, 8701, and 8103(b)
contemplate violations occurring aboard a vessel is not
inconsistent with holding that seamen can be "engaged" prior to
the violations occurring, at the port of hire.

Finally, the Class Plaintiffs ask that the Court determine the
applicable wage rates.  The instant motion is for a determination
as to the meaning of the terms "engage" and "engagement" as used
in 46 U.S.C. Section 11107, and as such, the issue of the
appropriate wage rates is beyond the motion's scope.
Accordingly, the Judge declines to address the issue.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Irizarry granted the Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment.  Accordingly, he finds that
the terms "engage" and "engagement" have their ordinary meaning,
and the "port of engagement" refers to the port of hire.  The
Defendants engaged Class Plaintiffs in Manila, Republic of the
Philippines, and Gdynia, Poland.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://goo.gl/FQ7KTx from Leagle.com.

Mieczyslaw Kierstin, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Joseph
Eisenman, Richard J. Dodson -- jerry@dodsonhooks.com -- Dodson,
Hooks & Frederick, APLC & Ralph J. Mellusi, Tabak Mellusi &
Shisha.

M/V Advantage, In Rem, Defendant, represented by Gordon S.
Arnott, Hill, Betts & Nash LLP.

Fortune Maritime Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by James
T. Brown, Legge Farrow Kimmitt McGrath & W. Sean O'Neil, Legge
Farrow Kimmitt McGrath.


SECURITY BENEFIT: Sued by Ogles on Behalf of Annuity Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT OGLES v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SECURITY
BENEFIT CORPORATION; GUGGENHEIM PARTNERS, LLC; and ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND plc, Case No. 2:18-cv-02265 (D. Kan., May 22, 2018), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated persons, who purchased annuity products issued by
Security Benefit Life on or after July 2012.

The Plaintiff's claims arise out of his investment in Security
Benefit Life's "Total Value Annuity," commonly known as a "fixed
indexed annuity."  He alleges that the Defendants violate the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act through a
fraudulent scheme that began as early as January 1, 2012, and
continues through the present day.  He contends that the
Defendants fraudulently duped him and members of the proposed
Class into buying annuity products based on false assurances of
safety and financial strength, and through the fraudulent
concealment of the truth about the design of the Total Value
Annuity and the 5 Year Annuity Linked TVI Index Account.

Security Benefit Life Insurance Company is a Kansas corporation
with its principal place of business in Topeka, Kansas.  Security
Benefit Life issued, administered and managed its annuities, as
well as its relationships with its co-Defendants and related
entities.  Security Benefit Corporation is a Kansas corporation
with its principal place of business in Topeka.  SBC is Security
Benefit Life's parent company and is controlled by Guggenheim.

Guggenheim Partners, LLC, is a New York limited liability
corporation, with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, and New
York City.  Guggenheim owns and controls Guggenheim Investments,
SBC and Security Benefit Life.  Guggenheim Investments, also
known as Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC, is an
investment advisor and lists its principal place of business in
Santa Monica, California.

The Royal Bank of Scotland, plc, is a United Kingdom-based
banking and financial services company headquartered in
Edinburgh, Scotland.  RBS and its affiliates created, sponsored
and administered the "Annuity Linked TVI Index."

The Plaintiff contends that all Defendants are associates in and
have participated in a fraudulent enterprise designed to market,
promote, distribute, sell, administer and manage Security Benefit
Life's annuity products in and from Kansas during the Class
Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Sarah Ruane, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com
                  sruane@wcllp.com


SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: "Encalada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Encalada and Juan Pablo Encalada Flores, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Senator Construction
Corporation dba Senator Construction Group, Inc., Senator
Construction Group Inc. dba Senator Construction Group, Inc.,
Haroon Contracting Group Inc. dba Senator Construction Group,
Inc., Usman Muhammad and Atif Rafiq aka Atiq Rehman, Case No.
1:18-cv-03727 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor
Law.

Luis Encalada is a resident of Queens County, New York, and was
employed by Defendants at Senator Construction Group, Inc. from
approximately January 10, 2017 until on or about March 14, 2018.

