CAR_Public/180702.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, July 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 131



                            Headlines


27 WH BAKE: Court Approves Deal in "Gonzales" FLSA/NYLL Suit
145 LUND LLC: Faces "Alvarado" Suit over Rent Increase
A-1 SELF STORAGE: Cal. High Ct. Sustains Demurrer to "Heckart"
A. RECKNAGEL INC: Shareholders Seek to Retrieve Company Books
A.P. EXPRESS: Doesn't Pay OT to Drivers, "Mejia" Suit Says

AARGON AGENCY: Delgado Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ADKINS AUTO: Court Issues Protective Order in "Luna" FCRA Suit
ADT SECURITY: Bid to Replace Named Plaintiff in "Kimble" Denied
AIR EVAC EMS: Underpays Flight Paramedics, Riegelsberger Claims
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action

ALERE INC: Ct. Won't Review "Andren" Class Certification Denial
ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Likely to Revive Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Funding Secured for PFAS Suit Against Defense Dept.
AUSTRALIA: NSW Police Faces Lawsuit Over Sniffer Drug Operation
BAKER CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ontiveros" Suit Says

BANCO SANTANDER: Rigged Mexican Bond Sales, VI Employees Claim
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tripes" Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Greensfelder Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
BEST BUY CO: Faces "Lavera" Suit in Hennepin County
BEST DOCTORS INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, Kenneth Thomas MD Says

BEVERLY HEALTH: $450K Settlement in "Ahmed" Has Final Approval
BIOGEN INC: Metzler Asset Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
BJ'S ON THE WATER: Doesn't Pay OT to Server, "Kusel" Suit Alleges
BOCAS HOUSE: Removes "Alvarado" Suit to S.D. Florida
BOLLA OPERATING: Benitez Seeks Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Pay

BUCKEYE INC: Doesn't Pay OT to Fluid Technicians, Bernstein Says
BUFFALO, NY: Court Dismisses Amended "Burgin"
BUMBLE BEE: Settlement in "Rodriguez" Suit Has Final Approval
BURGER MAKER: Doesn't Pay OT to Grind Supervisors, "Lopez" Claims
CANADA: BSE Class Action Ongoing, Trial Expected by Next Fall

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Campbell Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Kolbasyuk Appeals Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
CAVIAR: Settles Class Action Over Gratuity for $2.2 Million
CENTRAL TIRE: Underpays Automobile Mechanics, "Allejo" Suit Says
CENTURY FINANCIAL: Dismissal Orders in "Baker" Reversed

CEPHALON INC: UHS MOU Enforceable in Teva Pharma Suit
CHARTSWAP LLC: Asher Sues over Excessive Fees for Medical Records
CHESAPEAKE BAY: Addt'l Class Notice Bid in "Meuller" Partly OKd
CHI MANAGEMENT: Underpays Merchandiser, "Castello" Suit Says
CHINA AGRITECH: Limitation Period Tolled for Individual Claims

CHINA AGRITECH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Case
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Issues Unanimous Decision in Tolling Issue
CHINA AGRITECH: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
CHRISTIAN'S BAKERY: Doesn't Pay OT to Bakers, Meza-Vazquez Says
CLEAR AIR TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Cleaners, Lysakowski Claims

COASTWAY BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
COINBASE INC: Arbitration of Cryptocurrencies Suit Denied
COINBASE INC: Leidel Class Suit to be Ruled in Open Court
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Confidentiality Order in Deal Issued
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Witt" to 4th Cir.

CENTRAL IOWA: Settles Class Action Over Bed Bug Infestation
DELIV INC: Doesn't Pay Wages to Courier, "Lawson" Suit Says
DELTA AIRLINES: Removes "Pimental" Suit to E.D. New York
DENTAL EQUITIES: Motion to Stay Junk-Fax Class Action Granted
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Issues Mix-Bag Opinion in ERISA Class Action

DON VITO OZUNA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Camilo" Alleges
DOVER FINANCIAL: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Following Collapse
DS PROSPECTING: Made Solicited Calls, "Dawson" Suit Alleges
EAST CHICAGO, IN: Bradshaw May Intervene as "Gutierrez" Class Rep
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces "Bland" Suit over Race Discrimination

EL COCOTERO: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, "Acosta" Suit Claims
ELC BEAUTY: Faces "Wu" Suit in S.D. New York
ELONIS RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Staff, "Carillo" Suit Says
EMULEX CORP: Court Reverses Dismissal of "Varjabedian" Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Merger Challenges Amid Class Action

EPIC BUSINESS: Faces "Williams" Suit over Sale of Essential Oils
ETSY INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Altayyar" Suit
FAST TAX SERVICE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broomfield" Suit Says
FBCS INC: Allen Sues over Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
FIAT CHRYSLER: Wants Judge to Trim Claims Cherokee Defect Suit

FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Underpays Room Attendant, Romero Claims
FINISH LINE INC: Barnett Sues over JD Sports Merger Transaction
FIRST CONNECT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges
FLANNY PRODUCTIONS: Pollister Sues over Gender Discrimination
FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settles Patient Data Breach Class Action

FORD MOTOR: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD: Fails to Pay OT, "Carrasco" Suit Says
FRIEZE NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Heat at Tent
FRONTLINE ASSET: Cirruzzo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GCI SOLAR: "Benkert" Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls

GEICO GENERAL: Faces "Camme" over Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy
GEICO GENERAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Green" Suit
GENERAL DYNAMICS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Cunningham"
GFI GROUP: Summary Judgment in "Gross" Securities Suit Granted
GOLD STANDARD: Court Narrows Claims in Racial Discrimination Suit

GOOGLE INC: Simpson Thacher Attorneys Discuss Cy Press Settlement
GUESS? RETAIL: "Miranda" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
H MART MIDWEST: Fails to Pay OT to Purchasers, "Lee" Suit Alleges
HERTZ LOCAL: Court Grants Discovery Stipulation in "Johnston"
HYDRO-QUEBEC: Osler Hoskin Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling

I.Q. DATA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ward" Suit Alleges
INDIANA: Ct. Won't Approve Settlement in Inmates' HCV Suit
INTEL CORP: "East" CPU Defect Row Transferred to Oregon Dist. Ct.
INTER-COAST INT'L: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Nguyen" Affirmed
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Calhoun Sues over Promotion Services

ISRAEL: May Have to Reverse Speed Traffic Camera Tickets
J.C. PENNEY: Underpays Associate Designers, "Hernandez" Suit Says
J.M. HARVEY: Doesn't Pay OT to Kitchen Staff, Rodriguez Says
JAFT LLC: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, "Katz" Suit Alleges
JAMES SQUARE: Judge Allows NY Residents to Pursue Class Action

JANBAR INC: Underpays Construction Workers, "Cedillo" Suit Says
JONES MOTOR: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daley" Class Suit
KAMRAN STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Morales" Suit Claims
KFF ARBITRATION: Anderson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Ochoa" Suit over No-Poach Agreements

LAZARD LTD: Faces "Burbon" Suit over Website Access for Blind
LEASE AND RENTAL: Garcia Sues over Car Repossession Practices
LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Underpays Bartenders, "Hightower" Suit Says
LS & PARTNERS: Underpays Waiters and Servers, "Miller" Suit Says
MAIDEN LANE: NY High Ct. Certifies Class in Superstorm Sandy Suit

MAJOR LEAGUE: Wants Minor Leaguers' Class Certification Reversed
MARVELL TECH: "Luna" Securities Suit Settlement Has Final OK
MARVELL TECH: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Luna" Settlement
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Doesn't Pay OT to Medical Staff, Duran Claims
MDL 2617: Special Master Recommends $29MM Attys' Fees, $2MM Costs

MDL 2672: Franchise Dealers Can't Compel Withheld Docs Production
MDL 2795: Related Securities Suits v. CenturyLink Consolidates
MENARD INC: Court Stays "Griffith" FLSA Suit
MENDEL MUFFINS: Underpays Factory Bakers, "Loja" Suit Alleges
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Carillion Condo Owners Can't Sue as Class

MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Finds "Fatal" Flaw in Discrimination Case
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brecher Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sandoval Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies Class in "Wheeler" FDCPA Suit
MIDTOWN CATCH CORP: Underpays Delivery Worker, Suit Alleges

MINNESOTA: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Foster" Suit
MONSTER INC: Settles Class Action Over HDMI Cable Bandwidth
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Responds to Wastewater Violations Class Action
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Baird Mandalas, Schochor File Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Removes "Fischer" Suit to E.D. New York

NATIONAL CREDIT: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Aleksanian" Suit Claims
NEW YORK: EMS Union Sues Fire Dept. over Promotional Practices
NEW YORK, NY: Arrestees Claim their Arrest Info Illegally Used
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Nnebe" Suit
NORMANDY SCHOOLS: Age Discrimination Case Removed to Federal Ct.

NRG RESIDENTIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Griffoul" Reversed
NUEVA SAN SALVADOR: Doesn't Pay OT to Server, "Amaya" Suit Claims
ONE INC: Warciak Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ORION MARINE: Kelly Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Investor Fraud Class Action
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
PEOPLES UNITED BANK: Faces "Pryzgoda" in S.D. New York
PG&E CORP: Aug. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PETEZA PROSE: "Kile" Stayed Pending Ruling in 3 Cases

PRODUCTION MGMT: Magistrate Recommends Approval of "Daniels" Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
PEOPLES UNITED BANK: Faces "Pryzgoda" in S.D. New York
RAY KLEIN: "Anderson" Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

RCI HOSPITALITY: Doesn't Pay OT to Dancers, "Godwin" Suit Alleges
RCI LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Andrews" Suit Alleges
RECRO PHARMA: Faces "Alberici" Suit over Share Price Drop
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Seay" Suit over Waste Disposal Fees
RESIDENTIAL FENCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Miuzzo" Suit Says

RIPPLE LABS: Removes "Coffey" Suit to N.D. California
ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Underpays Drivers, "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges
RWLS LLC: Court Denies Dismissal of "Gandy" NMMWA Class Suit
S.C. STATE: Class Action Over Faulty Stucco Installation Resolved
SABON WEB LLC: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York

SAKS & CO: Faces Data Breach Class Action Following Hacking
SAMANTHA SANSON: Underpays Exotic Dancers, "King" Suit Alleges
SAMUEL I WHITE: Davis Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
SC JOHNSON: Mosquito Repellant Ineffective, "Bourbia" Suit Says
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Court Sets Conference in "Martinez"

SCI DIRECT: Doyle Sues over Wrongful Employment Practices
SCOTT HOTEL: Court Discharges Show Cause Order in "Kratzer" Suit
SI MARKET FRESH: "Alario" Suit Seek For Unpaid Overtime Wages
SILVERADO STAGES: Doesn't Pay OT to Drivers, Razani Alleges
SIRIUS XM RADIO: Bettison Sues over Radio Subscription Sales

SPRINT CORP: Settles Sales Employees' Class Action for $3.65MM
STATE FARM: Court Certifies Class in "Vogt"
STORCK USA: Judge Dismisses Werther's Underfilling Class Action
STRATEGIC LEGACY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Remball" Suit Says
SUDLER & CO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Horist" Suit

SWEPI LP: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Walney" Suit
SWITCH INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SYSCO CORP: Class, Subclasses in "Martin" FLSA Suit Certified
SZECHAUN TOKYO OF SEA: Underpays Cooks, "Bolanos" Suit Alleges
TAPIOCA EXPRESS: EEOC Files Sexual Harassment Class Action

TENNESSEE: Court Grants Protective Order in "Abriq"
TETRA TECH: Bayview Residents File Fraud Class Suit
TIMBERWORKS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Zaragoza" Suit in Sacramento
TLC RESORTS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Augustine" Suit Alleges
TOTAL CARD: "Young" Suit Disputes Collection Letter

TRACKER MARINE: Court Upholds Damages in Document Fees Case
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Burke" Suit Claims
TULARE, CA: Court Approves $270K "Seguin" FLSA Class Settlement
U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces "Nielsen" Suit in New Jersey
UNDER ARMOUR: Removes "Murray" Suit to C.D. California

UNITED STATES: Judgment on Pleadings in Suit vs. FEMA Entered
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Amended Complaint Filed in California
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Class PRA Request Suit
VALEANT PHARMA: "Hound" Securities Fraud Suit Moved to New Jersey
VEREIT: Settles Vanguard Suit, Shareholder Class-Action Pending

VITALE'S ITALIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Torres" Suit Says
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE: Underpays Clerical Employee, Buddie Claims
WALGREENS BOOTS: Dismissal of Tax Collection Suit Reversed
WALGREENS PHARMACY: Rodarte Sues over Wrongful Termination
WATERBURY, CT: Class Action Over Dog Euthanization Plan Denied

WE CARE SENIOR: Doesn't Pay OT to Caregivers, "Gentry" Suit Says
WINDOWS USA LLC: Underpays Retail Service Managers, Suit Says
WPP: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action

* Class Action Industry in Australia Faces Backlash Over Fees





                            *********


27 WH BAKE: Court Approves Deal in "Gonzales" FLSA/NYLL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CESAR GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 27 W.H. BAKE,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 4161 (PAC) (HBP) (S.D.
N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New York granted the parties' joint
application to approve their settlement.

On March 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge presided over a
settlement conference attended by the parties and their counsel,
at which a settlement was reached.  The matter is now before him
on the parties' joint application to approve their settlement.

The Plaintiffs, who worked at the Defendants' restaurant and who
were employed for varying periods of time and paid different
amounts of wages, brought the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to pay them minimum
wage during certain periods of their employment, made illegal
deductions from their wages based on tips that plaintiffs
received and failed to pay plaintiffs overtime premium pay.

The Plaintiffs also assert claims based on the Defendants'
alleged failure to maintain certain payroll records and to
provide certain notices as required by the NYLL.  They claim that
they are entitled to $411,300 in total damages, exclusive of pre-
judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs.  Specifically,
Bravo claims that he is owed a total $121,600, Flores claims that
he is owed a total of $186,000, Perez claims that he is owed a
total of $56,700 and Soriano claims that he is owed a total of
$47,000.  Using these damages figures, Bravo's pro rata share of
the total damages claimed is 29.6%, Flores's pro rata share is
45.2%, Perez's pro rata share is 13.8% and Soriano's pro rata
share is 11.4%.

Following a protracted discussion at the settlement conference of
the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective
positions, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute for the
total amount of $135,000 to be paid in six installments.  The
parties also agreed that the Plaintiffs' counsel will receive
one-third of the total settlement amount ($45,000) for attorneys'
fees.

The amount claimed by each Plaintiff and the net amount that each
will received after deduction of legal fees and costs are as
follows:

     Net Settlement
          Amount     Plaintiff           Claimed Amount
     --------------  ---------           --------------
         $121,600    Hermogenes Bravo      $26,608.32
         $186,000    Hermenegildo Flores   $40,700.22
         $56,700     Jose Filemon Perez    $12,407.00
         $47,000     Tomas Soriano         $10,284.46
         $121,600    Hermogenes Bravo      $26,608.32

  Total  $411,300                             $90,000

In determining whether a proposed FLSA settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court should consider the totality of
circumstances, including but not limited to the following
factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the
extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and
defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by
the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product
of arm's length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5)
the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the settlement here satisfies
these criteria.  First, the total settlement represents
approximately 32.8% of the Plaintiffs' total alleged damages,
exclusive of pre-judgment interest.  Second, the settlement will
entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of litigation.  Third,
the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risk of
litigation.  Fourth, because he presided over the settlement
conference that immediately preceded the Plaintiffs' acceptance
of the settlement, he knows that the settlement is the product of
arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.  Both
counsel represented their clients zealously at the settlement
conference.  Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the
existence of fraud.

The settlement fund will be distributed to the Plaintiffs on a
pro rata basis.  In light of number of hours worked by and the
hourly rates paid to each Plaintiff, the allocation of the
settlement fund is fair and reasonable.  The parties have also
agreed to execute mutual general releases.  Judges in the
District have approved FLSA settlements containing mutual general
releases.

Finally, the settlement provides that 33.3% of the settlement
fund -- $45,000 -- will be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel as a
contingency fee. Contingency fees of one-third in FLSA cases are
routinely approved in the Circuit.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge
Pitman approved the settlement in the matter.  In light of the
settlement, he dismissed the action with prejudice and without
costs.  The Clerk is respectfully requested to mark the matter
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ZmFg3P from Leagle.com.

Cesar Gonzales, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Juan Jose Gonzalez Diaz, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Hermogenes Bravo, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Hermenegildo Flores,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Jose
Filemon Perez, Tomas Soriano & Juan Carlos Diaz Bravo,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Antonio Faillace --
Michael@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. &
Joshua S. Androphy -- JAndrophy@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael
Faillace & Associates, P.C.

27 W.H. Bake, LLC, doing business as Flavors Cafe, AMR Motair,
formerly known as Omar Motair, Ramy Motaiyr, formerly known as
Ramy Motair & Steve Tenedios, Defendants, represented by Andrew
Sal Hoffmann, Hoffmann & Associates.


145 LUND LLC: Faces "Alvarado" Suit over Rent Increase
------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA ALVARADO and SONNY ALVARADO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 145 LUND, LLC;
FPI MANAGEMENT INC.; SRIDHR EQUITIES, INC; TIKI APTS, LLC, CAROL
SANTOS; MARIA RAMIREZ, SANDRA KELLY, WAYNE M. KELLY and BRYAN J.
FARRELL and DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. RG 18905468 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., May 17, 2018) alleges that the Defendants'
act of demanding and collecting unlawful rents violated
California laws and the City of Hayward's Residential Rent
Stabilization Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the City of
Hayward's Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance which provides
that landlords are required to provide residential tenants with a
copy of the Ordinance; a rent increase notice in compliance with
the Ordinance; and provide various documents which must contain
specific information required by the Ordinance before a landlord
can demand or collect a rent increase.

FPI Management, Inc. provides property management services for
multifamily properties in Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington. FPI Management was founded in 1968 and
is based in Folsom, California with locations in Costa Mesa,
California; and Lynnwood, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Wolff, Esq.
          Tony Ruch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, P.C.
          1615 Broadway, 4th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 834-3300
          Facsimile: (510) 834-3377


A-1 SELF STORAGE: Cal. High Ct. Sustains Demurrer to "Heckart"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment sustaining
Defendant's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned SAMUEL HECKART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A-1 SELF
STORAGE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. S232322
(Cal.).

In its rental agreements with tenants, defendant A-1 Self
Storage, Inc., states that it "shall not be liable for loss of or
damage to a tenant's stored property, and it requires the tenant
to obtain insurance for such losses."  A-1 also offers an
alternative to the requirement that a tenant obtain insurance: in
exchange for an additional $10 in rent each month, A-1 will
reassume the risk of such losses, up to $2,500.

The first amended complaint alleges that to cover losses incurred
by A-1 under the Protection Plan, Deans & Homer sold A-1 a
Storage Operator's Contract Liability Policy under which Deans &
Homer assumed the liability for all losses under the Protection
Plan in excess of $250,000 per year.

In April 2013, the plaintiff brought this putative class action
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, claiming
the Protection Plan violates the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. &
Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq; UCL) and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.; CLRA). He also
alleged theories of misrepresentation and civil conspiracy. His
claims are based on the allegation that the Protection Plan is a
policy of insurance, which A-1 is not licensed to sell.

The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first
amended complaint based on its conclusion that the Protection
Plan is not insurance, and entered judgment for the defendants.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.  Both lower courts
premised their rulings on the principal object and purpose test,
which excludes from insurance regulation transactions that have
an element of insurance, where that element is merely incidental
to a different principal object and purpose.

The lower courts concluded that the Protection Plan was
incidental to the principal object and purpose of the parties'
transaction, the rental of storage space.

The allegations of the operative complaint reflect that A-1 is
not acting as an agent of an insurance company.  Although Deans &
Homer has assisted A-1 with the Protection Plan, Deans & Homer
does not provide insurance to renters; rather, the Protection
Plan is an agreement between only A-1 and individual renters.
Therefore, the procedures and regulations that apply to a self-
service storage facility in its role as an insurance agent do not
apply to the challenged transaction.