Juan Pablo Encalada Flores is a resident of Queens County, New
York and was employed by Defendants at Senator Construction
Group, Inc. from approximately January 2017 until on or about
March 15, 2018.

The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the
Defendants' construction corporation located at 247 W 35th Street
Rm. 401, New York, New York 10001.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 247 W 35th Street Rm. 401, New York, New York 10001
under the name "Senator Construction Group, Inc." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


STAGE STORES: "Crosby" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. STAGE STORES INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-
00503 (M.D. Tenn., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and
their co-workers, who have worked for the Defendant as Sales
Associates, Visual Associates, eCommerce Fulfillment Associates,
Custodian Freight Associates, Counter Managers, Cosmetic Sales
Mangers, Beauty Advisors, and Assistant Store Managers in stores
nationwide.

Stage Stores Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the
state of Nevada with a principal place of business in Houston,
Texas.  Stage Stores is a retail clothing company operating
approximately 793 stores in 42 states throughout the United
States.  The Company does business under the brands Stage,
Peebles, Goody's, Bealls, and Palais Royal.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Molly Brooks, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: mbrooks@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com


STANDARD FIRE: Summary Judgement Bid in "O'Hara" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIERAN O'HARA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 16-12378-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted
the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiff, a self-employed individual, contends that his
insurance company, Standard Fire failed to pay him the full
amount of benefits he was entitled to under a policy providing
for payment of an insured's average weekly "gross wages" to
compensate for lost income due to personal injury.  O'Hara
alleges breach of contract and violation of M.G.L. c. 93A among
other claims.

The principal issue concerns the meaning of the phrase "gross
wages" as it pertains to individuals like O'Hara who are self-
employed.  O'Hara contends that the phrase means "gross income."
Standard Fire contends that the phrase means "net profit" and it
moves for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that it did
not breach the policy when it calculated O'Hara's insurance
benefits based on his "net profit" rather than "gross income."

O'Hara commenced the lawsuit by filing a three-count complaint in
the Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging violations of M.G.L.
c. 90, Sections 34A and 34M, and breach of contract, and
subsequently amended the complaint to include several chapter 93A
based claims.  On Nov. 22, 2016, Standard Fire removed the case
to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA").  Shortly thereafter, Standard Fire moved for a
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  O'Hara opposes.

The magistrate judge to whom the Defendant's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadingsmwas referred has filed a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the motion be denied as
to Count II and granted as to Counts I and III through VII.  Both
parties have filed timely objections to the R&R.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the meaning of the phrase "gross
wages" in the Defendant's insurance policy is ambiguous because
it is reasonably prone to different interpretations or
susceptible to differing, but nonetheless, plausible
constructions.  There is extrinsic evidence but that evidence is
neither very probative nor susceptible of only one
interpretation.  Understanding that discovery may yield
additional information bearing on this issue, the better course
would be to allow the claim to go forward and address the issue
later when the record is more developed. The motion for judgment
on the pleadings should therefore be denied with respect to Count
II.

With respect to Count I, courts have consistently held that
Section 34M does not create a private cause of action; rather,
the Massachusetts Legislature intended that a dispute arising
from alleged violations of section 34M be brought as a common law
breach of contract action.  Moreover, the Plaintiff conceded at
the hearing on the Defendant's motion that any alleged violations
of section 34 must be brought as breach of contract claims.
Judgment therefore should be entered in the Defendant's favor on
Count I.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the amended complaint does
not contain sufficient factual allegations to show that Standard
Fire acted in bad faith.  Aside from conclusory allegations that
Standard Fire's conduct constituted "willful/knowing violations,"
the amended complaint is utterly devoid of any facts showing that
Standard Fire intentionally calculated O'Hara's benefits in
disregard of the policy, or that Standard Fire knowingly sought
to shortchange self-employed insureds for its own benefit.
O'Hara's stand-alone allegations that Standard Fire acted
willingly and knowingly in violation of chapter 93A do not
suffice to support an inference of bad faith where is it is just
as plausible that Standard Fire was operating under a good faith
belief in the validity of its own interpretation of the PIP
provisions.  Judgment therefore should be entered for the
defendant regarding Counts III-VI.