Article 16.3 provides that self-storage facilities cannot sell
insurance unless licensed as an agent for a licensed insurer.
The Insurance Code defines insurance as a contract whereby one
undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or
liability arising from a contingent or unknown event. Courts have
interpreted section 22 as requiring two elements: (1) a risk of
loss to which one party is subject and a shifting of that risk to
another party; and (2) distribution of risk among similarly
situated persons. The Protection Plan meets these criteria: A-1
shifts the risk of losses up to $2,500 from a renter to A-1, and
distributes that risk among all renters who purchase the Plan.

The Court concluded that assumption of risk by the title company
was not the principal object and purpose of the underwriting
agreements. Their main function is not to require the
underwritten title company to provide insurance, either to the
title insurer or to the insured, but instead to require the
underwritten title company to perform a title search and
examination carefully and diligently as well as to carry out the
formalities involved in the issuance of a title insurance policy.
The indemnification provisions are secondary to the main object
and purpose of the underwriting agreements. In fact, the
agreements to indemnify appear to be designed, at least in part,
to give the underwritten title companies an incentive to perform
their title search in a non-negligent manner, as the title
companies are in the best position to eliminate possible risk.

Therefore, the title company is not involved in the illegal
practice of insurance even if an underwritten title company is
deemed to have provided indemnification in connection with the
main purpose of its contract with the title insurer.

Plaintiff contends that Article 16.3's specific and narrow
concern with the sale of hazard insurance by a self-storage
facility to renters for loss of or damage to stored property "in
connection with, and incidental to, self-service storage rental
agreements reflects an intent to apply insurance regulation to
any indemnification contracts that are incidental to self-storage
rental agreements.

In response to the state Supreme Court's invitation to address
the issues presented, the Insurance Commissioner has urged the
Court to conclude that the Legislature intended to regulate the
transaction at issue in this case through its enactment of
Article 16.3, and, in any event, the principal object and purpose
doctrine does not exclude this case from regulation as insurance.
He requests that the Court give weight to his official,
considered views of the law, as set forth in this brief, to the
extent the Court finds those views reasonable and persuasive.

The Court has noted two broad categories of factors relevant to a
court's assessment of the weight due an agency's interpretation:
Those indicating that the agency has a comparative interpretive
advantage over the courts, and those indicating that the
interpretation in question is probably correct.

The Court have considered the Commissioner's views, but for the
reasons set forth above, the Court disagree with his
interpretation of Article 16.3 and the historical limitations on
the reach of insurance regulation. As the Court have noted, the
expansion of insurance regulation is a task for the Legislature.
Moreover, the Legislature has specifically regulated this
industry and has provided that the regulatory provisions shall
not be construed to impair or affect the right of the parties to
create additional rights, duties, and obligations in and by
virtue of the rental agreement.

If the Legislature perceives a need to regulate these agreements,
it can weigh whether to treat them as insurance, which would
extend numerous regulatory provisions to them and perhaps cause
storage companies no longer to offer indemnity, or the
Legislature might choose more limited regulation, such as
limiting the companies' fees for indemnity and requiring reserves
or insurance to satisfy renters' claims. These are policy issues
for the Legislature to resolve.

In sum, the Protection Plan does not constitute insurance subject
to regulation under the Insurance Code. The Legislature's
enactment of Article 16.3 enables self-storage facilities to act
as agents for insurance companies with respect to the narrow
category of insurance described in Article 16.3, but it does not
prohibit the parties' indemnification agreement set forth in the
Protection Plan. Because the plaintiff's claims are premised on
his contention that the Protection Plan is subject to regulation
under the Insurance Code, his claims fail.

Accordingly, the state Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the
Court of Appeal.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's April 23, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc23yhdj from
Leagle.com.

Finkelstein & Krinsk, Jeffrey R. Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com
-- William R. Restis -- wrr@classactionlaw.com -- David J.
Harris, Jr. -- djh@classactionlaw.com -- and Trenton R. Kashima -
- trk@classactionlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dale E. Washington; Zakari Law, Raymond Zakari; Baker, Burton &
Lundy, and Brad N. Baker, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton and John T. Brooks --
jbrooks@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendants and Respondents A-1
Self Storage, Inc., Caster Group LP, Caster Properties, Inc., and
Caster Family Enterprises, Inc.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, John R. Clifford --
john.clifford@wilsonelser.com -- and David J. Aveni --
david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Deans
& Homer.

Dentons US and Charles A. Bird -- charles.bird@dentons.com -- for
California Self Storage Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf
Defendants and Respondents.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Diane S. Shaw, Assistant
Attorney General, and Molly K. Mosley, Deputy Attorney General,
for State of California as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the
Supreme Court.


A. RECKNAGEL INC: Shareholders Seek to Retrieve Company Books
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Early and Susan E. Decesari, Petitioners, v. A. Recknagel,
Inc., Kevin Foley and Bernard Goldstein, Respondents, Case No.
706188/2018 (N.Y. Sup., May 2, 2018), seeks (i) to restrain the
respondents from paying out monies to themselves or to the
members of their families, by way of salaries, to their
creditors, by any means whatsoever, from the corporate funds,
(ii) an order directing A. Recknagel, Inc., its directors,
officers, agents, or employees, to submit the corporate books,
minute book, records, papers and contracts and any other
documentary data of A. Recknagel, Inc., (iii) to examine the last
audit of the corporation, together with the income and franchise
tax returns, reimbursement of lawful costs and disbursements of
these proceedings, and (iv) such other and further relief as this
Court may deem just pursuant to the Business Corporation Law.

Petitioners are shareholders of A. Recknagel, Inc. They claim
that the respondents have failed to hold and to notice annual
meetings of shareholders for more than eight years now; avoided
calling meetings for the election of directors; avoided supplying
shareholders with balance sheets and profit and loss earnings
statements for more than two years.

Kevin Foley and Bernard Goldstein are believed to hold 50% of all
the company stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen S. Danetz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN S. DANETZ
      118-21 Queens Boulevard
      Forest Hills, NY 11375- 7201
      Tel: (718) 575-0045
      Fax: (718) 793-7928


A.P. EXPRESS: Doesn't Pay OT to Drivers, "Mejia" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A.P. EXPRESS LLC; A.P. EXPRESS WORLDWIDE,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC705661
(Cal. Super., May 17, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Mejia was employed by the Defendant as a driver Los Angeles,
California,

A.P. EXPRESS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
provides accelerated priority freight warehousing and
distribution services in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


AARGON AGENCY: Delgado Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
MELIZZA B. DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARGON AGENCY, INC.; CHRISTY
DUANE; CHAR NOA; DANIEL ROBINSON; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09465-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 18,
2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case was assigned to Judge Susan D.
Wigenton and referred to Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre.

Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services. The Company offers national debt recovery, as
well as first party, early out collection, and billing services.
Aargon Agency serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


ADKINS AUTO: Court Issues Protective Order in "Luna" FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Division, County of
Orange, has issued a stipulated protective order in the case
captioned LEONARD LUNA and IAN HALL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HANSEN & ADKINS
AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00990-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal.).

The class action will require the production of personal and
confidential information of class members, including their names,
addresses, and Social Security Numbers as well as review of such
individuals' employment personnel files for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecution of the action is warranted.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed
to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in
the Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment
herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals,
rehearing's, remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including
the time limits for filing any motions or applications for
extension of time pursuant to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party
must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or
destroy such material.  Any violation of the Order may be
punished by any and all appropriate measures including, without
limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lwZGfI from Leagle.com.

Leonard Luna, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Ian Hall, Plaintiffs, represented by Aashish Y. Desai
-- aashish@desai-law.com -- Desai Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De
Castro -- adrianne@desai-law.com -- Desai Law Firm PC.

Hansen and Adkins Auto Transport, Inc, a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Victor J. Cosentino, Larson and Gaston
LLP.


ADT SECURITY: Bid to Replace Named Plaintiff in "Kimble" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
withdraw as Plaintiffs and substitute Nick Nikki as the named
Plaintiff and the new class representative in the case, ZARAH
KIMBLE, SEHER BASAK, and SARAH SAKINAH GROZA O'LOUGHLIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a/k/a/ ADT HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02519-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

On Oct. 7, 2016, Plaintiff Margarette Smith filed a purported
class action complaint against SLS for violations of Regulation X
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), and
related causes of action. On May 3, 2017, the Court granted in
part and denied in part SLS's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.  On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a purported first
amended class action complaint against SLS for violations of
Regulation X, and California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

Prior to the filing of the FAC, Ms. Smith died on April 18, 2017.
According to her last will and testament filed with the San Diego
Recorder's Office, Smith's home at 2452 Blackton Drive, San
Diego, CA 92105, the subject property at issue in the case, is
part of an irrevocable trust to which her three granddaughters,
Zarah Kimble, Seher Basak, and Sarah Sakinah Groza O'Loughlin are
equal beneficiaries.  According to the FAC, Smith's
granddaughters are her successors in interest and succeeded to
Smith's interest in the property.

On May 24, 2017, SLS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing because the Plaintiff passed away, or in the
alternative, a motion to strike the class allegations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(f).  SLS contended
that the FAC does not demonstrate that the Granddaughters are the
Plaintiff's successors-in-interest to the claims asserted.

On July 12, 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion to
dismiss until the substitution issue was resolved.  The
Plaintiffs then filed a motion to substitute the granddaughters
in as the Plaintiffs on June 24, 2017, which the Court granted on
Sept. 13, 2017.  On Sept. 21, 2017, the Court issued an order
denying SLS' remaining motion to strike the class allegations
pursuant to Rule 12(f) as premature.

Moving forward with the case, the Plaintiffs filed a purported
second amended class action complaint on Sept. 21, 2017.  SLS
filed an answer on Oct. 5, 2017.  On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court
issued a joint discovery plan and on Nov. 9, 2017 the Court
issued a scheduling order, setting Jan. 18, 2018 as the deadline
to amend or file new pleadings.

On Feb. 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend to add Nikki as the named Plaintiff.  On March 6, 2018, SLS
filed a response in opposition, along with affidavits, containing
records suggesting that the Plaintiffs misrepresented their
knowledge about Ms. Smith's residence.  Based on the facts
contained in SLS' response, the Plaintiffs filed a notice to
withdraw their motion for leave to amend and filed the instant
motion to withdraw as the Plaintiffs and substitute Nikki on
March 15, 2018.  SLS filed a response in opposition on March 29,
2018, arguing that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw fails to
meet three different standards: (1) voluntary dismissal under
Rule 41; (2) modification of a scheduling order under Rule 16;
and (3) amendment under Rule 15.3 .

Judge Curiel disagrees with SLS' contention that the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Withdraw should be characterized as a request for
voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.  He says under Rule 41,
after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for
summary judgment, an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's
request only by court order, on terms that the court considers
proper.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs here do not seek dismissal of
their claims. Rather, their request concerns substituting the
named Plaintiffs in the case.  SLS has provided the Court with no
case law that demands it re-characterize the Plaintiffs' claim
regarding the named parties as a dismissal of the case in its
entirety.  Conversely, district courts have routinely considered
motions to withdraw and substitute under Rules 15 and 16.

With respect to the diligence inquiry demanded by Rule 16, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
diligence to justify a modification of the scheduling order after
its deadline.  He notes that according to the operative SAC, the
Plaintiffs assert that the property at issue was always
considered the family home used for personal purposes and had
never been rented out.  Before and after Ms. Smith moved out, one
or more of the Plaintiffs lived at the property.  The SAC also
claims that Plaintiff Seher Basak has continuously lived at the
property since childhood.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs must have
known that there were other "mortgage contributors" at that time,
and the content of the documents the Defendant filed on March 6,
2018 could not have been new information to the Plaintiffs.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated diligence
concerning the issue of whether the property was subject to
rental income.  Since Rule 16 is not satisfied, he says he needs
not analyze Rule 15's more liberal standard for amendment.

The Defendants seek sanctions in the form of attorney's fees
under the Court's inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927
for the misrepresentations concerning Ms. Smith's residency at
the property made bythe Plaintiffs asserting the
misrepresentations were made in bad faith and were reckless.

While there may be been misrepresentations or inconsistencies
concerning when Ms. Smith lived at the property, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs plausibly argued that the home was Ms.
Smith's principal residence despite her stay at the nursing care
facility because she had intended to return to the property.  He
concludes that the Defendants have not demonstrated that the
representations were made in bad faith or recklessly to justify
attorney's fees.  Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' motion
for sanctions.

Despite ample notice of the standing issues and adequacy of the
Plaintiffs as class representatives dating back to May of 2017,
and despite the presentation of arguments suggesting the need for
modification well before the Jan. 18, 2018 deadline, Judge Curiel
holds that the Plaintiffs were dilatory in filing the current
Motion to Withdraw.  Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/842OBv from Leagle.com.

Zarah Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Seher Basak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sarah Sakinah Groza O'Loughlin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
Geoffrey Bestor -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Jonathan K. Tycko -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- pro hac
vice & Katherine Marie Aizpuru -- kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Andrew Paino -- bpaino@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford &
Dhruv Mohan Sharma -- dsharma@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford.


AIR EVAC EMS: Underpays Flight Paramedics, Riegelsberger Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB RIEGELSBERGER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC.;, and GLOBAL
MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. f/k/a AIR MEDICAL GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Riegelsberger was employed by the Defendant as a flight
paramedic.

Global Medical Response, Inc. f/k/a Air Medical Group Holdings,
Inc. is a Missouri corporation with headquarters in O'Fallon,
Missouri. The Company is engaged in operating a helicopter
medical service in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 Saint Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Tel: (314) 522-2312
          Fax: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 522-9000
          Fax: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
                  jack@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brooke, NY 10573
          Tel: (914) 934-9200
          Fax: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com


AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on June 13 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Akers Biosciences, Inc.
("Akers" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AKER) between May 15, 2017
and June 5, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover Akers shareholders' investment losses.

To join the Akers class action, and/or if you have information
relating to this matter, please visit our AKERS SHAREHOLDER PAGE
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017; (2) Akers had downplayed weaknesses
in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to
disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Akers' business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

On May 21, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Akers revealed that
its ongoing review of the characterization of certain revenue
recognition items for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 "now
includes certain transactions in previous quarters."  As a
result, Akers stated that "the Company is unable to file its 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2018."  On this news, Akers'
stock fell $0.058 per share, or over 8%, from its previous
closing price to close at $0.599 per share on May 22, 2018.

On May 29, 2018, Akers revealed "that Raymond F. Akers Jr., Ph.D
has resigned as a director of the Company with immediate effect."
On this news, Akers' stock fell $0.263 per share, or over 44%,
over two consecutive trading days to close at $0.326 per share on
May 30, 2018.

Then, on June 1, 2018, Akers filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
attaching a letter from Raymond Akers to the Company.  In the
letter, Mr. Akers stated that "I have resigned from the Board of
Directors due to significant differences regarding the policies
and practices of the Board of Directors, accounting and business
practices of Management, and new Counsel.  I believe this to be
in the best interests of the Company, shareholders, and me."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 13, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- http://www.bernlieb.com--
has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients.  In addition to
representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by
some of the largest public and private pension funds in the
country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their
behalf. [GN]


ALERE INC: Ct. Won't Review "Andren" Class Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DINA ANDREN, SIDNEY BLUDMAN, VIRGINIA CIOFFI,
BERNARD FALK, JEANETTE KERZNER-GREEN, CAROL MONTALBANO, and
DONALD RIGOT, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated., Plaintiff, v. ALERE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, ALERE HOME MONITORING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, ALERE SAN DIEGO, INCA., a Delaware corporation.,
Defendant, Case No. 16cv1255-GPC(AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo
P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of
the Court's order denying class certification filed on December
2017.

The original complaint was filed on May 26, 2016.  After the
Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to
amend, on Oct. 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the operative
purported first amended class action complaint ("FAC") against
the Defendants for unlawfully, deceptively and misleadingly
engaging in the advertising, marketing and sale of the INRatio
products which include "INRatio PT/INR Monitors," "INRatio PT/INR
Test Strips," "INRatio2 PT/INR Monitors" and "INRatio2 PT/INR
Test Strips."

The FAC alleges sixteen causes of action for violations of (1)
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, ("CLRA"); (2)
California's Unfair Competition Law, ("UCL"); (3) fraud; (4)
unjust enrichment; (5) Colorado Consumer Protection Act; (6)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (7) Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (8) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability,; (9) Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act; (10) Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act; (11) Maryland Consumer Protection Act; (12) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability under Md. Code Com. Law
Section 2-314; (13) New York General Business Law; (14) New York
General Business Law; (15) Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law; and (16) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 21,
2017.  After the motion was fully briefed, including a sur-reply,
the Court held a hearing on Sept. 22, 2017 and then ordered
supplemental briefing on the issue of claim splitting.  The
parties filed supplemental briefing on Oct. 13, 2017 and Oct. 20,
2017.  On Dec. 20, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On Jan. 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the class certification order.  The Defendants
filed an opposition on March 16, 2018 and the Plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 30, 2018.  With leave of Court, the
Defendants filed a sur-reply on April 18, 2018.

In the FAC, the Plaintiffs seek to certify six sub-classes States
represented by them: a Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New
York and Pennsylvania Sub-Class to include, all residents of each
Plaintiffs' respective home State, who, during the period Jan. 1,
2009 through the present, purchased, rented or otherwise paid for
the use of the INRatio products manufactured, marketed, sold or
distributed by the Defendants.  They argue that newly discovered
facts not available at the time of class certification
demonstrate that predominance has been satisfied as to the
individual state sub-classes on the learned intermediary
doctrine, statute of limitations and damages.

Judge Curiel concludes that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied
their burden to affirmatively demonstrate predominance as to the
learned intermediary doctrine.  He will deny the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration on this issue.

The Plaintiffs summarily conclude that because there are cases
that have held that the full-refund damages model satisfies
Comcast under certain of their states' consumer protection law,
then Comcast is necessarily met.  However, Comcast demands a
rigorous analysis and is not satisfied by merely arguing that
courts in some of the six states allow for a full refund model.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to specifically
demonstrate that each of the six sub-class states' consumer
protection statute and claims for implied breach of warranty in
four sub-class states are connected to their theory of damages or
that these state law causes of action damages provide for a full
refund recovery.  Thus, he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on the issue of Comcast damages.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not carried
their burden to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that the
questions of law or fact common to the numbers of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual member
on the learned intermediary doctrine, Comcast damages and the
statute of limitations.

For these reasons, Judge Curiel denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order denying class certification.  He
vacated the hearing set for April 27, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qdQPDn from Leagle.com.

Dina Andren, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated & Sidney Bludman, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P. Pifko, Baron & Budd,
Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com --  Baron Budd P.C.,
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com --  Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com
--  Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Peter B. Klausner --
peter.klausner.esq@gmail.com -- Baron & Budd, PC.

Virginia Cioffi, Bernard Falk, Jeanette Kerzner-Green, Carol
Montalbano & Donald Rigot, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P.
Pifko, Baron & Budd, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

Alere Inc., a Delaware corporation & Alere San Diego, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Andrew A. Kassof
-- andrew.kassof@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Anthony John Anscombe -- anthony.anscombe@sdma.com --
Sedgwick LLP, Darlene K. Alt, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis
Francis Murphy -- dennis.murphy@squirepb.com --  Sedgwick LLP,
Mary E. Buckley, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice & Stephanie Sheridan,
Sedgwick Detert Moran and Arnold.

Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew A. Kassof, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Brenton Adam Rogers, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Dennis Francis Murphy, Sedgwick LLP, Ragan Naresh, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Sierra Elizabeth, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP.


ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Likely to Revive Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Ninth Circuit judge indicated on June 13 that he supported
reviving a proposed class action accusing federal and Arizona
state agencies of racial discrimination against American Indian
children and their non-American Indian adoptive parents.

Circuit Judge John Owens said that an allegation by the
plaintiffs -- four minor children and their adoptive parents --
that they were emotionally and psychologically harmed by a
provision in the Indian Child Welfare Act requiring American
Indian children in foster care visit and be placed with American
Indian parents was their strongest for showing injury and
standing to sue.

A finding of standing by the Ninth Circuit would send the case
back to U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in Phoenix, who dismissed
it for lack of standing because the plaintiffs hadn't alleged
"concrete and particularized" injury stemming from the statute's
disputed provisions.

"When they say they were injured by having to go through this
process, you can imagine that process is itself the injury --
regardless of the result -- they were injured on the day they had
to have their kids go to someone else and told they're not their
dad."  Judge Owens told the government's attorneys in the June 13
hearing.  "Tell me why that's not enough."

The plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
Arizona Department of Child Safety for nominal damages from the
state and a court order tossing five provisions of the Indian
Child Welfare Act.

They claim the provisions amount to "unconstitutional
discrimination based on the race, color, or national origin of
the children, parents, and class members" because they
established rules for American Indian child welfare cases, foster
care and adoption proceedings that are "separate and substandard"
to state rules for non-American Indian children.

Some of the disputed provisions, for example, mandate that
American Indian children be placed with foster or adoptive
parents who are also American Indian.  By contrast, state law
does not require race-matched placements for non-American Indian
children.

The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the children's
eventual adoptions by their non-American Indian foster parents
were delayed due to the racial requirements imposed by the
statute.

Aditya Dynar, the plaintiffs' attorney, added during oral
argument that one of the children, identified only as C.C., was
forced to visit dozens of prospective parents and "cried
uncontrollably at every single one of those visits."

Mr. Dynar said state and tribal officials present at the visits
"told him [C.C.] that his mom and dad are not his mom and dad.
For a 2, 3, 4-year-old child, that's a traumatic injury and
that's the injury we have claimed in this case."

The Indian Child Welfare Act sets minimum standards in state
child-welfare proceedings for the foster care and adoptive
placement of American Indian children.

Congress passed the statute in 1978 after finding that nearly
one-third of all American Indian children had been removed from
their family homes by nontribal public and private agencies,
according to the plaintiffs' appeals brief.

The House Report on the statute noted that state social workers
often removed American Indian children from their homes based on
vague allegations, and that the social workers "frequently
discover neglect or abandonment where none exists."

Visiting Senior Tenth Circuit Judge David Ebel countered
Mr. Dynar's argument that all four of the children were harmed
emotionally, pointing out that two were infants when they were
taken to visit prospective placements and were not "in a position
to allege that trauma."

Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder, however, said the plaintiffs
needn't show actual harm because the allegations are based on
racial discrimination.

Mr. Dynar, who practices with the Scharf-Norton Center for
Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix,
agreed.  But he insisted the allegations were specific enough to
confer standing.

"The denial of equal treatment, visitations with strangers,
emotional and psychological harm; at this point, there isn't
anything else needed in the complaint in terms of concreteness
and particularization," he said.

Justice Department attorney Christine Ennis insisted the case was
moot because the children had all been all adopted by their
foster parents since Judge Wake dismissed the case.

But the panel wasn't persuaded, predicting that vacating Judge
Wake's ruling by finding mootness would result in another
lawsuit.  The judges asked Ms. Ennis to instead focus on the
standing argument in regards to visitations.

Ms. Ennis said the plaintiffs weren't injured because no
placements resulted from the visits, an argument rejected by
Owens.

"Here they're alleging, 'we never would've made this visit, we
never would've done any of this, but this act required us to make
this visit.' Why isn't that an injury," he said.

The panel, however, gave little indication how it will rule on
the question of nominal damages. A ruling against the plaintiffs
would end the case.

Arizona Solicitor General Dominic Draye, who represents the
state, said the visitation-based injuries weren't nominal
injuries but actual ones, which hadn't been pleaded.

"When the only injury asserted is of this specific kind, that we
were exposed to a classification," Mr. Draye said, referring to
the allegation of racism, "injunctive relief can keep a case
alive.  But when it's damages, when it's retroactive relief like
nominal damages and declarative relief, that's insufficient under
this court's precedent." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Funding Secured for PFAS Suit Against Defense Dept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McLennan, writing for Katherine Times, reports that crucial
funding has been secured for the hundreds of Katherine people who
have already signed up to sue the Department of Defence.

Shine Lawyers has won the backing of litigation funder IMF
Bentham Limited to fund the planned no win-no fee class action
over lost property values from PFAS contamination of the town.

PFAS chemicals were used in firefighting foams once used at the
Tindal RAAF Base and which are still leaking into the groundwater
and underneath Katherine, into the river.

The proposed class action has become now unconditional, a
critical step in the proposed court action.

Enough people have signed up with valid claims against Defence,
the litigation funder has decided.

"IMF has confirmed that the condition precedent to the agreement,
requiring sufficient claimants with valid claims entering into
funding agreements with IMF, has been satisfied," Shine Lawyers
said on June 14.

IMF is also backing Oakey residents in Queensland who have
launched their own class action against Defence over PFAS
contamination.

The law firm, Dentons Lawyers, is mounting the class action at
Williamtown in NSW, again backed by IMF.

A trial date of late 2019 has been set down for class actions
involving Williamtown and Oakey with a mediation session later
this year.

The proposed action in Katherine will be conducted on behalf of
property and business owners affected by contamination alleged to
have arisen from the use of aqueous film forming foam at RAAF
Base Tindal.

"This will enable us to progress our investigation. We are
working with counsel and a team of experts to finalise
proceedings, with a view to filing the action as soon as
possible," Shine Lawyers special counsel Josh Aylward said.

"The financial backing of an international funder, IMF, bolsters
our case and confidence in the outcome for Katherine residents,"
he said.

"This agreement enables us to carry a case of this scale through
the courts, and empowers us to deliver justice to residents as
soon as is practicable."

"This action will ensure that Katherine residents whose property
values and businesses have been directly impacted by this
contamination can access justice and seek to hold Defence to
account for the significant harm inflicted on them and their
community."

Residents can still join the action by contacting the IMF Client
Liaison Team by email on 403619@imf.com.au or by calling 1800 016
464 (Tollfree). [GN]


AUSTRALIA: NSW Police Faces Lawsuit Over Sniffer Drug Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bruce-Smith, writing for ten daily, reports that a potential
class action lawsuit is brewing amongst people denied entry to
music festivals after a sniffer dog "indication", despite not
carrying any drugs.

At least five people were denied entry to the Above and Beyond
event in Sydney, with one person being given a six month
suspension.

NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge says that Sniff Off -- the
anti-drug dog campaign collaboration between his office and the
Young Greens NSW -- is now pursuing a potential class action
lawsuit against NSW Police.

"We're gathering people together and seeing if there's a viable
class action, or a series of individual claims made against the
police," he told ABC Radio on June 12.

"I doubt we'll get parliament to clarify the laws around sniffer
dogs, so it looks like we're going to go down the court path."

It follows his comments that the Police's new approach was an
"overreach" and a "clear abuse of police powers".

A drug dog "indication" generally means the dog sits down next to
you but Sniff Off claims that anecdotally, this doesn't usually
happen in the majority of cases, with a police officer simply
making the decision to search you instead. Dogs give a false
positive anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the time.

NSW Police wouldn't clarify what a drug dog indication means.

The man who received a six-month suspension from Sydney Olympic
Park was strip-searched, said Mr. Shoebridge.

"He was quite unhappy about being strip-searched, quite unhappy
about being kicked out," said Mr. Shoebridge.  "He let police
know he was unhappy about that, so they threw in the additional
punishment."

All five people refused entry, despite not being found to carry
drugs, were given a ticket refund, police confirmed to ten daily.

Two men were charged with supplying a prohibited drug after more
than 100 MDMA capsules were seized, with one facing court on
June 10.

A further four people were issued with future court attendance
noticed for drug possession.

As well as the five people denied entry to Above and Beyond,
Sniff Off are also talking to people reportedly denied entry to
Sydney's Midnight Mafia event in May for the same reason.

At least seven people are needed for a class action lawsuit.

It comes after an injunction failed to get off the ground at the
Supreme Court on June 8, with Justice Pembroke describing the bid
as "misconceived".

"We had very strong advice from lawyers suggesting it was
unlawful, but the court at that point said they weren't going to
grant release because it was a hypothetical," said
Mr. Shoebridge.

Critics of the controversial plan to rely on sniffer dogs even
found a supporter in former Australian Border Force chief Roman
Quaedvlieg.

"I spent 32 years in drug enforcement, from seizing street deals
to detecting multi-tonne imports of pure meth, but I find this
step extraordinary," he tweeted.

When contacted for comment, NSW Police declined to comment
further on the circumstances surrounding the five people denied
entry. [GN]


BAKER CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ontiveros" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ONTIVEROS, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18CV328679 (Cal. Super., May 21, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Ontiveros was employed by the Defendants from July 2016 to
January 2018 as a non-exempt employee.

Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., a concrete construction
contractor, provides a range of concrete construction and related
management services to residential, industrial, and commercial
markets. The company was founded in 1961. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


BANCO SANTANDER: Rigged Mexican Bond Sales, VI Employees Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
with one another to manipulate key financial rates, metrics and
instruments related to the trading of Mexican government bonds to
benefit themselves and to the detriment of their clients,
including the Plaintiff.  According to the complaint, the market
makers in a specific market quote both a buy and a sell price in
a financial instrument or commodity held in inventory, hoping to
make a profit on the bid-offer spread ("Market Makers").

The complaint contends that the Defendants -- designated Market
Makers in government bonds issues by the Federal Government of
Mexico ("MGB") -- subverted competition in the market for MGBs.
Rather than provide a robust competitive market, the Defendants
engaged in a longstanding scheme to fix or rig the bid-ask spread
for primary and secondary MGB offerings.

The Defendants carried out this scheme by exchanging
competitively sensitive information, such as their order flow and
prices at which they intended to purchase or sell MGB, and by
coordinating their buying and selling activity in MGBs. Such
actions violated the rules of the sale process, pursuant to which
bids were to be submitted blind. As a result of the Defendants'
actions, the Plaintiff and other purchasers of MGBs have been
harmed by purchasing into a market where prices and yields are
set not by the intersection of supply and demand, but by secret
agreements between Defendants to fix or set the prices at which
MGBs are sold and the yields that they offer.

Banco Santander, S.A., together with its subsidiaries, provides
various retail and commercial banking products and services for
individual and corporate clients worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A. and
changed its name to Banco Santander, S.A. in June 2007. Banco
Santander, S.A. was founded in 1856 and is headquartered in
Madrid, Spain.

The case is captioned, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Plaintiff v. BANCO SANTANDER S.A., SANTANDER
INVESTMENT SECURITIES, INC., SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC., BANCO
SANTANDER (MEXICO) S.A. INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, GRUPO
FINANCIERO, SANTANDER INVESTMENT BOLSA, SOCIEDAD DE VALORES,
S.A.U., BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, S.A., BBVA SECURITIES,
INC., BBVA COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC., BBVA BANCOMER S.A.,
INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO BBVA BANCOMER,
GRUPO FINANCIERO BBVA BANCOMER, S.A. DE C.V., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN BROKER-DEALER HOLDINGS INC., BANCO
J.P. MORGAN, S.A. INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, J.P. MORGAN
GRUPO FINANCIERO, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., HSBC MARKETS (USA) INC., HSBC MEXICO,
S.A., INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO HSBC, HSBC
NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., HSBC LATIN AMERICA HOLDINGS (UK)
LIMITED, BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL
INC., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, GRUPO FINANCIERO BARCLAYS MEXICO, S.A.
DE C.V., BARCLAYS BANK MEXICO, S.A., CITIGROUP INC., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CITIGROUP FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS INC., BANCO NACIONAL DE MEXICO, S.A.,
INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO BANAMEX, BANK OF
AMERICA N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANKAMERICA
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA MEXICO,
S.A., INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO BANK OF
AMERICA, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
MEXICO, S.A. INSTITUCION DE BANCA MULTIPLE, CREDIT SUISSE AG,
CREDIT SUISSE (USA) INC., CREDIT SUISSE AG, NEW YORK BRANCH,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GRUPO FINANCIERO CREDIT
SUISSE (MEXICO), S.A. DE C.V., BANCO DE CREDIT SUISSE (MEXICO),
CASA DE BOLSA CREDIT SUISSE (MEXICO), S.A. DE C.V., CREDIT SUISSE
SERVICIOS (MEXICO) S.A. DE C.V., and "JOHN DOES" 1-10 Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04673 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018)[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
          William J. Ban, Esq.
          Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          11 Times Square, 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 688-0782

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600

               - and -

          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600

               - and -

          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600


BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tripes" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Traci Tripes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of America, N.A., and Does 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. RG18904755 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
May 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Tripes was employed by the Defendants as a mortgage
loan associate from April 2014 to March 2018.

Bank of America National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and
investment services for the public. Bank of America serves
individual and institutional customers throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          Wood Island
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G
          Lakspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900


BANK OF AMERICA: Greensfelder Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather M. Mehta, Esq. -- hmm@greensfelder.com -- of Greensfelder
Hemker & Gale PC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in an
unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit found a lower court did not err when awarding no relief
for a breach of fiduciary duty. (Pender v. Bank of America Corp.,
No. 17-1485, June 5, 2018.) Although Bank of America violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the
court found that it did not profit from its actions and,
therefore, awarding damages would not be appropriate equitable
relief.

The case stems from a 1998 decision to offer 401(k) participants
the option of moving their account balances into its cash balance
defined benefit plan to be commingled with that fund.  Bank of
America believed it could obtain a higher return for participants
than they could on their own.  As part of the offer, Bank of
America guaranteed that the participants' balances would not fall
below the amount they were at the time of transfer.  Participants
and beneficiaries transferred $2 billion as a result of the
offer.

In 2005, the IRS concluded that the transfer violated ERISA's
anti-cutback provision because the assets no longer had their
"separate account feature."  Three years later, Bank of America
paid the IRS a $10 million penalty, set up a special purpose
401(k) plan to receive the transferred accounts, and made
additional payments to certain participants' accounts.

Simultaneously, participants filed a class action lawsuit,
alleging a variety of equitable and statutory claims.  All of the
plaintiffs' other claims were dismissed or not part of the
appeal.

Plaintiffs argued to the lower court and on appeal that because
their money was improperly commingled with other money, they
should receive a proportionate share of the whole of the profits
Bank of America made on the combined assets.  Bank of America
argued that relief was inappropriate because it did not profit.
Bank of America closely tracked participants' notational accounts
and used a different investment strategy for their accounts than
it did for the pension assets.  Although the pension assets
performed well, the participants' investments underperformed.

Both courts rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the district
court was required to reward proportionate-share-of-the-whole
relief. ERISA requires equitable relief to be "appropriate" and
thus does not mandate a remedy.  The Fourth Circuit also found
that the district court did not clearly err when accepting
factual evidence that Bank of America did not profit.

After 13 years of litigation and three trips to the Fourth
Circuit, the plaintiffs were left empty-handed despite the IRS
and district courts finding that Bank of America violated ERISA.
By choosing to file an unpublished opinion and stressing that the
opinion only applied to the facts of this case, the Fourth
Circuit signaled that it did not necessarily agree with the lower
court but was constrained by its standard of review.  Judge
Keenan, who dissented, did not feel so constrained and stated
that the lower court abused its discretion.  She agreed that the
lower court was not mandated to award a proportionate share of
Bank of American's profits but disagreed with the opinion that
Bank of America did not profit.  She found that awarding a share
of the profits would have been appropriate. [GN]


BEST BUY CO: Faces "Lavera" Suit in Hennepin County
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BestBuy.Com, LLC.
The case is captioned as Dawn Lavera, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BestBuy.Com, LLC;
Best Buy Co., Inc.; Best Buy Stores, L.P.; and, Defendants, Case
No. 27-CV-18-8432 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin County, May 15, 2018).

BestBuy.com, LLC owns and operates Best Buy web-site BestBuy.com
which operates as a specialty retailer of consumer electronics,
home office products, entertainment software, appliances, and
related services. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in Richfield, Minnesota. BestBuy.com, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Best Buy Stores, L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Michael Cialkowski, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-341-0400
     Fax: 612-341-0844
     Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com


BEST DOCTORS INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, Kenneth Thomas MD Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, Plaintiff v. BEST DOCTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10957 (D. Mass., May 14, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unauthorized fax-based marketing
activities, as well as an award of actual and statutory damages,
along with costs.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant sent faxes to Plaintiff
and the Class despite having no established business relationship
with them; never receiving the recipients' consent to send them
such faxes; and that none of the faxes sent contained requisite
opt-out notices.

Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC is a Connecticut limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Stratford,
Connecticut.

Best Doctors is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Campbell, Esq.
          250 First Avenue, Unit 602
          Charlestown, MA 02129
          Telephone: (617) 872-8652
          E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com

               - and -

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


BEVERLY HEALTH: $450K Settlement in "Ahmed" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case HENNA AHMED, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.; GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No.
2:16-1747 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for final approval of the class
action settlement, and unopposed Motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and class representative service payment.

Ahmed brought the putative class-action lawsuit against the
Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code.
Presently before the Court are the Plaintiff's unopposed motions
for final approval of the class action settlement, and for
attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service payment.

The parties agreed that Atticus Administration, LLC would serve
as the claims administrator.

The gross settlement amount in the case is $450,000.  The parties
have agreed to distribute the amount as follows: (1) the class
counsel will receive a fee of $150,000, equal to one third of the
gross settlement amount; (2) the Plaintiff will receive an
incentive reward of $4,500; (3) $4,500 will go to pay any civil
penalties that could be awarded and of that amount $3,375 will be
paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in
satisfaction of the Defendants' alleged penalties under the Labor
Code Private Attorney General's Act; (4) $12,500 will go towards
litigation costs; (5) $16,000 will be paid to Atticus
Administration; and (6) the remaining amount, $263,625, will be
distributed to the settlement class based on the number of wage
statements issued to each class member.  Additionally, separate
and apart from the claims made on a class and representative
basis, the Plaintiff asserted individual claims for alleged
violations of the FEHA, and she has agreed to settle those claims
in exchange for $15,000.

Each of the 1,446 participating class members will receive an
average individual settlement payment of $182.31.  In addition,
as a result of the efforts of the class counsel, the Defendants
have twice reviewed and amended their policies and procedures
associated with the furnishing and maintenance of wage statements
so as to ensure compliance with Labor Code sections 226(a)(6),
226(a)(8) and 204.

In light of the risks and expense of further litigation in the
matter, Judge Shubb granted final certification of the settlement
class and approved the settlement set forth in the settlement
agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.  He granted the
Plaintiff's Motions for final certification, final approval of
class action settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
award.

Solely for the purpose of the settlement, and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge certified the class of all
current and former California employees of Beverly Health who
were issued one or more wage statements from July 25, 2015,
through Sept. 1, 2016.

The Judge appointed named Plaintiff Ahmed as the class
representative; and Robert J. Wasserman, William J. Gorham III,
Nicholas J. Scardigli, and Vladimir J. Kozina of the firm of
Mayall Hurley P.C. as the class counsel.  The Plaintiff's counsel
is entitled to fees in the amount of $150,000, and litigation
costs in the amount of $12,186.47.  Atticus Administration is
entitled to administration costs in the amount of $16,000.
$3,375 from the gross settlement amount will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in satisfaction
of the Defendants' alleged penalties under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act.  The remaining settlement funds will be
paid to participating class members in accordance with the terms
of the settlement agreement.

The Judge dismissed the action with prejudice.  The clerk is
instructed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Vp30CW from Leagle.com.

Henna Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C..

Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., a California
Corporation & GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Adriana Cara --
adriana.cara@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Andrew B.
Millar -- drew.millar@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Grace Wilson --
jessica.wilson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan
Jackson -- susan.jackson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
pro hac vice.


BIOGEN INC: Metzler Asset Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Metzler Asset Management GmbH and Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v. Kingsley, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12101-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is
a putative class action involving alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
against Biogen, Inc., and two Biogen employees.  The complaint
contends that class members were harmed when they purchased
Biogen securities at prices that were artificially inflated by
the company's false and misleading statements about its products.