Finally, because O'Hara's claim for declaratory judgment merely
seeks the Court's affirmation that Standard Fire acted improperly
as alleged in Counts I-VI, rendering a declaration would not be
of any practical assistance to clarifying the merits of his
underlying claims where resolving the breach of contract claim
will settle the principal legal issues.  Judgment should be
entered in the defendant's favor regarding Count VII.

Having reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation and the
relevant submissions of the parties, Judge O'Toole approved and
adopted the R&R to the extent that it recommends dismissal of
Counts I and III through VII.  He concludes, however, that the
Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of Count II.

In sum, Judge O'Toole, for the purposes of the case, finds that
the net profit that the Plaintiff earned as a self-employed
insured is equivalent to the gross wage of a regular employee.
The Defendant correctly compensated the Plaintiff 75% of his net
profit for the year preceding his accident.  He therefore
sustained the Defendant's objection to the R&R, and overruled the
Plaintiff's objections to the R&R.  He granted in full the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/PCfqio from Leagle.com.

Kieran O'Hara, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian McNiff --
bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com -- Forrest LaMothe Mazow McCullough
Yasi & Yasi, P.C., Kevin J. McCullough, Mazow McCullough PC &
Michael C. Forrest -- mforrest@forrestlamothe.com -- Forrest,
LaMothe, Mazoe, McCullough, Yasi & Yasi.

The Standard Fire Insurance Company, doing business as Travelers
Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan E. Small --
jsmall@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP & Wystan M. Ackerman --
wackerman@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP.


STEVENS SECURITY: Must Show Docs Responsive to "Gunn" RFPs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE GUNN, MARTINEZ HAYMER, and CARL THOMAS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STEVENS SECURITY & TRAINING SERVICES, INC. and AL
STEVENS, Defendants, Case No. 17 C 6314 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate
Judge Jeffrey Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion to compel the Defendant to produce documents responsive to
their requests for production 1-4.

The Plaintiffs' complaint charges the Defendant with failing to
pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"),
and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO").  Early on, the
Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of their FLSA
claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and
Judge Coleman granted that motion on Jan. 8, 2018.

Since Judge Coleman's ruling, only one additional Plaintiff out
of a possible 53 has chosen to opt in.  And so, the discovery at
issue here -- payroll records for individuals who worked as
security guards for the defendant and were paid by the hour --
has to do with the Plaintiffs' state law and city ordinance
claims.  The Plaintiffs hope to make a class action out of these
claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).

The Defendant objects to the production requests at issue on a
couple of grounds.  First, and primarily, it submits that the
Plaintiffs are seeking to circumvent the FLSA's opt-in
requirement by way of their state and city claims and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.  In other words, given that almost no one opted
in for their FLSA claim, the Plaintiff hopes to drive up the
stakes with a state and city law class claim where individuals
have to opt out.

Magistrate Judge Cole holds that he does not have authority under
a referral for discovery matters to decide substantive issues
like certification of a class under either Section 216(b) or
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.  For now, he says the Plaintiffs' state law
claims are a part of this litigation and, for now, they are
potential class claims.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to the
discovery they seek in order to try to establish the
prerequisites of proceeding as a class on those state law and
city ordinance claims.

The Defendant's next objection is that it is exempt from the
city's minimum wage ordinance.  The Magistrate Judge finds that
it is another substantive matter beyond the purview of his
authority.  Even if the Defendant's position is correct -- it
cites no cases to support it -- and Judge Coleman rules in its
favor on a summary judgment motion the Defendant says it will be
filing, the same discovery would remain relevant to the
Plaintiffs' state law claim.

The Defendant's final objection is that the discovery sought is
overly burdensome.  It maintains its security guards are
independent contractors, not employees, and therefore it does
not, and is not required to maintain separate and individual
personnel files containing payroll records.  The Magistrate Judge
finds that the Defendant offers nothing in the way of proof that
this is the case -- no affidavit or anything like that.  The
defendant hasn't "shown" anything.  Moreover, without
amplification, its complaint that the discovery request is
"overly burdensome" is no more than an example of the garden-
variety, boilerplate objections attorneys slap on responses to
discovery by rote, and tantamount to no objection at all.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Cole granted the Plaintiff's motion
to compel.  But any future discovery motions filed in the case
must include a detailed, joint statement of the parties' efforts
to resolve their disputes over each of the document requests at
issue, along with their final positions, supported by pertinent
authority, on each request that remains in dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/fs5zpW from Leagle.com.

Michelle Gunn & Martinez Haymer, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher J. Wilmes -- cwilmes@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol
Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. & Matthew J. Piers --
mpiers@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.

Thomas Carl, Plaintiff, pro se.

Stevens Security & Training Services, Inc. & Al Stevens,
Defendants, represented by Scott Cruz -- scruz@clarkhill.com --
Clark Hill PLC.


SYMANTEC CORP: Faces "Broda" Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL BRODA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, GREGORY S. CLARK, and NICHOLAS
R. NOVIELLO, Case No. 3:18-cv-03152 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2018), is
a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Symantec between May 19, 2017, and May 10,
2018, both dates inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, according to the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and 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.

Symantec is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal executive
offices are located in Mountain View, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Symantec 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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


SYRACUSE, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in "Winston" Partly Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE WINSTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF
SYRACUSE, DEBORAH SOMERS, in her official capacity as the
Commissioner of Water, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1017-cv
(2d Cir.), Judge Christopher F. Droney of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in
part the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York granting the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston, a tenant in a multi-family building
in the City of Syracuse, New York, filed the putative class
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in the district court in
February 2016.  She alleged that the City and its Commissioner of
Water Somers violated the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when (1) the City shut off
her water service after her landlord failed to pay the water bill
for the building, and when (2) the City denied her the
opportunity to open a water account in her own name. Winston
sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the City.

The City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending
that Winston had not pleaded a constitutional violation.  In
response, Winston argued that the City's policies were not
rationally related to a legitimate government interest and
therefore deprived Winston of her rights to due process and equal
protection.

Judge Thomas James McAvoy of the district court granted the
City's motion and entered judgment for the City.  He concluded
that the City has a rational basis for those water account and
water service policies.  As to the City's policy regarding
tenants opening water accounts, Judge McAvoy concluded that
Winston could not show that the City lacked a rational basis to
treat landlords and tenants differently.  He reached the same
conclusion regarding the City's policy of shutting off water when
a landlord is delinquent in paying the water bill.  The Judge
reasoned that the City could rationally terminate water service
to a landlord's property because doing so would further the
City's goal of collecting unpaid water bills.  The appeal
followed.

On appeal, Winston argues that the district court erred when it
determined that she had not stated a claim for facial violations
of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.  Specifically, she first contends that no
rational reasons exist to distinguish between landlords and
tenants for purposes of establishing water accounts.  Second, she
asserts that the City cannot lawfully distinguish between the
tenants of delinquent and non-delinquent landlords when providing
water service.

Judge Droney finds that the City rationally concluded that
property ownership allows it to collect its unpaid bills more
efficiently because the City can subject property owners, but not
tenants, to liens.  Moreover, the City may rationally conclude
that water supply infrastructure in older, multi-dwelling
buildings provides a valid reason to allow only property owners
to open water accounts.  Concluding otherwise could essentially
require substantial reconstruction of apartment buildings
throughout the City of Syracuse.  Therefore the City's policy of
denying tenants the opportunity to open water accounts satisfies
the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Judge reaches a different conclusion with respect to the
City's policy of terminating water service to tenants whose
landlords fail to pay their water bills.  He finds that neither
class of tenants possesses a legal obligation to pay their
landlord's unpaid bills.  The fact of the landlord's non-payment
is irrelevant, because the City cannot force an individual
without a legal obligation to pay the bill of another.  As a
result, the City cannot point to the landlord's non-payment to
satisfy rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Judge further finds that the City does not contest that
Winston has a valid property interest in continued water service.
As to whether the City's policy satisfies rational-basis review,
he concludes that Winston plausibly alleges a due process
violation.  Winston asserts that the City is seeking to collect
payment on landlords' bills by requiring tenants who have no
legal obligation for those bills to pay their landlords'
accounts.  Such a policy scheme, which is not based in legal
accountability for the debt, fails rational-basis review.
Accordingly, he will reverse the district court's dismissal of
Winston's alleged Due Process Clause violation.