The action raises issues similar to those raised in In re Biogen
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-13189 (D. Mass.).

The appellate case is captioned as Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v.
Kingsley, et al., Case No. 18-1369, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated parties, and
ERSTE-SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH are represented
by:

          Garrett James Bradley, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          100 Summer St., 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: gbradley@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com

               - and -

          Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9512
          E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com
                  cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          20 Church St., 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees STUART A. KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL
J. CLANCY and BIOGEN, INC., are represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Michael S. Hines, Esq.
          Sara J. van Vliet, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
                  michael.hines@skadden.com
                  sara.vanvliet@skadden.com

Interested Party CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE
OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST is represented by:

          Theodore Michael Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN LLP
          110 Cedar St., Suite 250
          Wellesely Hills, MA 02481-0000
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Interested Parties FRANKFURT-TRUST INVESTMENT GMBH and FRANKFURT-
TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG are represented by:

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: gbuell@labaton.com
                  jgardner@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

               - and -

          Joshua Louis Solomon, Esq.
          POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
          101 Huntington Ave., Suite 530
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (617) 439-9800
          E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com


BJ'S ON THE WATER: Doesn't Pay OT to Server, "Kusel" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judith H. Kusel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJ's On The Water, Inc.; Madlyn
M. Carder and William R. Carder, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01413-GLR (D. Md., May 15, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal, and rest periods.

Kusel was employed by the Defendants as server from October 5,
2017, to March 23, 2018.

BJ's On The Water, Inc. is a Maryland corporation, owning and
operating a restaurant and bar in Ocean City, Marylan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 251-3752
          Facsimile: (301) 251-3753


BOCAS HOUSE: Removes "Alvarado" Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case captioned as, DOUGLAS J. ALVARADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOCAS HOUSE CORAL GABLES, LLC; and MAURICIO
MONTOVANI, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida on May 30, 2018.  The lawsuit is now assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-22142-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra Sierra-De Varona, Esq.
          DE VARONA LAW
          350 Camino Gardens Blvd., Suite 107
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 600-9070
          Facsimile: (561) 600-9077
          E-mail: asd@devaronalaw.com


BOLLA OPERATING: Benitez Seeks Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Hernandez Benitez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolla Operating Li Corp. and
Bolla Operating Corp., Defendants, Case No. 605760/2018 (N.Y.
Sup., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid spread-of-hours pay
and other damages pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Defendants own and operate over 45 locations in the State of New
York under "Bolla Market." It prepares and serves meals and
beverages for its customers. Plaintiffs prepare, package,
transport, stock and accept payment for these. They regularly
work shifts with a "spread" of over 10 hours without being paid
additional hour of pay at the basic minimum wage -- as required
by the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100


BUCKEYE INC: Doesn't Pay OT to Fluid Technicians, Bernstein Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BERNSTEIN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUCKEYE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 7:18-cv-00097 (W.D. Tex., May 30, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Bernstein Jr. was employed by the Defendant as fluid
technician on May 25, 2015.

Buckeye, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75701
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


BUFFALO, NY: Court Dismisses Amended "Burgin"
---------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES BURGIN, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA C. BROWN,
BARBARA SEALS-NEVERGOLD, DONALD A. OLGOVIE, THERESA HARRIS-TIGG,
CARL PALADINO, JAMES M. SAMPSON, CHARLES BRANDY, WILL KERESZTES,
PATRICIA PIERCE, LAWRENCE QUINN, BUFFALO BOARD OF EDUCATION, and
L. NATHAN HARE, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-201S (W.D. N.Y.),
Judge William  M. Skretny of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Burgin's amended complaint, and afforded Burgin 45 days
to file a second amended complaint.

Burgin is the founder of Brotherman's Progress Mentors Matter
Advocacy, a group dedicated to advocating for minority male
students in the Buffalo, New York, public school system.  In 2013
and 2014, Burgin worked to have the Buffalo Board of Education
adopt a mentoring program called "5000 Role Models of Excellence
Project" in the Buffalo public schools.  The program is a life-
skills mentoring program designed for minority males (Black and
Hispanic) created by Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson.

On June 12, 2013, Buffalo Board of Education members Ralph
Hernandez and Lou Petrucci sponsored a resolution calling on the
superintendent to conduct an impact assessment of the program as
the first step toward implementation.  The Board of Education
passed the resolution and directed that a cost-analysis study and
development of a business plan be completed as the next steps.
Staff members of the Board of Education, including Defendant
Charles Brandy, were tasked with conducting the cost-analysis
study; Burgin was tasked with developing the business plan.

According to a Nov. 12, 2013 Committee memorandum concerning
implementation of the program sent by Brandy to Defendant Will
Keresztes, Associate Superintendent of Educational Services, the
Committee convened five times in September and October 2013 to
determine the feasibility of implementing the program.  Brandy
explained to Keresztes that Burgin had provided the Committee
with multiple letters of support from area leaders and other
materials related to the program.  Brandy also relayed that the
Committee explored piloting the program in one elementary school
and one secondary school, with a focus on 10 of the 25 components
of the program.

Brandy further advised Keresztes that the Committee determined
that the pilot program would take place during the third marking
period of the 2013-2014 school year, upon completion of a four-
component action plan.  The first component of the action plan
tasked Burgin with contacting the director of the program to
discuss the program's components and ask specific questions
developed by the Committee.  Brandy informed Keresztes, however,
that Burgin had failed to participate in the final Committee
meeting and had "ceased all communication."  Brandy therefore
advised Keresztes that the program is not recommended for
implementation in the Buffalo Public Schools in a limited or full
capacity at the time.  Specifics of the program's core components
remain unknown.

Burgin alleges that the contents of Brandy's memorandum are false
and that he did not cease communication or fail to provide
information.  After the issuance of this memorandum, Burgin met
with Defendant Superintendent Pamela Brown on Dec. 4, 2013, to
explain the inaccuracies in Brandy's memorandum and to provide
further information, but Brown refused to accept Burgin's written
materials and dismissed his efforts to bring Rep. Wilson to
Buffalo to help implement the program.

Burgin claims that Brandy prepared the false memorandum in
conjunction with Defendant L. Nathan Hare and presented it to
Brown through Keresztes so that Hare's organization, Erie County
Community Action Organization, could contract with the Buffalo
Public Schools to provide a different mentoring program.  He
further claims that Hare conspired to stop the cost-analysis
study ordered by the Board of Education as part of a "fraud" by
Hare, Brandy, Keresztes, Brown, and other defendants designed to
undermine Burgin's and the Committee's chances of implementing
the program.  By doing so, the Defendants acted to deny the Black
plaintiff and minority parents of at-risk male students attending
Buffalo Public Schools their rights to establish a proven mentor
program for Black and Hispanic at-risk male students that help
them stay in school, graduate and attend college.

Dissatisfied with Defendant Brown and the Defendants continued
failure to adopt the program, Burgin appeared at an April 9, 2014
Board of Education meeting to further voice his complaints.

After the Board of Education ultimately declined to adopt the
program, Burgin sued pro se on behalf of himself and at-risk
minority male students and their parents, alleging a number of
federal and state claims.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Burgin's amended complaint under
Rules 12 (b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing) and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Skretny finds that while it is clear from the amended
complaint that Burgin is exceedingly displeased with Brandy's
Nov. 12, 2013 memorandum and the manner in which the Committee
and the Board of Education operated as it relates to
consideration of the program, on the facts as pleaded, Burgin
suffered no legally cognizable injury in the course of the
Committee's work or by the Board of Education's failure to adopt
the program.  Moreover, nowhere in the amended complaint does
Burgin plead a close relation to any third party nor does he
allege any hindrance that would prevent any one of the at-risk
male students or their parents from protecting their own
interests.  Burgin therefore lacks standing to assert
representative claims.

Burgin seeks to maintain the suit as a class action, with the
class to include minority parents of minority males attending
Buffalo Public Schools whose educational prospects for graduation
would be enhanced by participating in 5,000 Role Models of
Excellence Project Buffalo Chapter.  It is well settled, however,
that pro se litigants cannot act as representatives of a class.
The case is therefore properly considered as an individual action
only.

Moreover, nowhere in the amended complaint does Burgin plead that
he was excluded from participating in or subjected to race
discrimination in a federally-funded program.  And nowhere does
Burgin plead that he was discriminated against because of his
race, or that such discrimination was intentional, or that
Defendants' actions were motivated by unlawful discrimination.
Instead, the Judge finds, Burgin appears to assert federal claim
on behalf of the at-risk minority youth for whom the program was
intended, which, as noted above, he lacks standing to do.  Burgin
therefore fails to state a claim under Section 2000.

Burgin's remaining claims, to the extent they are cognizable,
require interpretation of state law alone, and are thus more
appropriately determined in state court in the interests of
comity and efficiency.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burgin's state law
claims.  They are instead dismissed without prejudice under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367 (c)(3).

Finally, although it seems unlikely that Burgin could state
Fourteenth Amendment or Section 2000d claims, he may be able to
state a valid First Amendment claim, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the April 9, 2014 school board meeting.
Accordingly, the Judge will dismiss Burgin's amended complaint,
but grant him 45 days in which to file and serve a second amended
complaint that complies with the requirements of Rule 15.

For these reasons, Judge Skretney granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, and granted the Plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint within 45 days of the entry date of the
Decision and Order.  The Plaintiff's failure to file an Amended
Complaint within 45 days of the entry date of the Decision and
Order will result in the Plaintiff's case being dismissed and
closed without further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gwsidI from Leagle.com.

Charles Burgin, Plaintiff, pro se.

Pamela C. Brown, Barbara Seals-Nevergold, Donald A. Olgovie,
Theresa Harris-Tigg, Carl Paladino, James M. Sampson, Charles
Brandy, Will Keresztes, Patricia Pierce & Lawrence Quinn,
Defendants, represented by Edward Allen Betz, Buffalo Schools,
Office of Legal Counsel & Kevin M. Kearney --
kkearney@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ LLP.

Buffalo Board of Education, Defendant, represented by Edward
Allen Betz, Buffalo Schools, Office of Legal Counsel.

L. Nathan Hare, Former Chairman and Executive Director of United
Black Men's think Tank of Buffalo, Defendant, represented by
Joseph S. Brown -- jsbrown@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ, LLP.


BUMBLE BEE: Settlement in "Rodriguez" Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. BUMBLE
BEE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17cv2447-MMA (WVG) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and granted in
part and denied in part the  Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Bumble
Bee, alleging violations of California's False Advertising Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and breach
of express and implied warranties.

Bumble Bee is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in San Diego, California.  The
Plaintiff is an individual residing in Chula Vista, California.
Bumble Bee manufactures and sells a product called "Premium
Select Medium Red Smoked Salmon Filets in Oil.

In September 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the Medium Red Smoked
Salmon Fillets from the Wal-Mart store located at 875 East H.
Street, Chula Vista, California.  He purchased this product
believing that it was high-quality, wild-caught, smoked Alaskan
salmon.  Instead of receiving high-quality, wild-caught, smoked
salmon, he received low-quality, farm-raised, colored, smoke-
flavored salmon.  He alleges that the packaging of the salmon
deceptively stated or suggested that the product was smoked,
wild-caught salmon, when it was actually farmed salmon to which
liquid smoke flavor had been added

The Plaintiff has "lost money" as a result of buying this product
because he did not receive what he paid for when purchasing the
Medium Red Smoked Salmon Fillets.  He seeks to represent a class
of all persons who purchased the Medium Red Smoked Salmon Fillets
from Nov. 6, 2013 to present, for their own personal, family, or
household use and not for resale.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on Dec. 6, 2017.  On Jan.
4, 2018, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation
with Magistrate Judge Gallo, where the parties resolved the
matter in its entirety.  Shortly thereafter, the parties entered
into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which is subject to
review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On Feb. 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.  Bumble Bee filed a notice
of non-opposition to the motion.  On March 1, 2018, the Court
entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant motions for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.  Bumble Bee filed a notice of non-opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
but filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Bumble Bee will begin
replacing the current product packaging with revised packaging
beginning in the second quarter of 2018.  It, however, is under
no obligation to recall existing product bearing the current
packaging, which inventory may be allowed to "sell through."

In the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that the
Plaintiff's counsel is limited to seeking an incentive award,
attorneys' fees, and costs not to exceed $85,000.  They further
agreed that Bumble Bee may not argue that any such award should
amount to less than $30,000.  The Plaintiff seeks a combined fee-
and-cost award of $80,000, in addition to a $5,000 incentive
award for the Plaintiff.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees in the amount
of $79,067, litigations costs in the amount of $933, and a $5,000
incentive award for Rodriguez.  As set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, Bumble Bee agrees not to argue that the Court should
award less than $30,000 in attorneys' fees, costs, and an
incentive payment.  As such, Bumble Bee opposes the Plaintiff's
request for fees totaling $80,000, and the Plaintiff's request
for an incentive award in the amount of $5,000.

With respect to the attorneys' fees, the Class Counsel seek
approval of the following hourly rates: $715 for Jack Fitzgerald,
Esq., $550 for Trevor Flynn, Esq., and $485 for Melanie
Persinger, Esq.  The Class Counsel further contend that they
expended 55.4 hours on the case.

Judge Anello granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, finding that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e).  He also finds
that the attorneys' fees in the amount of $34,801 to be
reasonable, and approved the attorneys' fees in that amount.

The Settlement Class covered by the Order is defined as all
persons who, between Dec. 6, 2013 and the date a judgment becomes
Final in the Action, purchased, for household use, and not for
resale or distribution purposes, Bumble Bee's Medium Red Smoked
Salmon.

Next, the Judge finds that the Class Counsel's out-of-pocket
costs were reasonably incurred in connection with the prosecution
of the litigation, were advanced by the Class Counsel for the
benefit of the class, and should be reimbursed in full in the
amount requested.  Accordingly, he approved the Class Counsel's
litigation costs in the amount of $933.

Finally, as to Class Representative Incentive Award, the Judge
finds that by way of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff has
agreed to waive any claims for damages.  Of particular
importance, however, is the short duration of the litigation.
Additionally, the Plaintiff does not submit a declaration
outlining any personal difficulties or the amount of time
expended on the litigation as the class representative.
Accordingly, he finds that a $1,500 incentive award is reasonable
and falls within the acceptable range awarded in similar cases.

Based on this, Judge Anello granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Award.  He dismissed the action with
prejudice.  The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter final
judgment in accordance with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HveJlc from Leagle.com.

Miguel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself, all other similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, Jack
Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Melanie Rae Persinger --
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald & Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com --
Hillcrest Professional Building.

Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick S.
Thompson -- PatrickThompson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.


BURGER MAKER: Doesn't Pay OT to Grind Supervisors, "Lopez" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURGER MAKER, INC., and SCHWEID AND SONS
SOUTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02127-MLB (N.D. Ga., May
14, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work,
liquidated damages, and declaratory relief.

Ms. Lopez was employed by the Defendants as grind supervisor from
January 2017 to July 2017 at the Defendants' production
plant/facility in College Park, Georgia.

Burger Maker, Inc. processes and supplies ground beef products to
the foodservice industry. It offers fresh and frozen bulk ground
beef and ground beef patties; and Angus ground chuck patties and
balls, beef for stews, and CAB ground chuck patties. Burger
Maker, Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Carlstadt, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Berlin, Esq.
          BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 781-1100
          Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
          E-mail: rberlin@buckleybeal.com

               - and -

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


CANADA: BSE Class Action Ongoing, Trial Expected by Next Fall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Cattlemen reports that the BSE class-action lawsuit
against the federal government launched on behalf of producers
that was moving toward a possible trial date last fall is still
moving through the courts.

Duncan Boswell, a senior partner with Gowling WLG in Toronto,
says an amended litigation plan was approved by the court on
April 30 and offers hope that a trial date can be set by next
fall.

The plan contains a timetable for final discoveries of the 6,700
new documents the government introduced last fall as the case
appeared headed for a trial date in late 2017.

"These new documents are on one specific issue so they are going
to produce a new person for that and we can't do that until this
fall.

"Our hope is that as soon as that discovery is done we
immediately put it down onto the trial list, then it depends how
quickly we can get a date."

The original class-action claims were filed in April 2005 in the
courts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec on behalf of
cattle producers who were residents in Canada on May 20, 2003,
alleging that negligence on the part of the federal government
and Ridley Inc. caused the BSE crisis in Canada and billions in
losses for cattle producers.

The class action was initially run co-operatively by lawyers in
the four provinces but the class action was certified first in
Quebec and Ontario and it was later agreed that suit would be
waged first in the Ontario court.  The lawsuit is seeking $8
billion in damages due to BSE from 2003 when the first case was
discovered to 2005 when the U.S. agreed to accept Canadian cattle
under 30 months of age.

The case focuses on the 198 head of cattle imported from the U.K.
and Ireland from 1982 to 1990, when Ottawa banned the importation
of live cattle from countries with BSE, and began monitoring
these cattle.

In 1993, after a cow imported in 1987 was diagnosed with BSE, the
government instituted a trace on all cattle imported from the
U.K. and Ireland.  Of the 198 head the suit alleges at least 80
had potentially been rendered and possibly turned into meat and
bone meal.  At least 10 of the 80 were from U.K. herds that had
animals diagnosed with BSE.

It was known that the prions that cause BSE could be transmitted
via feed, the lawsuit says, and the federal government was
negligent because it didn't prevent the imported cattle from
being used for feed ingredients.

Britain banned bovine meat and bone meal in ruminant feed in 1988
but Canada didn't apply its feed ban until 1997.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's summary report of the first
case of BSE in a Canadian cow concluded that the most likely
source of BSE would have been the consumption of feed made with
meat and bone meal contaminated with the BSE prion before the
U.S. and Canada implemented a feed ban in August 1997.

The class-action suit has been ongoing since April 2005 when
lawyers from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec filed
class-action claims on behalf of all Canadian cattle producers.
Boswell and another class-action specialist were brought in by
Ontario lawyer Cameron Pallett to manage the lawsuit for the
original Ontario plaintiff who has since passed away. The new
plaintiff for the class is the ranch named in the original
Alberta case.

Feed maker Ridley Inc. settled in 2008 and agreed to pay $6
million to a trust fund, which has been used to fund the case
against the federal government.  Ridley was sued for having
manufactured infected feed fed to a cow later diagnosed with BSE.

Although the class-action suit was filed on behalf of
"representative ranchers" in the four provinces, all producers
raising beef or dairy cattle between 2003 and 2005 would be
eligible for a share of the award if the suit is successful.

"In the litigation plan there is provision for mediation, as
well, but we have to have the government willing to do that, and
if not then we go to trial," says Boswell.

For more information on the lawsuit and court documents, see
bseclassaction.ca. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Campbell Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00579-EAW (W.D.N.Y., May 18, 2018),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to the Hon. Elizabeth A.
Wolford.

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions. The company was formerly
known as Ventus Capital Services, LP and changed its name to
Capital Management Services L.P. in October 2006. Capital
Management Services L.P. was incorporated in 2004 and is based in
Buffalo, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Facsimile: (862) 204-5901
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Kolbasyuk Appeals Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yuri Kolbasyuk filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum decision & order dated April 14, 2018, and
judgment dated April 18, 2018, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Kolbasyuk v. Capital Management Services, Case No. 17-cv-7499, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on December 26, 2017.

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.

The appellate case is captioned as Kolbasyuk v. Capital
Management Services, Case No. 18-1260, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Yuri Kolbasyuk, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Levi Huebner, Esq.
          LEVI HUEBNER & ASSOCIATES, PC
          478 Malbone Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11225
          Telephone: (212) 354-5555

Defendant-Appellee Capital Management Services, LP, is
represented by:

          Kristen H. Smith, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.P.
          3850 North Causeway Boulevard
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 846-7943
          E-mail: ksmith@sessions.legal


CAVIAR: Settles Class Action Over Gratuity for $2.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Rose Dickey, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Square,
the payments company led by Jack Dorsey, has agreed to pay $2.2
million to settle a class-action lawsuit involving its on-demand
food delivery service, Caviar. Customers who ordered food from
Caviar between January 20, 2012 and August 31, 2015 received a
notice of the proposed class-action settlement.