For these reasons, Judge Droney concludes that (i) Winston did
not plausibly allege a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
as to the City's policy for opening water accounts; and (ii) the
district court erred in dismissing Winston's equal protection and
substantive due process challenges to the City's water
termination policy.  Accordingly, he affirmed in part and
reversed in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.  On remand,
he directed the district court to also afford Winston an
opportunity to renew her motion for class certification in light
of the decision in the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/XmA6Zi from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA COTTER, Legal Services of Central New York, Syracuse, NY,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.

AMANDA HARRINGTON -- amanda@scanlancarroll.com.au -- Assistant
Corporation Counsel, ( Mary D'Agostino, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, on the brief), for Kristen E. Smith --
kesmithbain@morinandbarkley.com -- Corporation Counsel, Syracuse,
NY, for Defendants-Appellees.


TLRA DEBT: Collection Activities Violate FDCPA, "Day" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY LEE DAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TLRA DEBT RECOVERY, Case No. 6:18-cv-00230 (E.D.
Tex., May 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's collection
activities violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

TLRA Debt Recovery is a Texas corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Houston, Texas.  TLRA is engaged in the
business of collecting debts, using mails and telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 451-1314
          Facsimile: (314) 787-4323
          E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com


TOUCHPOINT 360: "Arugu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Donna Arugu, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Touchpoint 360, LLC and E.A. Langenfeld Associates,
Ltd., Case No. 1:18-cv-00343 (W.D. Tex., April 25, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Donna Arugu is an individual who resides in Travis County, Texas.
Although she had previously performed the same work as an
independent contractor, Touchpoint began treating the Plaintiff
as an employee on approximately April 18, 2013; the last day that
she performed work as an employee for Defendants was on or around
December 23, 2016, notes the complaint.

The Defendants contract with clients to provide marketing
services throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
              daniel@morelandlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Razak"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI, and KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and GEGAN, LLC, Civil Action. No. 16-573
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Uber's Motion
for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Jan. 6, 2016, by filing a
Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
On Feb. 4, 2016, the Defendants removed the action to this court,
citing federal question and diversity jurisdiction.  The case is
the first to grant summary judgment on the question of whether
drivers for UberBLACK are employees or independent contractors
within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
similar Pennsylvania state laws.

More specifically, the named Plaintiffs have brought individual
and representative claims against Uber and its wholly-owned
subsidiary Gegen for violations of the federal minimum wage and
overtime requirements under the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Before the Court is Uber's Motion for Summary Judgment on the
question of whether the Plaintiffs, drivers for UberBLACK,
qualify as "employees" of Uber under the FLSA and PMWA.

In general, under the FLSA, employers must pay employees the
applicable minimum wage for each hour worked, and, if an employee
works more than 40 hours in a given week, the employer must pay
one and one half times the regular rate for each hour
subsequently worked.  Thus, among other things, the Plaintiffs
seek back pay for their work driving passengers using the Uber
app.

Uber's principal contention on its motion for summary judgment is
that the Plaintiffs are not employees as a matter of law, and
therefore their putative class action on behalf of all UberBLACK
drivers must be dismissed.  In Uber's briefs, the Plaintiffs are
portrayed as entrepreneurial business-owners who use UberBLACK as
a means of acquiring trip requests, with their primary
competition coming from other limousine-for-hire companies.  Uber
contends that the Plaintiffs are not employees of Uber because
the Plaintiffs are not restricted from working for other
companies, pay their own expenses (which are substantial), invest
in their own companies, advertise and market for their own
companies, engage workers for their own companies, work using
UberBLACK as much or as little as they want, reject work from
UberBLACK as much as they want, and use business acumen to attain
their own profits (and losses).  In Uber's view, UberBLACK is
simply a source of "lead generation," like a "modern-day Yellow
Pages," rather than an "employer" under the FLSA.