As part of the settlement, which TechCrunch has reviewed,
plaintiff Spencer Janssen's counsel is expected to seek up to
$755,000 in fees and costs.  Mr. Janssen himself is seeking up to
$10,000, which means the remaining $1.44 million will be divvied
up among other class members, who can use the money to put toward
another Caviar order.  The parties agreed there were 93,914 class
members, so that comes out to about $15.28 per person.  The court
will make its decision to approve or deny the settlement on
September 21, 2018.

The lawsuit claimed Square collected gratuities from customers
but didn't pass on that money to the delivery drivers.  Square
disputes those claims, and also points to the fact that "each
driver knew in advance the amount he or she would be paid under
his or her contract for each order before accepting and making
that delivery," Square's attorney wrote in a court filing.

"We have always properly compensated delivery couriers, and
discontinued this practice long ago to provide better
transparency around costs," a Square spokesperson told
TechCrunch.  "We have chosen to settle this matter to avoid the
cost and distraction of litigation and provide direct benefit to
our valued customers."

In the agreed-upon settlement, it's reiterated that Square denies
all the allegations "and took the position that the use of the
term 'gratuity' was neither misleading to reasonable consumers
nor unlawful.  Defendant contended that the amounts collected as
gratuities from Plaintiff were paid to his independent contractor
couriers." [GN]


CENTRAL TIRE: Underpays Automobile Mechanics, "Allejo" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ALEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR, LTD.;
CENTRAL TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR CENTER, LLC; CENTRAL TIRE OF
WINDSOR, LLC, ZAIM LIKA, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 7:18-cv-04744 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2018) seeks to recover
against the Defendants unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Alejo was employed by the Defendants as automobile mechanic
from July 2009 to November 19, 2017.

Central Tire and Auto Repair, Ltd is a New York Corporation
located at 51 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers, New York. The Company
operate automobile repair shops in Yonkers, New York; New Jersey,
and East Windsor, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Parkhurst, Esq.
          GILES LAW FIRM LLC
          825 Third Avenue, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (201) 577-2644
          E-mail: jparkhurst@gileslawfirmllc.com


CENTURY FINANCIAL: Dismissal Orders in "Baker" Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES BAKER, et al., Appellants, v. CENTURY
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Respondents, Case No. WD80813 (Mo.
App.), Judge Karen King Mitchell of the Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Western District reversed the decisions by the
Circuit Court of Clay County to grant three motions to dismiss
and three motions for summary judgment, all of which were based
on the same statute of limitations defense to the Borrowers'
claims against the Respondents under the Missouri Second Mortgage
Loan Act ("MSMLA").

The Borrowers are homeowners who obtained second mortgage loans
on their Missouri homes from CFG.  After making the loans, CFG
sold or assigned them to other entities, many of whom are
participants in the litigation.  The assignees pooled these (and
other) loans and placed them in trusts.  The pools were used to
collateralize bonds or other investment instruments that were
sold to investors.  The borrowers' monthly mortgage payments
created a revenue stream from which payments were made to those
who bought the mortgage-backed investments. In some cases, the
assignees designated a separate entity to process the payments
made by mortgagors.

The Bakers commenced the action on June 28, 2000, by filing a
petition alleging, among other things, that CFG, Master
Financial, Inc. (a) servicer of CFG's Missouri second mortgage
loans), and Defendants "Does 1-25," who would later include
Lenders, among others, violated the fee limitations of MSMLA in
the course of making the Bakers' loan by directly or indirectly
charging, contracting for, and/or receiving excessive loan
origination fees and other fees not permitted by Section
408.233.1.  Approximately a year after commencing the suit, the
Bakers filed a First Amended Petition, dated July 12, 2001,
joining Ocwen, Impac, and Wilmington as Defendants.

On Feb. 26, 2002, the Bakers, joined by the Coxes and the
Springers, moved for certification of a Plaintiffs' class.  In
their motion, the homeowners argued that their claims "are
subject to the 6-year statute of limitations, and the class
period should therefore include claims arising 6 years before the
action was filed.

In opposing the motion to certify and in an earlier motion for
summary judgment filed by one of the Master Financial Asset
Securitization Trusts, the Defendants urged the court to apply
the three-year statute of limitations in Section 516.130(2) to
the homeowners' claims.  On Dec. 19, 2002, the court ruled that
the MF Trust was a "moneyed corporation" within the meaning of
Section 516.420 and that the applicable statute of limitations
was six years.

On Jan. 2, 2003, the court issued its Order Certifying Plaintiff
Class pursuant to Rule 52.08.10  The court defined the class as
all individuals who, on or after June 28, 1994: obtained a Second
Mortgage Loan from Century Financial; and who paid fees or
interest in violation of the MSMLA, or who financed the payment
of fees or interest in violation of the MSMLA as part of the
principal loan balance, at or before closing .

In addition to certifying the class, the court determined,
consistent with its denial of the MF Trust's summary judgment
motion, that the six-year statute of limitations in Section
516.420 applied to the Plaintiffs' claims.

Shortly after class certification, the Borrowers filed their
Third Amended Petition, dated Feb. 5, 2003, joining Bank of New
York Mellon (BNYM) and Republic as Defendants.  They filed their
Fourth Amended Petition ("Petition"), the operative pleading for
purposes of the appeal, on Feb. 3, 2004, joining Banc One
Financial Services, Inc., predecessor to Chase, as a Defendant.

The Petition asserts that the Lenders, among others, became
liable on CFG's Missouri loans just as CFG is and would be liable
because the loans are "high-cost" mortgages under the Home
Ownership and Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA").  The Petition
further alleges that Lenders, among others, directly violated the
MSMLA, and continued repeatedly to violate it, by charging and/or
receiving interest and principal on the loans, which included
portions of the illegal settlement charges that had been financed
as part of the principal loan amounts.

Under the authority of Section 408.236 of the MSMLA, the
Borrowers seek to recover all excessive loan origination and
other fees they were charged in connection with the CFG loans and
all interest paid or to be paid on the loans; they also seek
prejudgment interest, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief under Section 408.562.

In 2006, while the case was pending, the court issued an opinion
in Schwartz v. Bann-Cor Mortgage, where they ruled that the six-
year statute of limitations in Section 516.420 applies to MSMLA
claims.  Thereafter, the Borrowers and the Lenders proceeded with
the understanding that the applicable limitations period was six
years until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
issued its opinion in Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union.
Relying on Rashaw, the Eighth Circuit subsequently held that
MSMLA claims are subject to the three-year limitations period in
Section 516.130(2), rather than the six-year limitations period
in Section 516.420.

Based on the Eighth Circuit's pronouncement of the applicable
limitations period, BNYM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition,
arguing that the Borrowers' claims were barred by the three-year
statute of limitations in Section 516.130(2).  The Borrowers
filed Suggestions in Opposition to BNYM's Motion to Dismiss, and,
after additional submissions by both sides, the court granted
BNYM's motion on Dec. 1, 2015, based on the statute of
limitations defense.

On the heels of BNYM's successful motion, Ocwen and Republic
moved to dismiss the Petition as time barred by Section
516.130(2).  Then, Wilmington filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, which was followed by Impac's motion for summary
judgment, both relying on the statute of limitations defense.  On
Nov. 15, 2016, the court dismissed Ocwen and Republic and granted
summary judgment to Wilmington and Impac.

On Feb. 9, 2017, the Borrowers moved the trial court to enter
final judgment on their claims and to stay the remainder of the
class action pending Borrowers' appeal of the court's prior
dismissal and summary judgment rulings.  Before the court ruled
on the Borrowers' motion for a final judgment and stay, Chase
moved for summary judgment raising the statute of limitations
defense.  The court granted Chase's motion on May 23, 2017.  The
next day, it granted the Borrowers' motion for a final judgment,
determining that there was "no just reason for delay" and staying
the action as to the remaining defendants pending the Borrowers'
appeal of the court's statute of limitations rulings.  The
court's May 24, 2017 judgment ended the Borrowers' claims against
the Lenders based on a common legal issue and is a final judgment
subject to appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b).

The appeal follows.  The Borrowers raise six points on appeal.
In their first point, they argue that the court erred in granting
the Lenders' dismissal and summary judgment motions based on the
statute of limitations because their claims are subject to the
six-year limitations period in Section 516.420, rather than the
three-year limitations period in Section 516.130(2).  In their
remaining five points, the Borrowers argue that the court erred
in finding their claims time barred under the three-year statute
of limitations in Section 516.130(2) because, even under the
shorter limitations period, their claims are timely based on the
following legal theories: (1) HOEPA's derivative liability (Point
II), (2) accrual of claims against Lenders occurs when they
acquire or begin servicing the loans (Point III), (3) the
"continuing or repeated wrong" exception to accrual of claims
(Point IV), (4) the relation back doctrine (Point V), and (5)
class action tolling (Point VI).

Judge Mitchell rejects the Lenders' reading of Section 516.420 as
applying the statute's six-year statute of limitations
exclusively to causes of action that, but for the Defendant's
status as a moneyed corporation, would be subject to the statute
of limitations in Sections 516.380-.400.   She says the express
language of Section 516.420 covers claims for penalties
authorized by civil statutes like the MSMLA.

Having found that the Borrowers' claims are subject to the six-
year statute of limitations in Section 516.420, rather than the
three-year limitations period in Section 516.130(2), the Judge
does not reach the Borrowers' alternative arguments regarding the
timeliness of their claims under Section 516.130(2) (Points II-
IV).

Accordingly, Judge Mitchell reversed the motion court's decision
to grant BNYM's, Ocwen's, and Republic's motions to dismiss the
Borrowers' claims as untimely.  Likewise, she reversed the
court's decision to grant summary judgment to Impac, Wilmington,
and Chase on the statute of limitations defense.  The Judge
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the
decision, including a determination of BNYM's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jEa5sk from Leagle.com.

Kip D. Richards -- krichards@wbsvlaw.com -- R. Frederick Walters
--  fwalters@wrrsvlaw.com -- J. Michael Vaughan --
mvaughn@stuartkane.com -- and David M. Skeens --
dskeens@wrrsvlaw.com -- Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for
Appellants.

Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com --and Michael S.
Foster -- mfoster@polsinelli.com -- Kansas City, MO, Attorneys
for Respondents Republic Bank, Wilmington Trust Company, and
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC.

Michael J. Abrams -- mabrams@lathropgage.com -- and R. Kent
Sellers -- ksellers@lathropgage.com --  Kansas City, MO, and John
H. Cobb (pro hac vice) and Stacie C. Knight (pro hac vice),
Charlotte, NC, Attorneys for Respondent The Bank of New York
Mellon.

Barry L. Pickens -- bpickens@spencerfane.com -- Kansas City, MO,
Attorney for Respondents Impac Funding Corporation, Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Impac Secured Assets Corp., IMH Assets
Corporation, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its
capacity as former trustee for Impac Secured Assets CMB Trust
Series 1998-1 and Impac CMB Trust Series 2000-2.

Daniel L. McClain -- dlm@danmcclainlaw.com -- Kansas City, MO,
Attorney for Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Successor by
Merger to Banc One Financial Services, Inc.


CEPHALON INC: UHS MOU Enforceable in Teva Pharma Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 16-4870 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the
U.S. District Court for the Estern District of Pennsylvania held
that the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") sets forth the
essential terms of a settlement and constitutes a binding,
enforceable, and unambiguous contract.

The case arises out of a set of antitrust actions, brought
pursuant to FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), which
involve reverse settlement payments between the brand name
manufacturer of the drug Provigil and various generic drug
manufacturers.

On July 28, 2016, UHS commenced an individual antitrust action
against the brand manufacturer Cephalon, Inc. and two generic
manufacturers Teva Pharmaceutical Industries/Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Cephalon Parties"),
and several other Defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, captioned United Healthcare Services, Inc.
v. Cephalon, Inc., et al.  The claims raised in that action were
substantially similar to those raised in the Vista HealthPlan
action, but for the fact that they were brought under a Minnesota
antitrust statute.  That case was subsequently transferred to the
Court on Feb. 6, 2017.

Following Judge's Goldberg's denial of class certification for
the end-payor plaintiffs in the case of Vista Healthplan v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al., the putative class Plaintiffs and a
separate group of third-party payers -- of which UHS was a part -
- allegedly reached a settlement agreement with the Cephalon
Parties.

UHS has renounced the settlement, claiming that the terms set out
in the MOU do not constitute a binding contract and are
unenforceable.  UHS also asserts that even if the MOU is valid,
its lawyers were not authorized to enter into such an agreement.

On Sept. 9, 2016, the Cephalon Parties initiated the action
against UHS to enforce the MOU.  They allege that UHS breached
the MOU by failing to abide by its terms.

On Dec. 18, 2017, and following discovery, Cephalon Parties have
moved for partial summary judgment on the sole issue of whether
the contract is binding and enforceable as written (the question
of the lawyers' authority involves factual issues not appropriate
for disposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56).  UHS
responded on Jan. 26, 2018, and the Cephalon Parties filed their
reply brief on Feb. 16, 2018.

Notwithstanding UHS' efforts to inject complexity into the
dispute at issue, Judge Goldberg holds that the resolution
remains relatively straightforward.  UHS, as part of a group of
Settling Health Plans, entered into a settlement agreement,
memorialized in the MOU, wherein it would receive a $77 million
disbursement out of a total $125 million payment from the
Cephalon Parties in exchange for a full release of all of its
Provigil-related claims.  Although the MOU contemplated the entry
of a later, more detailed agreement covering more of the
logistical details, the MOU itself, by its very terms, was a
binding contact as to the essential terms regarding the payment
and the release.  UHS' identification of alleged ambiguities
neither deprives the MOU of sufficient definiteness nor creates a
genuine issue of material fact as to the appropriate
interpretation of the essential terms.

While this finding resolves the interpretation of the MOU, the
Judge it does not resolve the final issue of whether the MOU can
be enforced.  UHS' argument on the issue is that its counsel did
not have authority to enter into the MOU on its behalf.  This
raises a dispute which cannot be decided on a motion for summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/T6hhuY from Leagle.com.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Plaintiff, represented by
BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER -- bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com --
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER -- britt.cramer@kirkland.com -
- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, JAY P. LEFKOWITZ --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON --
jwo@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN --
adam.humann@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & BRENDAN E.
RYAN -- brendan.ryan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. & BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Plaintiffs, represented by BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON,
STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & BRENDAN E.
RYAN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

CEPHALON, INC., Plaintiff, represented by BRADLEY H.
WEIDENHAMMER, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON, STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & BRENDAN E. RYAN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST
FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED &
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, Intervenor
Plaintiffs, represented by DIANA J. ZINSER --
dzinser@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.,
JEFFREY L. KODROFF -- jspector@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA --
jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.,
JOSEPH H. MELTZER -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

SHIRLEY PANEBIANO, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN B.
LOVE, HANZMAN CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A., DIANA J. ZINSER, SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., JEFFREY L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN &
KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.,
JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & TERENCE
S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by ABBY
L. DENNIS -- adennis@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP,
ERIC W. BUETZOW -- ebuetzow@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP, HAMISH P.M.
HUME -- hhume@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP,
JONATHAN M. WATKINS -- jwatkins@zelle.com -- ZELLE LL P, JUDITH
A. ZAHID -- jzahid@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP, KYLE SMITH --
ksmith@bsfllp.com --  BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, MARTHA L.
GOODMAN -- mgoodman@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP &
JONATHAN R. MACBRIDE -- jmacbride@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP.

VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITLSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED & JEFFREY R. KRINSK, AN INDIVIDUAL, Movants,
represented by JEFFREY L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC &
JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C..


CHARTSWAP LLC: Asher Sues over Excessive Fees for Medical Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Asher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ChartSwap, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
77276980 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., May 17, 2018) alleges
that the Defendants violated the Florida Administrative Code by
charging the Plaintiff excessive fees for medical records.

According to the complaint, on January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff
requested her physician to provide her copies of her own patient
medical records, and that request was submitted on the
Plaintiff's behalf by the Plaintiff's legal representative.

On January 30, 2018, the Defendant sent Plaintiff's legal
representative an invoice charging $6 for one page of copies of
her own patient medical records. This invoice included a $5
"Electronic Transaction Fee."

Besides charging unlawfully excessive fees, the Defendant also
refuses to produce the medical records until the unlawfully
excessive fees are paid.

The Defendant's routine practice throughout the State of Florida
is to require the patient to pay unlawfully excessive fees prior
to delivery of the patient's own medical records, thus
essentially holding the records for "ransom."

In order to obtain the copies of her own patient medical records,
the Plaintiff paid the Defendant's unlawfully excessive charges,
under protest.

ChartSwap, LLC is a corporation doing business under the laws of
the State of Florida. The company is in the business of
retrieving, duplicating, and delivering copies of patient medical
records on behalf of various health care providers throughout he
state of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
          3407 W. Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 879-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com
                   rsmith@clarkmartino.com

               - and -

          David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
          De la PARTE & GILBERT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 2350
          Tampa, FL 33601-2350
          Telephone: (813) 229-2775
          E-mail: dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com
                  serviceclerk@dgfirm.com


CHESAPEAKE BAY: Addt'l Class Notice Bid in "Meuller" Partly OKd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTINA MUELLER, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE
BAY SEAFOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
ELH-17-1638 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Additional Court-
Authorized Notice of Lawsuit.

The Muellers are former employees of Chesapeake Bay, which owns
or operates multiple Chili's and On The Border restaurants in
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate
Identification and Notice to Similarly-Situated Employees, along
with a supporting memorandum of law and two exhibits.  They asked
the Court to grant conditional certification of a collective
class for the claims alleged in the matter under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") owing an early Court-approved notice of
the action and by allowing potential opt-ins to join the matter.

Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Status Report and
Stipulation Regarding Conditional Certification, informing the
Court that Chesapeake Bay did not oppose conditional
certification of a collective action, and that the parties had
agreed to the terms of the proposed notice and opt-in forms.

Additionally, the parties agreed, that within 30 calendar days of
the Court's approval of the proposed Notice, Defendant is to
produce directly to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list of the full
name and last known residential address of each and every
individual who is or was employed as a server and/or bartender
for Defendant during the period of June 15, 2014 until June 15,
2017.  The putative class members will have a period of 60
calendar days from the date that the Notice is mailed to submit a
form consenting to join the lawsuit.

The Parties have agreed that the Notice Period will commence 10
business days from the date the Plaintiffs are provided with the
list of potential class members from the Defendant.

By Order of Sept. 22, 2017, Judge Hollander granted the Motion
for Conditional Certification.  In addition, she approved the
Joint Stipulation, the proposed notice, and the proposed opt-in
form.  Thereafter, Chesapeake Bay provided the Plaintiffs with
the names and addresses of 2,805 current and former Chesapeake
Bay employees.

The Plaintiffs aver that Notice and Opt-In Forms were timely
mailed to all of the current and former employees at the
addresses provided.  The deadline for potential class members to
join the lawsuit was Dec. 29, 2017.  The Court received more than
115 Opt-In Forms.

In the Motion filed on Dec. 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs claim that a
substantial portion of the potential class has not received
notice of the lawsuit.  Further, they claim that Chesapeake Bay
has made improper contacts with members of the prospective class
by presenting an arbitration agreement to its current employees.

In the Motion, the Plaintiffs asks for several forms of relief,
including (1) an Order compelling the Defendant to produce to the
Plaintiffs' counsel a list of the last known email address of
every individual listed on the class list who has yet to join
this matter; (2) that the Plaintiffs be allowed to send
additional class notice by mail and email to all prospective
class members; (3) an extension of the opt-in deadline; and (4)
that additional language be included in the notice to make clear
to all prospective Plaintiffs that the signing of and/or
distribution of an arbitration agreement does not prevent them
from joining the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs argue that Chesapeake Bay made improper contacts
with the potential class members by distributing the Arbitration
Agreement to current employees.  The Defendant counters that the
Agreement provides no basis to require additional notification
because it was issued only to a small portion (about 20%) of the
potential class, expressly carves out this lawsuit and does not
affect the right of potential class members to participate in the
lawsuit.