In opposition to the motion, the Plaintiffs contend that they are
"employees" under the FLSA, and therefore entitled to overtime
pay and other benefits, because they are extensively controlled
by Uber when they are online, they exercise stamina rather than
managerial skill to determine profit or loss, they must provide
certain types and colors of car to drive for Uber, they do not
have special skills requiring long training or apprenticeship,
they have driven for Uber for years and for many hours per week,
and they perform an integral role for Uber's business.

Judge Baylson holds that the Plaintiffs have had a full
opportunity to present all relevant facts bearing on the question
of whether they are employees under the FLSA.  Accepting that
there are some disputes of fact, he viewed all evidence in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as required by Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.  Nonetheless, given the totality of the
circumstances and the fact that no single factor in the economic
reality test is dispositive, the Plaintiffs have not brought to
the record sufficient proof to meet their burden of showing that
they are employees.  For these, the Judge granted Uber's Motion
for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/SHijWj from Leagle.com.

ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI & KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented
by JEREMY E. ABAY -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Diamond,
LLC & JOHN K. WESTON -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- SACKS WESTON
DIAMOND LLC.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY --
nray@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, ANDREW SPURCHISE --
aspurchise@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN
-- jvaughn@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., PAUL C. LANTIS
-- plantis@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., ROBERT WILLIAM
PRITCHARD -- rpritchard@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
SOPHIA BEHNIA -- sbehnia@littler.com -- LITTLE MENDELSON PC &
WENDY SUE BUCKINGHAM -- wbuckingham@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON PC.

GEGEN LLC, Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY, LITTLER MENDELSON
PC, ROBERT WILLIAM PRITCHARD, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., SOPHIA
BEHNIA, LITTLE MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN, LITTLER MENDELSON,
P.C. & PAUL C. LANTIS, Littler Mendelson, P.C.

LUXE LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC., FREEMO LIMO, LLC & MILANO LIMO,
INC., Movants, represented by JEREMY E. ABAY , Sacks Weston
Diamond, LLC.


UNITED STATES: Court Allows "Pack" to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1-18-CV-00541-
UNA (D. D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiff's application
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint.

The Judge has reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind
that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less
stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.  Rather than factual allegations to support a
cognizable legal claim, he finds that the Plaintiff's complaint
appears only to express their apparent disapproval of the actions
of the current President of the United States.  As drafted, the
complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth
in Rule 8(a).

Furthermore, pursuant to the Plaintiff's complaint, he is
attempting to bring a class action lawsuit.  As a general rule
applicable in the case, the Judge explains that a pro se litigant
can represent only himself or herself in federal court.
Additionally, Mr. Pack is the sole listed Plaintiff in the
matter.

Therefore, Judge Sullivan granted the Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint.  An Order
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/uC70Xo from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK, Plaintiff, pro se.


VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss
filed by the defendants in the case Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco
Data Security International, Inc., et al., is still pending.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015
and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused
by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by
the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty
days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that
the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On
January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters
were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public
disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to
public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the
strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. This
case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff,
Bunk.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on
March 31, 2017. A decision from the court on such motion has not
been issued to date.

VASCO Data Security said "Although the ultimate outcome of
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against the action vigorously. VASCO is indemnifying its officers
and directors for this matter."

VASCO Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops and
markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business
productivity that protect and facilitate electronic transactions,
via mobile and connected devices. The company is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Raul Files Suit Over Francisco Partners Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RAUL as custodian for PINCHUS E. RAUL UTMA, NY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., ROBERT W. ALSPAUGH, KAREN AUSTIN, RONALD
BLACK, PAUL GALANT, ALEX W. HART, ROBERT B. HENSKE, LARRY A.
KLAINE, JONATHAN I. SCHWARTZ, JANE J. THOMPSON, ROWAN M.
TROLLOPE, Case No. 4:18-cv-03215-JSW (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2018),
arises from the proposed merger between Verifone and an investor
group led by the private investment firm, Francisco Partners.