Judge Hollander finds that it is uncontested that a particular
form of communication occurred between Chesapeake Bay and some
573 potential class members after suit was filed and before the
collective action had been certified.  The timing of the
Arbitration Agreement's dissemination to potential class members,
whether or not intentional, may have confused potential class
members as to their ability to opt in to this litigation.
Moreover, the Agreement may have dissuaded potential class
members from joining this litigation.

Accordingly, the Judge says the dissemination of the Arbitration
Agreement to the potential class members may have created
confusion in the context of the FLSA collective action
litigation.  Therefore, the potential class members who received
the Arbitration Agreement are entitled to new notice, including
language making clear that the Arbitration Agreement does not
prevent them from joining the litigation.

The Plaintiffs theorize that too few potential class members have
opted-in to the litigation.  Therefore, they ask that a second
round to notices be sent by email to all potential class members
who have not opted-in to the litigation.  In Judge's view, the
Plaintiffs engage in mere speculation as to the reason why these
potential class members did not opt-in to the suit.  Therefore,
she will deny the request for a second round of notices to all
potential class members who have not opted in.  However, new
notices will be provided to those former and current employees
whose prior notices were returned as undeliverable, and to those
former and current employees who were presented with the
Arbitration Agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion.  An Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/PpoZmZ from Leagle.com.

Kristina Mueller & Jill Mueller, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin L. Davis, III -- bdavis@nicholllaw.com -- Law Offices of
Peter T.
Nicholl & Robert Joseph Leonard -- rleonard@nicholllaw.com -- Law
Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Joel Lantz, Corrinn Barnett, Brandy Chapman, Katelyn Joy Collins,
Abigayle Davey, Megan Dorman, Bradley Fauver, Angela Fitzgerald,
Ryan Thomas Flake, Tyler Marks, Kaili Martin, Dale Mitchell, Jose
Rodriguez, Deborah Charlene Stone, Connor Wilks, Bailey Marianne,
Stacey Coffey, Gabrielle Cunningham, Adrienne Ellison, Kameron
Ford, Ashley Homer, Eliana Lawson, Laurel Masters, Chelsea
Pinkcett, Gerald Powers, Lara Prettyman, Trevor Sherwin, Kayla
Smith, Lindsey Thompson, Skylar Trent, Andrea Willcockson, Selah
Wilson, J'Nai Cheek, Diana Porath, Diaudra Daniel, Nichole
Perkins, Alana Taylor, Dominique Lawrenece, Sam Bonette, Amanda
Conway, William Downes, Shanara Helton, Christina Kalathas,
Jennifer Lacko, Virginia Lewis, Sydni Lemoine, Sabrina Mayo,
Joshua Nissley, Ginny Rutledge, Frantz Simon, Taylor Smoske,
Shannon Wilson, Bailey Bartholme, Bryan Abramson, Kaelie
Friedberg, Sydney Barnhart, Laurie Hairston, Cara Newman, SiVanh
Keovongphet, Kathleen DiCarlo, Melissa Shaffer, Anthony De Los
Santos, Stephanie Ruzicka, Ashton Hood, Victoria Bailey, Nicole
Thorne, Schaller Bouaphanh, Heather Biesel, Charles Silver, Chris
Dykstra, Shelbi Washington, Sean Sullivan, Chelsea Shumar,
Celeste Bruce, Delcy Bradford, Kaylee Hess, Sydney Brown, Travis
Cole, Whitney Cooper, Glenda Brown, Charlotte Nickens, Miranda
Petagna, Hana Syan, James Chiominto, Sarah Newsome, Sydney
Jordan, Brandie Belcher, Lisa Wyland, Kayla McAfee, Timothy
Mathis, Melvin Roundtree, Sarah Esposito, Melissa Harbin, Rebecca
Sefton, Jonathan Ball, Robin Ball, Jordan Bunge, Alex Farrington,
Samantha
Garner, Angela Garner, Jennifer Garrard, Kristen Hedge, Wanda
Payne-Banks, Saige Gilpin, Emily Harding, Emily Sullivan, Tania
Manlove, Jennifer Temple, Gabriel Moore, Ashley Redding, Raymond
Geisler, Traci Maske, Michael Featherstone, Dana Diaz, Mykala
Monroe, Charlene Delbridge, Stephanie Carrion, Stephanie Travers,
Brittny Lantz, Stephanie Tamburrino, Jessica Bragg, Jessica
Barnes, Bianca Cine, Jazsmine Benton & Amanda Jordan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin L. Davis, III, Law Offices of Peter T.
Nicholl.

Deonta Milburn, Plaintiff, pro se.

Michael Sydnor, Plaintiff, pro se.

Sarah Pasley, Plaintiff, pro se.

Judith Kramer, Plaintiff, pro se.

Lacey Thompson, Plaintiff, pro se.

Chesapeake Bay Seafood House Associates, L.L.C., Defendant,
represented by Emmett F. McGee, Jr. --
Emmett.McGee@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & Keith David Hudolin --
Keith.Hudolin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


CHI MANAGEMENT: Underpays Merchandiser, "Castello" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Roby L. Castello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHI MANAGEMENT GROUP, LP;
CROSSMARK, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC706906 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Castello was employed by the Defendants as merchandiser from
March 2014 to April 30, 2018.

Chi Management Group, LP is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com


CHINA AGRITECH: Limitation Period Tolled for Individual Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the Supreme Court on June 11 reduced the options investors have
for filing repeated class-action lawsuits once an initial statute
of limitations is reached.

Writing the unanimous decision in China Agritech vs. Resh,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "there is little reason to
allow plaintiffs who passed up opportunities to participate in
the first (and second) round of class litigation to enter the
fray several years after class proceedings first commenced."

The issue in the case was whether the so-called "American Pipe"
precedent, under which statutes of limitations are suspended for
all members of a class during the time a class action is pending,
applies when class members later seek to bring another class
action.

The case involved China Agritech's 2011 stock decline after
publication of several negative research reports on the company.
After two different District Courts denied class certification,
Michael Resh filed a third putative class-action lawsuit in 2014,
which was dismissed because it came after the two-year limitation
period.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal, noting that the limitation period was tolled, or
suspended, for individual claims during two previous class
actions against China Agritech.

"The practical impact of the court's ruling is to provide more
power to the punch of an order denying class certification," said
Michael Biles, Esq. -- mbiles@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
partner, in an emailed statement. "The Supreme Court clarified
that American Pipe only tolls individual claims," and judicial
efficiency arguments that justified tolling for individual claims
do not apply to class claims.  "This means that plaintiffs who
wish to proceed with a class action following an order denying
class certification must get the order reversed on appeal -- they
cannot recruit new shareholders and file another class action,"
said Mr. Biles. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports class
action defendants scored an important victory on June 11 when a
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court barred so-called stacked, or follow-
on, cases that are filed after the expiration of a statutory time
limit.

The justices, ruling in a securities case, said its 1974 decision
in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah suspends the statute of
limitations while a putative class action is pending, which
allows unnamed class members to join individually or to file
separate claims if the class fails. "But American Pipe does not
permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past
expiration of the statute of limitations," wrote Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg for the court in China Agritech v. Resh.

Both the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which governed
the litigation before the court, and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, which applies to nonsecurities class actions,
"evince a preference" for barring untimely successive class
actions by emphasizing early resolution of class certification
and class representation, Ginsburg wrote.

The case before the court, the third class action brought on
behalf of purchasers of China Agritech's common stock, alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The law has a
two-year statute of limitations that begins to run when facts
constituting the violation are discovered.

A federal district court had denied class certification to two
earlier successive class actions that made materially identical
allegations against China Agritech for fraud and misleading
business practices.  Michael Resh, who had not sought lead
plaintiff status in those earlier class actions, filed suit in
2014, a year and a half after the statute of limitations had
expired.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in May 2017
reversed the district court's dismissal of Mr. Resh's suit as
untimely.  The circuit courts had divided over whether American
Pipe could, as the Ninth Circuit concluded, save otherwise
untimely successive class claims.

Justice Ginsburg said nothing in America Pipe or the court's
decisions applying it "so much as hints" that tolling extends to
otherwise time-barred claims.

"We hold that American Pipe does not permit a plaintiff who waits
out the statute of limitations to piggyback on an earlier, timely
filed class action," Justice Ginsburg wrote.  "The 'efficiency
and economy of litigation' that support tolling of individual
claims do not support maintenance of untimely successive class
actions; any additional class filings should be made early on,
soon after the commencement of the first action seeking class
certification."

Locke Lord partner Rusty Perdew -- rperdew@lockelord.com -- in
Chicago said the decision takes a "practical and realistic
approach" and gives class defendants an important victory.  The
Ninth Circuit's decision, he said, "would have permitted
plaintiffs to indefinitely extend statutes of limitations and
relitigate class certification by filing successive class actions
after class certification was denied."

However, Noelle Reed -- noelle.reed@skadden.com -- a partner at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, cautioned that the
decision, along with the court's 2017 decision in California
Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, "may spur
plaintiffs to file multiple 'protective' class actions --
possibly in competing courts -- to avoid having their class
claims time-barred if they are not able to obtain class
certification before limitations or repose periods expire."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the court's judgment,
explaining that she agreed with the court's decision as it
applied to class actions under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, but not as to class actions not subject to
that act.

Justice Sotomayor said there are important differences between
classes governed by the 1995 act and classes subject to Rule 23.

"The majority's conclusion that absent class members were not
diligent because they failed to ask to be the class
representative in a prior suit makes sense only in the PSLRA
context," she wrote.  "The same conclusion simply does not follow
in the generic Rule 23 context, where absent class members are
most likely unaware of the existence of a putative class action."

China Agritech's counsel, Seth Aronson -- saronson@omm.com --
partner at O'Melveny & Myers, had argued that the Ninth Circuit's
rule "impermissibly extends equitable tolling when the plaintiffs
have not exercised diligence."  Those absent class members, he
said, could have sought to protect their rights through
individual actions when the class failed.  Instead, they "slept
on their rights and are thus not entitled to equity."

Mr. Resh's counsel, David Frederick --
dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, had countered that a timely class action suspends the
limitations as to all asserted class members and "puts defendants
on fair notice of potential liability in a subsequent class
action asserting similar claims."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Legal Foundation and
others supported China Agritech in amicus briefs.  Mr. Resh drew
supporting briefs from a group of plaintiffs in post-Walmart
successor class actions, Public Citizen, AARP and a group of
retired federal judges, among others. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Issues Unanimous Decision in Tolling Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Olson, writing for CATO, reports that class action tolling
means suspending time limits on future lawsuits while a class
action suit is pending.  This is distinct from class action
trolling which is when the Ninth Circuit adopts a deliriously
liberal rule and dares the Supreme Court to reverse it.

Both phenomena were involved in the June 11 unanimous Supreme
Court opinion in China Agritech v. Resh.  In the 1974 case of
American Pipe & Construction v. Utah the Court had adopted a rule
permitting individual claimants to file otherwise-tardy actions
after a court had declined to certify a class action.  The
American Pipe rule is itself decidedly indulgent toward the class
action device, but it took the Ninth Circuit to take a crucial
extra step off the Santa Monica pier by holding that the late-
arriving claimants should themselves be able to ask for
certification as a class action.  After all, the first try at
certification might have been based on a flawed legal strategy or
incomplete factual record.  Why not give our friends in the bar a
second bite?

Or a third bite, or an nth: in fact the case that reached the
high court was the third class action in a row attempted on the
same underlying facts, a securities dispute.  To almost everyone
but the Ninth Circuit, the resulting danger was clear enough:
without any real need to accept "no" for an answer, class action
lawyers could just come back again and again with new tame
plaintiffs until they find a judge willing to grant
certification, the step that tends to guarantee a payday in the
class action business.

The unanimity is significant.  On procedural and jurisdictional
issues, at least, today's liberal wing on the Court has sometimes
been willing to unite with the Rehnquist-Scalia-Roberts wing to
recognize and rein in the dangers of lawyer-driven
overlitigation, the tactical use of lawsuits as a weapon, and so
forth.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion, has
more than once joined and sometimes led such coalitions. By
contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has often been found alone and
out on a limb in favor of a more litigation-friendly position,
which happened again on June 11: she joined in a concurrence
agreeing that the Ninth Circuit had gone too far but seeking to
limit the Court's holding to securities suits governed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

The Senate might want to quiz future liberal nominees -- yes,
there will be such -- on whether they more favor the Ginsburg or
the Sotomayor approach to these issues. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda T. Coberly, Esq., and Sean H. Suber, Esq., of Winston &
Strawn LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on June 11,
the Supreme Court issued its opinion in China Agritech, Inc. v.
Resh et al., No. 17-432, resolving a longstanding question about
the operation of statutes of limitations in class actions.
According to the Court, although a pending class action tolls the
statute of limitations for absent class members relating to their
individual claims, it does not permit them to avoid the statute
of limitations for a new class action.  The opinion clarifies the
reach of what is known as American Pipe tolling, eliminating the
concern that a statute of limitations can be extended
indefinitely by "stacking" class actions on top of one another.

This case arose after an enterprising plaintiff relied on the
Supreme Court's 1974 decision in American Pipe & Construction Co.
v. Utah to bring a securities class action a year and a half
after the statute of limitations had expired.  The plaintiff had
been an unnamed class member in an earlier putative class action
on the very same claims.  When the earlier class action failed,
he filed a new one, relying on American Pipe to argue that the
limitations period had been tolled while the earlier suit was
pending.  The district court dismissed his new class action
complaint as time barred.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding
that American Pipe allowed him to claim the benefit of tolling
for purposes of filing a new class action lawsuit, and reasoning
that this outcome "would advance the policy objective that led
the Supreme Court to permit tolling in the first place."  The
Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the
circuits on this issue.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Ninth Circuit's view,
holding that "American Pipe does not permit a plaintiff who waits
out the statute of limitations to piggyback on an earlier, timely
filed class action."  The Court explained that American Pipe"
addressed only putative class members who wish to sue
individually after a class certification denial."  According to
the Court, the policy objective of American Pipe does "not
support maintenance of untimely successive class actions."
Instead, consistent with the goals of "efficiency and economy of
litigation," "any additional class filings should be made early
on, soon after the commencement of the first action seeking class
certification."  To hold otherwise would be to "allow the statute
of limitations to be extended time and again; as each class is
denied certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class
complaint that resuscitates the litigation."  Because the tolling
for these stacked claims "could be limitless," the Court reversed
the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.

Justice Sotomayor was the only justice to write separately.  She
concurred in the judgment, explaining that the Court's conclusion
should be limited to cases that fall under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).  The majority's decision drew upon
the PSLRA for support but adopted a rule that applies more
broadly.

The Court's clarification of American Pipe is a welcome
development for defendants.  Among other things, it should help
to make class action litigation more predictable and to ensure
that class actions proceed within a reasonable time after the
underlying events. [GN]


CHRISTIAN'S BAKERY: Doesn't Pay OT to Bakers, Meza-Vazquez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN DAVID MEZA-VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN'S BAKERY, INC.,
and JOSE LUIS CARDENAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02300-ELR
(N.D. Ga., May 1, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium
pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Meza-Vazquez was employed by the Defendants as baker from
September 9, 2016 to December 26, 2017.

Christian's Bakery, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Georgia, with principal place of business in
Mableton, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343-2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352-5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


CLEAR AIR TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Cleaners, Lysakowski Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIN LYSAKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR AIR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
TODD CARMER, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09510-ES-MAH (D.N.J.,
May 21, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay the required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over
40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Lysakowski was employed by the Defendants a cleaner from the year
2012 to December 2016.

Clear Air Technologies, LLC is a New Jersey company owning and
operating an air duct and vent services in 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

COASTWAY BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on June 13 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island on behalf of holders of Coastway
Bancorp, Inc. ("Coastway") (NasdaqCM: CWAY) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Coastway by HarborOne
Bancorp, Inc. and its affiliate ("HarborOne") announced on March
14, 2018 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Coastway and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned
Parshall v. Coastway Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00279
(D.R.I.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On March 14, 2018, Coastway entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with HarborOne.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Coastway will
receive $28.25 in cash for each share of Coastway stock they own
(the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that
the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to,
among other things, Coastway's financial projections, the
analyses performed by Coastway's financial advisor, and potential
conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Coastway
common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 13, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. ---
http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
[GN]


COINBASE INC: Arbitration of Cryptocurrencies Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed
the judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the case captioned BRANDON LEIDEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, JAMES D.
SALLAH, as Receiver/Corporate Monitor of Project Investors, Inc.,
d.b.a. Cryptsy, Plaintiff, v. COINBASE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, d.b.a. Global Digest Asset Exchange (GDAX),
Defendant-Appellant, No. 17-12728 (11th Cir.).

The Defendant is a financial services company registered as a
money services business with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. As part of its business,
the Defendant operates a website where its customers can
purchase, exchange, and sell digital cryptocurrencies, such as
Bitcoin.

Leidel brought claims against the Defendant for, inter alia, (1)
aiding and abetting Cryptsy's breaches of its fiduciary duties to
its customers; (2) aiding and abetting Vernon's theft of
Cryptsy's customer's assets; (3) negligence in performing its
duties as a depository of Cryptsy's and Vernon's accounts.

The Defendant argues that, under the doctrine of equitable
estoppel, Leidel is bound by the arbitration clause in the User
Agreements entered into by Cryptsy and Vernon.

Under Florida law, in order to compel arbitration under a theory
of equitable estoppel, the party seeking to compel arbitration
must show both that the plaintiff is relying on a contract to
assert its claims and that the scope of the arbitration clause in
that contract covers the dispute.

Here, Leidel's claims are based on the Defendant's alleged
failure to (1) adequately monitor or investigate Cryptsy's and
Vernon's use of Defendant's website; (2) detect Vernon's theft of
Cryptsy's customers' Bitcoin; and (3) report suspicious activity
by Vernon or Cryptsy to the appropriate authorities. According to
the complaint, these duties were imposed on the Defendant by the
Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations not for the
protection of the Defendant's customers, but to detect money
laundering and other suspicious or illegal activities by the
Defendant's customers. Because Leidel's claims rely on
obligations allegedly imposed by law and in recognition of public
policy to persons who are strangers to the User Agreements, his
claims neither rely on nor bear a significant relationship to
those agreements.

Moreover, because the arbitration clause in the Defendant's User
Agreements is narrow in scope under Florida law, the Defendant
was required to show that Leidel's claims have a direct
relationship to the User Agreements' terms and provisions.
Because Leidel's claims do not have a significant relationship to
the agreements, Defendant cannot show that those claims meet the
more stringent direct relationship standard applicable to
arbitration provisions that are narrow in scope.

Under California law, a nonsignatory plaintiff may be estopped
from refusing to arbitrate when he or she asserts claims that are
dependent upon, or inextricably intertwined with' the underlying
contractual obligations of the agreement containing the
arbitration clause.

In UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health, 194
Cal.Rptr.3d 190 (Ct. App. 2015), California's First District
Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff could not be
compelled to arbitrate under a theory of equitable estoppel
because the plaintiff was not seeking to enforce the contract
containing the arbitration clause. Rather, the plaintiff was
seeking to enjoin Sutter Health from implementing certain
allegedly anticompetitive contract terms.

In other words, the court observed, the plaintiff sought only to
enforce California's law regulating competition. Because the
plaintiff did not seek to enforce the terms or obligations of the
relevant contract, the court concluded that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel had no application to the case.

Here, Leidel does not seek to enforce the terms or obligations of
the User Agreements entered into by Vernon and Cryptsy. Instead,
Leidel seeks to enforce obligations allegedly imposed on the
Defendant by federal statutes, federal regulations, and state
common law. Because Leidel does not rely on the User Agreements
to establish his cause of action, he is not estopped from
avoiding the arbitration clauses in those agreements under
California law.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the decision of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's April 23, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybkf7du3 from Leagle.com.

Jason Stuart Miller, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc A. Wites -- Mwites@wklawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura A. Stoll -- lstoll@goodwinlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Andrew Kemp-Gerstel -- akg@lgplaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.
Alan Michael Pierce -- amp@lgplaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.
James Randolph Liebler, II -- jrlii@lgplaw.com, for Defendant-
Appellant.

Galen A. Phillips -- gphillips@goodwinlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Steven Andrew Ellis -- sellis@goodwinlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

David Chad Silver -- david.silver@hklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Scott Lance Silver -- ssilver@silverlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.


COINBASE INC: Leidel Class Suit to be Ruled in Open Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Malek Mezni, writing for blokt, reports that the class complaint
filed by Brandon Leidel on behalf of Cryptsy's former customers
against Coinbase is set to be ruled in open court after the
latter lost its last appeal to compel arbitration.

Coinbase is being tried for failing to monitor Cryptsy's CEO,
Paul Vernon's account adequately.  The plaintiff claimed that the
exchange should have detected the theft and halt it as required
under the bank secrecy act.

Background of the Cryptsy embezzlement

It all traces back to early 2016 when the Cryptsy exchange
claimed insolvency after months of growing service related
issues.  The official website where the announcement was first
made public has been taken down ever since.

Cryptsy blamed it on a hack that had occurred less than two years
earlier in July 2014.  The company alleged that the incident had
cost them approximately 13,000 BTC and 300,000 LTC.  It suspected
the developer of Lucky7coin as the perpetrator.

Reports suggested that the hack was not reported to avoid
spreading panic among traders while gradually refunding
customers.

It was not until the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida found out that Mr. Vernon was responsible for
the hack.  In January 2016, an investigation, following a
nationwide class action lawsuit filed against Cryptsy, showed
that as much as $8.2 billion worth of customers' digital assets
were liquidated through other exchanges like Coinbase using
Vernon's personal account.

The latter triggered a second class-action lawsuit in December
2016 against Coinbase for not fulfilling its regulatory
obligations, as a depository of Cryptsy's and Mr. Vernon's
accounts, to halt phony schemes and money laundering related
activities. Rumors surfaced that Vernon has fled the country to
China.

Leidel Vs Coinbase
The plaintiff, Brandon Leidel, who is a former Cryptsy customer,
filed the lawsuit on behalf of all affected customers whose money
was stolen by Mr. Vernon.  The procedural history from the appeal
court document reads:

"All the claims were based to some extent on Defendant's
[Coinbase, ed.] alleged failure to (1) adequately monitor and
investigate Cryptsy's and Mr. Vernon's use of Defendant's
website; (2) detect Vernon's theft of Cryptsy's customers'
Bitcoin; (3) report suspicious activity by Vernon or Cryptsy to
the appropriate authorities".

Coinbase attorneys sought a motion to compel arbitration, under
the doctrine of "equitable estoppel," that was denied by the
court.

On April 23, the court ordered a denial of the motion to compel
arbitration under the theory of equitable estoppel ruling it to
not be applicable in this case, under both California and Florida
Laws where both plaintiff and defendant reside.

The court concluded that, since the plaints were based on duties
and obligation imposed by federal regulations and state common
laws, rather than enforcing terms of users agreement signed by
Vernon, the motion to compel must be rejected.

More recently, the decision to reopen the case was granted by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June
4 to the plaintiff.  The case will have to proceed to a jury
trial, as opposed to the private arbitration sought by Coinbase
attorneys in their last appeal.

Coinbase lawyers did not seek to oppose the relief and are
believed to have held a Case Management Conference through a
phone call on June 1 with the plaintiff.  A second Case
Conference Report and proposed scheduling order are yet to be
deposited by Mr. Leidel. [GN]


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Confidentiality Order in Deal Issued
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GWEN B. DALUGE, MURRAY YOUNG, AND HELENE K.
BIRNBAUM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-cv-297-WMC (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has
entered an order of confidentiality in connection with the
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The disclosure and discovery activity in the action involved the
production of confidential, proprietary, or private information
for which special protection from public disclosure is warranted.
Accordingly, any Class Member who objects to the settlement of
the above referenced matter or who is considering whether to opt
out of Class I, and who seeks access to materials produced
pursuant to discovery requests in the matter will comply with the
Agreement and Order of Confidentiality, and deliver a fully
executed copy of Exhibit A to Class Counsel: Sean K. Collins Law
Offices of Sean K. Collins 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA
02110 telephone: (855) 693-9256 email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

Within 90 days after the final disposition of this action, each
Objector of Potential Opt Out must return all Discovery Materials
to the Class Counsel or destroy such materials.  As used in this
section, "all Discovery Materials" includes all copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Discovery Materials.  Whether
the Discovery Materials are returned or destroyed, the Objector
or Potential Opt Out must submit a written certification to Class
Counsel by the 90 day deadline that (1) identifies all the
Discovery Materials that were returned or destroyed, and (2)
affirms that neither the Objector or Potential Opt Out, nor any
entity to whom the Objector or Potential Opt Out provided
Discovery Materials pursuant to Section 3.2 (with the exception
of the Court and its personnel), has retained any copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries, or any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Discovery Materials.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jo9FIn from Leagle.com.

Gwen B. Daluge, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. DeBofsky --
mdebofsky@debofsky.com -- DeBofsky & Associates, P.C., Patrick
Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Ex
Kano Sams, II -- esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Janet Eileen Pecquet, Beckman Weil Shepardson LLC, Jeffrey
Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider LPA, Melissa C. Wright, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Sean K. Collins -- sean@neinsurancelaw.com
-- Sean K. Collins, Attorney at Law.

Murray Young & Helene K. Birnbaum, Plaintiffs, represented by Ex
Kano Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeffrey Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider LPA, Melissa C. Wright, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Sean K. Collins, Sean K. Collins, Attorney at Law.
Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Ameri
Klafeta -- aklafeta@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Brent
Austin -- baustin@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, James W.
Joseph -- jjoseph@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg
LLP & John Street -- jstreet@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.


CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Witt" to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Darryl Mitchell filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Carolyn Witt, Tyrone Henderson,
James O. Hines, Jr., John Moore, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00386-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Darryl Mitchell v. CoreLogic
SafeRent, LLC, Case No. 18-1468, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Party-in-Interest-Appellant DARRYL MITCHELL appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs CAROLYN WITT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, JOHN MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, JAMES A. SCALES, NAKISHA DAVIS,
MORRELL DAVIDSON, KEVIN ODERA and LARRY GOODE are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          1800 Diagonal Road
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
          Telephone: (804) 861-6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

Defendants CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC, and CORELOGIC NATIONAL
BACKGROUND DATA, LLC, are represented by:

          David Neal Anthony, Esq.
          Harrison Scott Kelly, Esq.
          Timothy James St. George, Esq.
          Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410
          E-mail: david.anthony@troutmansanders.com
                  scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com
                  timothy.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com
                  alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com


CENTRAL IOWA: Settles Class Action Over Bed Bug Infestation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Gruber-Miller, writing for Des Moines Register, reports
that a Des Moines homeless shelter has reached a settlement in a
class action lawsuit that alleged a bed bug infestation made the
shelter uninhabitable in late 2014 and 2015.

Those included in the class action suit could receive as much as
$400 if they encountered bed bugs while staying at Central Iowa
Shelter & Services at 1420 Mulberry St. or in its transitional
housing or efficiency apartments between November 2014 and Dec.
1, 2015. The exact amount of money awarded to claimants will
depend on the length of their stay, according to the settlement
agreement.

The shelter has agreed to pay valid and timely claims made by
members of the suit, but denies all wrongdoing and liability.
Mark Tripp, an attorney representing the shelter, said CISS has
always been proactive in dealing with pest problems.

"They have a state-of-the-art program in place that's implemented
through a professional pest control group," Mr. Tripp said.
"There isn't anything that is required in that settlement for
them to do that they aren't already doing."

Steve Wandro, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the shelter
had problems in the past but has brought them under control.

"They've implemented effective procedures to manage the bed bug
problem," Mr. Wandro said.  "They eradicated the problem and now
they've taken a more proactive approach to pest control."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs announced on June 13 they had reached
an agreement, and Polk County District Court Judge Donna Paulsen
granted preliminary approval of the deal, court records show.

A judge will hold a hearing at the Polk County Courthouse at 10
a.m. on Aug. 17 to determine whether the settlement is fair and
reasonable.  Those included in the class action will have an
opportunity to speak and raise objections to the terms of the
agreement at that hearing unless they take action to exclude
themselves from the class of people covered by the agreement.

Anyone with questions about the settlement agreement, whether
they are eligible for inclusion in the class, how to exclude
themselves from the suit or how to object to the terms of the
settlement can contact Lipman Law Firm, P.C. in West Des Moines
at 515-276-3411 or email jeff@lipmanlawfirm.com.

The deadline to submit a claim, object to the settlement terms or
to be excluded from the suit is July 29.

Mr. Wandro said lawyers for the plaintiffs will check people's
claims against the shelter's records of who stayed there to
ensure that only those with valid claims are compensated.

He cautioned against making assumptions about the source of the
bed bugs or blaming the problem on the shelter's residents,
calling bed bugs "an equal opportunity pest." [GN]


DELIV INC: Doesn't Pay Wages to Courier, "Lawson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAEF LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELIV, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CGC18566577 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 15, 2018)
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked as required by California Law.

Lawson was employed by the Defendant a courier.

Deliv, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Menlo,
Park, California, doing business in U.S., including California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA  02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: sliss@llrlaw.com


DELTA AIRLINES: Removes "Pimental" Suit to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case captioned as, Nicholas Pimental, also
known as: Aasir Azzarmi, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Airlines, Inc.,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Queens (Case No. 704015/2018) to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
May 21, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02999-JBW-RML
(E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018). The case was assigned to Judge Jack B.
Weinstein and referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. provides scheduled air transportation for
passengers and cargo in the United States and internationally. As
of February 9, 2018, the company operated a fleet of
approximately 800 aircraft. Delta Air Lines, Inc. was founded in
1924 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Ian Marks, Esq.
          RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          31-10 37th Avenue, Suite 401
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (347) 464-8694
          Facsimile: (800) 483-4508
          E-mail: mmarks@wrmattorney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ira Gregg Rosenstein, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: irosenstein@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brendan Thomas Killeen, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6712
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6712
          E-mail: bkilleen@morganlewis.com


DENTAL EQUITIES: Motion to Stay Junk-Fax Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Artin Betpera, Esq. -- artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- Erin Kubota,
Esq. -- erin.kubota@wbd-us.com -- Eric Troutman, Esq. --
eric.troutman@wbd-us.com -- Joshua Anderson, Esq., Martin L.
Stern, Esq., and Nicole Su, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the
primary jurisdiction doctrine Eric wrote about a mere few weeks
ago was on full display in a recent ruling granting a motion to
stay in a junk-fax TCPA class action.

In Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., et al v. Dental Equities, LLC, et
al., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92736, the District Court for the
Middle District of Florida granted a motion to stay brought by
one of the defendants, pending a ruling by the FCC on the
Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling of AmeriFactors
Financial Group, LLC, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, filed July
13, 2017.  That petition seeks a ruling that e-faxes and other
faxes not sent or received with an actual fax machine are not
within the definition of a "telephone facsimile machine" under
the TCPA.

The defendant in Scoma had moved for a stay on the basis that a
ruling on the AmeriFactors petition would address one of the key
issues in the case: whether the online fax services used to send
some of the faxes at issue was a "telephone facsimile machine"
(TFM) under the TCPA, and that a stay was therefore warranted
under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The court agreed,
holding that a stay was warranted because deferring to the FCC
would "advance the basic purpose of the [primary jurisdiction]
doctrine because the specialized knowledge of the FCC is needed
to answer the questions before the Court[.]"  2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 92736 at *8.  Whether "TFMs encompass online fax services
is a matter of defining a technical term and Congress has
explicitly tasked the FCC with prescribing regulations to
implement the requirements of the TCPA, including the subsection
prohibiting unsolicited facsimile advertisements."  Id. at *9.

The Court noted that although there had been prior occasions when
the FCC addressed whether certain computerized faxing technology
falls within the TCPA's prohibitions, "the last occasion was in
2015, and none appear to be directly applicable to the issues
raised here with regard to sending and receiving faxes using
cloud-based servers, raising a potential first-impression
interpretation for the FCC."  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92736 at *9.

Quite simply, deferring to the FCC was "necessary for a uniform
interpretation of the statutory questions at issue."  2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 92736 at *8-9.  The Court emphasized the fact that if
the case proceeds, "there is a risk that the Court could reach a
determination that is inconsistent with the FCC's ultimate
decisions on the AmeriFactors Petition, and this Court is
ultimately bound to adhere to the FCC's interpretation of the
TCPA."  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92736 at *9, internal citation
omitted.

That sentiment of uniformity in the law assures that the FCC's
policy choices are deferred to by courts and is crucial in the
administration of the TCPA given the vagueness of many of its
provisions.  Although the issues here involve a different
petition, they have strong parallels to the FCC petition relation
to ACA issues.  At their heart, both petitions are about whether
a piece of technology falls within one of the definitions set
forth in the TCPA.  The reasoning as to applying the primary
jurisdiction doctrine is equally as applicable, and illustrates
the importance of these stays. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Issues Mix-Bag Opinion in ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plan Sponsor, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a
mix-bag opinion in a lawsuit filed by employees of Deutsche Bank,
alleging self-dealing within the company's qualified retirement
plan.

The partial decision for summary judgment comes after the
district court first ruled the lawsuit claims, filed in December
2015, would not be time-barred by ERISA's various statutes of
limitation.  Subsequent to that decision, the court approved
class action status for the complaint in September 2017, leading
to the present matter.

In sum, the underlying allegations are that Deutsche Bank and
other defendants violated their fiduciary duties by offering in
the company 401(k) plan proprietary, high-cost investments that
profited the bank.  According to the plaintiffs' complaint, the
Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan, as of 2009, had roughly $1.9
billion in assets and offered participants 22 "designated
investment alternatives," 10 of which were "proprietary Deutsche
Bank mutual funds." The core of the complaint's allegations
concerns the inclusion of Deutsche Bank proprietary mutual funds
among the plan's offerings.  According to the complaint,
"Deutsche Bank earned millions of dollars in investment
management fees by retaining [these proprietary mutual funds] in
the plan."

Technically speaking, this new decision comes in response to
defendants' motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.  Defendants seek summary
judgment with respect to Counts II and III in their entirety, the
decision explains, and with respect to Counts I and IV only to
the extent that they are predicated on the investment options
included in the plan's core lineup.  Defendants do not seek
summary judgment with respect to Counts I and IV to the extent
they are predicated on failures to mitigate ADP recordkeeping
expenses.

As the decision lays out, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.

Based on circuit court guidance, denied is the motion for summary
judgement against plaintiffs' suit based on the generic
allegation that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants breached their various fiduciary duties.  In
particular, defendants seek summary judgment on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot establish "loss causation," but the argument is
roundly rejected.  Thus, defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the breach of fiduciary duty claims is denied.

The court's reasoning is explained this way: "Defendants ask
essentially for a determination that [plaintiffs' experts']
statistical analyses are fundamentally flawed to the point of
being invalid as a matter of law.  No such determination is
appropriate at the summary judgment stage.  Even if it were
appropriate to weigh the competing expert opinions now on this
summary judgment motion -- rather than at the bench trial
scheduled to begin shortly -- the cursory seven-paragraph
rebuttal of [plaintiffs' experts'] work is not sufficiently
persuasive to justify that rejection.  Accordingly, there is a
dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiffs sustained
recoverable losses caused by defendants.  The motion for summary
judgment [on these claims is thus] denied."

The decision goes on to grapple further with binding guidance
from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
concluding that defendants' argument is, at its core, "a request
to ignore the 'but for' Second Circuit test for determining
compensable, and therefore actionable, losses in favor of the
'objective prudence' test adopted in another circuit." This
effort is made because, as the court explains, the objective
prudence test "requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that, even if a
breach occurred, that breach resulted in investments that were
objectively imprudent."

"This argument fails for two reasons," the district court
explains.  "First, the Second Circuit's binding precedent cannot
be ignored. . . . Second, infusing the loss analysis with
questions of 'objective prudence' is analytically messy."

Ultimately, the district court reaches a skeptical conclusion:
"Defendants are not arguing that they are entitled to summary
judgment on the question of whether their actions breached the
duty of care.  Instead, they attempt to attach the objectively
prudent test to the investments that may have resulted from
imprudent conduct.  In this circuit, there is no legal basis to
do so."

The defendants seem to have had at least a little more success on
their other arguments for summary judgment.

Looking at plaintiffs' claim that, by offering the plan
proprietary mutual funds, defendants engaged in prohibited
transactions with a party in interest in violation of ERISA's
prohibited transaction rules -- these have fallen flat.  As the
district court decision states, summary judgment is "granted with
respect to the prohibited transaction claims, because the
transactions are exempt under Department of Labor Prohibited
Transaction Exemption 77-3."

Consequently, the opinion does not address defendants' other
arguments in support of summary judgment on these claims.
However, the decision grapples in detail with the requirements
that must be satisfied in order for the 77-3 exemption to apply.
[GN]


DON VITO OZUNA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Camilo" Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO CAMILO; ALVARO CAMILO; RICARDO G. SANCHEZ; JOSE MANUEL
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SERVERO C. OZUNA and DON VITO OZUNA FOOD
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02842-HRL (N.D Cal.,
May 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tortilla-
manufacturing laborers.

Don Vito Ozuna Food Corporation is a California corporation with
its headquarters in Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ames Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1ST St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111

               - and -

          Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          Email: vbooke@bookelaw.com


DOVER FINANCIAL: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Following Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Collett and Mathew Dunckley, writing for Sydney Morning
Herald, report that the collapse of Dover Financial Services has
sparked renewed calls for a last resort compensation scheme to
cover customers when their adviser's firm ceases to exist.

Dover owner Terry McMaster on June 8 told the 400 or so advisers
that operated under its banner that their coverage on Dover's
licence would be removed immediately after the corporate
regulator signalled it would cancel the licence.  That meant
advisers would have to cease giving new advice immediately and
stop servicing the estimated 40,000 to 50,000 clients completely
by the first week of July.

If Dover goes into administration, clients that want to pursue
their adviser for poor advice would become unsecured creditors
without access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or other
dispute mechanisms.

University of Melbourne professor Ian Ramsay headed a review for
the federal government last year which recommended the
establishment of a compensation scheme of last resort for victims
of poor financial advice pointing to millions of dollars in
unpaid compensation where a company would not pay up, sometimes
because it no longer exists.

On June 11 Professor Ramsay said it was clear that the "area of
most immediate need in terms of last resort compensation is
financial advice".

"When you go by the value of unpaid determinations, I think it is
in excess of 90 per cent by dollar value of unpaid determinations
is the financial advice area," he said.

The federal government has said it will await the outcome of the
Hayne Royal Commission before deciding whether to support the
review's recommendation.

CHOICE campaigns director Erin Turner said the plight of Dover
showed why a scheme was needed.

"With Dover Financial closing its doors, anyone who has a current
or future complaint against the company may struggle to get fair
compensation.  We've seen this before with financial planning,"
she said.

"This case highlights the need for a last-resort compensation
scheme in the financial services sector. It's crucial that the
financial system has appropriate protections so that anyone who
has received dodgy advice gets a fair fix."

Maurice Blackburn superannuation and insurance principal
Josh Mennen said the absence of a last resort scheme could "leave
consumers out to dry" in situations like the one enveloping
Dover.

"This is a textbook example of why a scheme of last resort is
desperately needed to give confidence to consumers that they are
not going to be left in financial limbo when their adviser goes
bust," he said.

Mr Mennen said it was very disappointing that the Ramsay review's
recommendation had not been picked up by now.

Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer's spokesman did not
respond by deadline.  Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen's office did
not return calls.

The pending cancellation of Dover's licence follows intense
scrutiny before the banking royal commission in May. The
Australian Securities and Investments Commission remained tight-
lipped on June 11 about any possible action against Dover or its
planners, confirming only that its inquiries into the firm were
ongoing.