On April 9, 2018, Verifone entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger by and among the Company, Vertex Holdco LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent") and Vertex Merger Sub LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving company in the Merger.

Parent and Merger Sub are owned by Francisco Partners and British
Columbia Investment Management Corporation.

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

Verifone represents itself as a global leader in payments and
commerce solutions at the point of sale.  Key industries in which
the Company operates include financial services, retail,
petroleum, restaurant, hospitality, transportation, and
healthcare.  Verifone sells into more than 150 countries
worldwide, with a direct presence in approximately 40
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975-0512
          Facsimile: (949) 208-2839
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                  adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


VOYA FINANCIAL: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, "Matzura" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MATZURA AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., VOYA INVESTMENTS, LLC, VOYA
FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC. and VOYA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. LLC,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04470-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants' Web site -- http://www.voya.com/-- is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers and
it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Voya Financial, Inc., is a Foreign Business Corporation with its
principal executive offices in New York City, and is a public
corporation.  Voya Investments, LLC, is a Foreign Limited
Liability Company with its principal executive offices in New
York City.  Voya Financial Advisors, Inc., is a Foreign Business
Corporation with its principal executive offices in New York
City.  Voya Investment Management Co. LLC. is a Foreign Limited
Liability Company with its principal executive offices in New
York City.

The Defendants operate Voya insurance brokerage and financial
services offices, as well as the Voya Web site, and advertise,
market, distribute, and provide insurance, financial and related
services in the state of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


WEIS MARKETS: "Allen" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Weis Markets, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00888 (M.D. Pa.,
April 25, 2018), seeks to address unlawful race discrimination in
employee hiring and promotion practices and a racially hostile
work environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
residing at 444 Kreamer Avenue, Northumberland County, Sunbury,
Pennsylvania. From April 2012 through the present, Mr. Allen, an
African-American male, has been an "employee" at Weis Markets, as
defined by Title VII.

The Defendant, Weis Markets, is a Pennsylvania domestic
corporation that maintains its principal place of business and
corporate headquarters at 1000 South 2nd Street, Northumberland
County, Sunbury, Pennsylvania. Weis Markets is a multi-state food
retailer that owns and operates numerous grocery stores,
including multiple stores in this Judicial District. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
      Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
      Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
      Stephen P. Gunther, Esq.
      McCarthy Weisberg Cummings, P.C.
      2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
      Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
      Tel: (717) 238-5707
      Fax: (717) 233-8133
      E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
              lweisberg@mwcfirm.com
              smahan@mwcfirm.com
              sgunther@mwcfirm.com


WINKING LIZARD: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Barnes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Winking Lizard, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00952
(N.D. Ohio, April 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Samuel Barnes is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within the
Cleveland forum of this judicial district. The Plaintiff worked
as an Assistant Kitchen Manager for Defendants in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, within the Cleveland forum of this judicial
district at the Gateway Winking Lizard Tavern location at 811
Huron Road, Cleveland, OH 44115, after completing his salary-paid
Manager In Training program to become validated as an assistant
manager at the Copley Winking Lizard location at 79 Springside
Drive, Copley, OH 44333.

The Defendants owned and operated more than 20 restaurant
locations in Ohio using the trade name and concept of Winking
Lizard Tavern. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WYNN RESORTS: Faces "Ferris" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts, Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a
securities class action suit filed by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris.

On February 20, 2018, a securities class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann
M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages
as well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.

The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against
the claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary
stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to
date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the
outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible
loss, if any.

Wynn Resorts, Limited is a developer, owner and operator of
destination casino resorts (integrated resorts). The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Appellate Briefing to be Completed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the appellate briefing process is underway
and scheduled to be completed in July 2018.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf
of a class of up to 50 investors in IMG and seeks to hold us
liable for losses of class members arising from their investments
in IMG, alleging that we conspired with and knowingly assisted
IMG and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi Scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Company. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate
briefing process is underway and is scheduled to be completed in
July 2018.

Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company, headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah, that is one of the largest banks in the
United States.




                            *********


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  * * *