It is believed Mr McMaster had sought until the end of the year
to wind down his business but that ASIC had told him that his
time was up.  Mr McMaster declined to comment.

Paul Tynan, the chief executive of Connect Financial Services
Brokers, which buys and sell financial services businesses, said
the time-frame for the advisers to find another licence to work
under is very short.

"It's going to be a mad scramble by the advisers to find another
licence-holder to work under," he said.

"Four hundred advisers is a hell of lot.  Those taking on the
advisers would have to check them out and there a lot more things
that need to be done that cannot be done in a matter of weeks."

Hamilton Blackstone Lawyers posted on social media that it was
discussions with affected planners to see if there is a potential
for a class action on behalf of the advisers against Dover.

As well as the roughly 400 financial planners under its licence,
Mr McMaster also owns McMasters Accountants and Advisers, which
acts for more than 1000 doctors, dentists and other medical
professionals.

It is the administrator for more than 1200 self-managed super
funds, making it one of the largest SMSF accounting firms in
Australia.

Its website states that McMasters Accounting and Advisers,
through McMasters' (Vic) Pty, is a corporate authorised
representative of Dover Financial Advisers. [GN]


DS PROSPECTING: Made Solicited Calls, "Dawson" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DS PROSPECTING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01246 (N.D. Ohio., June 1, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular
telephones without prior express consent.

DS Prospecting LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621-4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com


EAST CHICAGO, IN: Bradshaw May Intervene as "Gutierrez" Class Rep
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY GUTIERREZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, et al., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
EAST CHICAGO and the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EAST
CHICAGO, Defendants, Cause No. 2:16-CV-111-JVB-PRC (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Paul R. Cherry of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond Division, granted nonparty Edith
Bradshaw's Motion to Intervene as Class Representative in Order
to Seek Contempt Remedies Against the East Chicago Housing
Authority filed on Feb. 21, 2018.

On March 31, 2016, Gutierrez filed a Class Action Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages, challenging the
ECHA and the Police Department of the City of East Chicago's
alleged policy and practice of conducting warrantless and non-
consensual criminal and administrative searches of tenant
apartments.  On April 1, 2016, Gutierrez filed a Motion for Class
Certification and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  On Oct.
5, 2016, the Court entered a preliminary injunction order
prohibiting ECHA from conducting unconstitutional criminal and
administrative searches.

In the instant motion, Bradshaw alleges that, on Nov. 7, 2017,
ECHA conducted a warrantless "housekeeping" inspection of her
apartment, despite the fact that Ms. Bradshaw was not present,
that Ms. Bradshaw had explicitly withheld her consent prior to
the entry, and there there were no exigent circumstances, all in
violation of the Court's Oct. 5, 2016 preliminary injunction
order.  Ms. Bradshaw seeks to intervene for the limited purpose
of seeking contempt sanctions to compensate her for her damages
resulting from ECHA's violation of the Court's order.

Judge Cherry finds that as a threshold matter, Ms. Bradshaw has
standing to intervene because she allegedly suffered
psychological and emotional harm has a direct result of ECHA's
Nov. 7, 2017 allegedly non-consensual and warrantless search of
her apartment without exigent circumstances in violation of the
Court's preliminary injunction order.

Moreover, the motion was timely filed; Ms. Bradshaw has a direct
and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation,
namely securing the benefits of the Court's preliminary
injunction order to be free from unconstitutional intrusions into
her home and to be compensated through contempt sanctions for the
injury she suffered; Ms. Bradshaw's interest is not represented
by any existing party; and Ms. Bradshaw's interest in obtaining a
remedy for contempt would be impaired if this action were
resolved without her.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Motion to Intervene, and
ordered Ms. Bradshaw to file her Verified Petition for Contempt
and exhibits no later than April 27, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ZSP9VS from Leagle.com.

Mary Gutierrez, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gavin M.
Rose, ACLU of Indiana, Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana & Jan P.
Mensz, ACLU of Indiana.

Shawn Polk, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Gavin M.
Rose, ACLU of Indiana & Jan P. Mensz, ACLU of Indiana.

City of East Chicago, Defendant, represented by Michael E.
Tolbert -- mtolbert@tolbertlegal.com -- Tolbert & Tolbert LLC &
Shelice R. Tolbert -- stolbert@tolbertlegal.com -- Tolbert &
Tolbert LLC.

Housing Authority of the City of East Chicago, Defendant,
represented by Jewell Harris, Jr. -- jharris@harrislawfirmpc.net
-- Harris Law Firm PC, Joseph C. Svetanoff, Harris Law Firm PC,
Nicholas A. Snow, Harris Law Firm PC & Tramel R. Raggs --
traggs@harrislawfirmpc.net -- Harris Law Firm PC.

Edith K Bradshaw, Movant, represented by Jan P. Mensz, ACLU of
Indiana.


EDWARD D. JONES: Faces "Bland" Suit over Race Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., and THE JONES
FINANCIAL COMPANIES, L.L.L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03673
(N.D. Ill., May 24, 2018) is an action against the Defendants'
company-wide pattern or practice of race discrimination and
discriminatory policies and practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain stereotypical
views about the skills, abilities and potential of African
Americans that infect and form the basis of the centralized
policies and practices challenged by the lawsuit. Because of
these stereotypical views, African Americans are significantly
under-represented among the Defendants financial advisors,
approximately 94% of whom are white. Although the financial
services industry has made some strides in improving the
representation of minorities in the workforce, the Defendants
lags well behind the national average.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in 2014 after
working in the financial services industry for over a decade.
Despite his experience, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff
business opportunities and resources regularly given to white
financial advisors at the Defendants.

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., provides financial services for
individual investors and businesses in the United States, Canada,
and the United Kingdom. The company was founded in 1922 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
operates as a subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies,
L.L.L.P. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          George S. Robot, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
          303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888


EL COCOTERO: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, "Acosta" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL EDGARDO ACOSTA IBARRA and ROBERTO JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL
COCOTERO INC. (D/B/A EL COCOTERO); EL COCOTERO; EL HOGAR DE LOS
VENEZOLANOS, INC. (D/B/A EL COCOTERO); EL COCOTERO, LLC (D/B/A EL
COCOTERO); MIRIAN MAVAREZ; and LUIS QUINTERO (A.K.A. LUCHO),
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04826 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks. Mr.
Acosta worked from September 2017 to April 29, 2018. Mr. Jimenez
worked from April 18, 2017 to October 2017.

El Cocotero Inc. (d/b/a El Cocotero) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Company
is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]s

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


ELC BEAUTY: Faces "Wu" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ELC Beauty LLC. The
case is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ELC Beauty LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04350-RJS (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

ELC Beauty LLC is a New York corporation engaged in beauty salon
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELONIS RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Staff, "Carillo" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARLOS CARILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Elonis Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a
Landmark Diner, John Tiglias, and Thomas Tiglias, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03227 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff
from the year 2009 to the present.

Elonis Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Landmark Diner is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York,
with office address at Roslyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joan B. Lopez, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


EMULEX CORP: Court Reverses Dismissal of "Varjabedian" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary H. Murguia of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case, GARY
VARJABEDIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMULEX CORPORATION; BRUCE C.
EDWARDS; JEFFREY W. BENCK; GREGORY S. CLARK; GARY J. DAICHENDT;
PAUL F. FOLINO; BEATRIZ V. INFANTE; JOHN A. KELLEY; RAHUL N.
MERCHANT; NERSI NAZARI; DEAN A. YOOST; AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES
WIRELESS (USA) MANUFACTURING, INC.; EMERALD MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-55088 (9th Cir.), and remanded
the case to the district court for it to reconsider the
Defendants' motion to dismiss under a negligence standard.

The case centers on the merger between Emulex and Avago.  Emulex
was a Delaware incorporated technology company that sold storage
adapters, network interface cards, and other products.  On Feb.
25, 2015, Emulex and Avago issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into a merger agreement, with
Avago offering to pay $8 for every share of outstanding Emulex
stock.  The $8 price reflected a premium of 26.4% on Emulex's
stock price the day before the merger was announced.

Pursuant to the terms of the announced merger agreement, a
subsidiary of Avago, Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., initiated a tender
offer for Emulex's outstanding stock on April 7, 2015.  Emulex
hired Goldman Sachs to determine whether the proposed merger
agreement would be fair to shareholders.  Based in part on
Goldman Sachs' opinion, Emulex filed a 48-page Recommendation
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
Enough Emulex shareholders ultimately accepted the tender offer
to consummate the merger.  On May 5, 2015, Merger Sub merged into
Emulex, with Emulex surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Avago.

Not all the shareholders, however, were happy with the merger's
terms.  Some believed the $8-per-share price offered was
inadequate given Emulex's significant growth leading up to the
tender offer and the company's prospects for future growth.  The
class of shareholders, who claimed they were misled by Emulex,
Avago, Merger Sub, and the Emulex Board of Directors
("Defendants") into believing that the merger was better than it
actually was, brought a lawsuit against Defendants.

The district court eventually named Mutza Lead Plaintiff.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities
laws, specifically Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, by failing
to summarize the Premium Analysis in the Recommendation
Statement, which would have disclosed that the 26.4% premium was
below average compared to similar mergers.  The Plaintiff also
sought to hold the directors of Emulex vicariously liable as
"controlling persons" under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  In
deciding to do so, the district court concluded that Section
14(e) requires a showing of scienter and that the Plaintiff
failed to plead scienter.  Next, the district court rejected the
Plaintiff's separate claim under Section 14(d), concluding that
Section 14(d)(4) does not establish a private right of action for
shareholders confronted with a tender offer.  Finally, it
dismissed the Section 20(a) claim because the Plaintiff did not
adequately plead a claim under Section 14(d) or (e).

The Plaintiff timely appeals.

Because the text of the first clause of Section 14(e) is devoid
of any suggestion that scienter is required, Judge Murgia
concludes that the first clause of Section 14(e) requires a
showing of only negligence, not scienter.

Because the district court did not reach the question whether
omitting the Premium Analysis -- a one-page chart containing 17
transactions involving semiconductor companies -- from the
Recommendation Statement constitutes omission of a material fact
in the context of the entire transaction, the Judge not reach the
question.  She says although it is difficult to show that this
omitted information was indeed material, she remands for the
district court to consider the question in the first instance.

The Judge affirms the district court's conclusion that Section
14(d)(4) does not create an implied right of action.  She finds
that there is no indication of any legislative intent to provide
for a private right of action.  Section 14(d)(4) is a generic
statute simply requiring that recommendation statements abide by
the SEC's rules.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's claims under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act necessarily depend on the Plaintiff's
Section 14(d)(4) and (e) claims.  Because the Plaintiff's Section
14(d)(4) claim fails, but the Plaintiff's Section 14(e) claim
remains, the Section 20(a) claim also survives for the district
court to consider on remand.

Finally, she affirms the district court's dismissal of Merger Sub
as a Defendant in the case.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are clear that a corporation's capacity to be sued is determined
by the law under which it was organized.  As a Delaware
corporation, Merger Sub Corporation ceased to exist after the
merger was consummated, and its rights and liabilities now belong
to the surviving corporation, Emulex.

Judge Murguia concludes that she is aware that her holding parts
ways from her colleagues in five other circuits.  However, she is
persuaded that intervening guidance from the Supreme Court
compels the conclusion that Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act
imposes a negligence standard.  Accordingly, she reversed the
district court's decision as to the Section 14(e) claim because
the district court employed a scienter standard in analyzing the
Section 14(e) claim.

The Judge also remanded for the district court to reconsider the
Defendant's motion to dismiss under a negligence standard.  On
remand, she directed the district court to also consider whether
the Premium Analysis was material, an argument that they raised
but that the district court did not reach.  In addition, the
district court will consider the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim
since the Section 14(e) claim survives.

The Judge also affirmed the district court's conclusion that
Section 14(d)(4) does not create an implied right of action.
Finally, she affirmed the district court's dismissal of Merger
Sub because it is not a proper Defendant.  The parties will bear
their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/3dNQlP from Leagle.com.

Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- (argued),
Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, New York; Barbara A. Rohr -
- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Los Angeles,
California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric N. Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- (argued), and Travis
Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Irvine, California;
Erica L. Reilley -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Jones Day, Los
Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees Emulex Corporation,
Bruce C. Edwards, Jeffrey W. Benck, Gregory S. Clark, Gary J.
Daichendt, Paul F. Folino, Beatriz V. Infante, John A. Kelley,
Rahul N. Merchant, Nersi Nazari, and Dean A. Yoost.

Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- (argued) and Hilary
Mattis -- hilary.mattis@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo
Park, California; for Defendants-Appellees Avago Technologies
Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc.; Emerald Merger Sub, Inc.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Merger Challenges Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Sutherland and Max Nisen, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that health-care outsourcing companies are bad at doing
deals, and private equity firms are their fixer of choice.

Envision Healthcare Corp. on June 11 agreed to sell itself to KKR
& Co. for $46 a share, or $9.9 billion including debt.  The deal
caps a more than six-month strategic review and comes just 18
months after Envision combined with AmSurg Corp.

The Envision-AmSurg merger was meant to create a healthcare-
services behemoth with $8.5 billion in sales and expertise in
everything from ambulatory surgery to anesthesiology.  And at the
time, bulking up seemed like the right strategic move, with
Medicare and other payers seeking to incentivize better
coordination.  But uncertainty over the Affordable Care Act has
since weakened patient demand and undermined Envision's ability
to capitalize on the revenue synergies that provided most of the
financial logic for the AmSurg deal.  Hurricanes in Texas and
Florida last year didn't help.  And Envision was ill-equipped to
grapple with both the changing landscape and the deep-rooted
organizational work necessary to make a large merger-of-equals
succeed.

A ragtag strategy is evident on the company's website, with
AmSurg's name living on for an ambulatory surgical division
that's carved out from the rest of the company.  This February
statement from CEO Christopher Holden about the challenges of
drafting a 2017 plan for the merged entity is even more telling:

"Because you're not allowed to really talk to one another when
you're going through a merger process, the legacy AmSurg and
legacy Envision each prepared their pieces and then we stitched
those together at the time of the merger and it became the budget
that we lived with."

Envision made things harder on itself by continuing to gobble up
physician groups across the country even as it was still
digesting AmSurg.  It's also been accused of sending enormous
bills for out-of-network services that come as a surprise for
patients who in some cases deliberately sought out hospitals
within their insurance networks.  These predatory practices led
to a class action lawsuit from investors and soured Envision's
relationship with UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S.
insurer and at one point a reported possible buyer for all or
part of the company.  Envision's efforts to change its ways are
likely to weigh on sales.

Enter KKR.  Reuters had reported HCA Healthcare was interested in
acquiring the AmSurg ambulatory-surgery unit, with KKR taking the
rest of Envision, effectively dismantling the merger.  That KKR
instead decided to go it alone suggests Envision had the right
idea by consolidating the physician-outsourcing industry, but
that it's a strategy best executed away from the glare of the
public markets, especially given the billing controversies.

Sky-high charges from air ambulance operators are also getting
fresh scrutiny. In that space, KKR earlier this year purchased
Envision's American Medical Response unit for $2.4 billion and
combined it with a rival health-care transportation company it
already owned.

Then again, what do private equity firms know? Envision's history
is littered with them.  It was formed in 2005 when Canadian
buyout shop Onex Corp. acquired American Medical Response (yes,
the same transportation unit Envision sold to KKR earlier this
year) and physician-services provider EmCare from Laidlaw
International.  Private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice then
acquired the business in 2011 and took the company public in
2013.  Onex had reportedly formed a consortium with Clayton
Dubilier and Hellman Friedman to bid for Envision this time
around.

The end game here may be to merge AmSurg/Envision with Team
Health Holdings Inc., which was acquired by Blackstone Group in
2017 for $6.1 billion.  Team Health struggled to integrate its
own $1.6 billion purchase of IPC Healthcare after spurning
advances from AmSurg.  Mind you, Blackstone had previously
acquired Team Health in 2005 and took it public in 2009, only to
dive back in for round two.

It's not clear what long-lasting operational or capital
allocation expertise these supposed masters in running companies
have instilled at these health-care services companies, or what
value they'll be able to add this time around beyond the shield
of the private market.  Can't wait for 2025 when we write about
these companies getting broken up again. [GN]


EPIC BUSINESS: Faces "Williams" Suit over Sale of Essential Oils
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRECIOUS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a MAJESTIC PURE COSMECEUTICALS, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-CV-
04270 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018) seeks to remedy the Defendant's
deceptive and misleading business practices related to its sale
of essential oil products.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the products using a marketing and advertising
campaign that is centered around false claims appealing to
health-conscious consumers that the products are of natural plant
origins and are 100% Pure and Natural. On the contrary, the
Defendant's products contain a spectacular array of artificial
and synthetic chemicals.

Epic Business Services, Inc. d/b/a Majestic Pure Cosmeceuticals
is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California. The Company markets its product in New York
and the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste. 103
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708-5322
          Facsimile: (718) 708-5966
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com


ETSY INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Altayyar" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court granting the Defendants-Appellees'
motion to dismiss the case, SALEH ALTAYYAR, ANDREW HUANG, SARAH
CHANG, and MARY M. GILTENAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ARTHUR
CERVANTES, MICHAEL WEISS, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. ETSY, INC.,
CHAD DICKERSON, KRISTINA SALEN, JAMES W. BREYER, M. MICHELE
BURNS, JONATHAN D. KLEIN, FRED WILSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, LOOP CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 17-1180-cv (2d Cir.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal
from the district court's judgment entered March 23, 2017
granting the motion to dismiss of the Defendants-Appellees.  The
district court explained its reasoning in a memorandum decision
and order issued March 16, 2017

Etsy is an online forum that allows individuals to buy and sell
handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies.  The
Plaintiffs are investors who purchased or acquired Etsy
securities and allege that the Defendants made material
misstatements and omissions that artificially inflated Etsy's
stock price, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer a loss when the
stock price dropped.

The Plaintiffs' claims largely originated from analyst reports,
including one issued by Wedbush Securities, which suggested that
Etsy was doing a poor job at identifying and removing items from
its marketplace that (1) did not meet its terms and guidelines or
(2) infringed trademarks or copyrights.  According to them, the
revelations in these notes resulted in a decline in Etsy's stock
value, which is the basis for their claim of injury.

The Plaintiffs' "revised amended" complaint alleges that Etsy and
its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Count I); Etsy's officers violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, (Count II) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 ("Securities Act") (Count V); and all the Defendants
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act (Counts
III-IV).  The district court dismissed the Complaint with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs appeal.

The Appellate Court finds that the Complaint fails to allege
actionable material misstatements or omissions.  Rather, the
purported misstatements consist of vague aspirational statements;
or statements of opinion; or statements of policy and values.
While the Complaint does rely on some factual statements, the
Court finds that it fails to plausibly allege that they are false
or misleading.

As the Plaintiffs have not identified any actionable statements,
the district court correctly dismissed Count I.  As secondary
liability under Section 20(a) depends on a primary violation of
Section 10(b), the district court also correctly dismissed Count
II.  Additionally, the district court correctly dismissed Counts
III-V as the Securities Act claims also required allegations of
material misrepresentations.

Having considered all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments, the
Court concludes they are without merit.  Accordingly, it affirmed
the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/j0DSuf from Leagle.com.

MATTHEW L. TUCCILLO -- mltuccillo@pomlaw.com --  (Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer B. Sobers --
jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- on the brief), Pomerantz LLP, New York,
New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

STEPHEN P. BLAKE -- sblake@stblaw.com -- (James G. Kreissman --
jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Jonathan K. Youngwood --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- on the brief), Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, New York New York, for Defendants-Appellees GOLDMAN
SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS,
LLC, AND THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.

JOSEPH R. PALMORE -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- (Kayvan B. Sadeghi --
ksadeghi@mofo.com -- Joel C. Haims -- jhaims@mofo.com -- Seth W.
Lloyd -- slloyd@mofo.com -- on the brief), Morrison & Foerster
LLP, New York, New York, and Washington, D.C., for Defendants-
Appellees, ETSY, INC., CHAD DICKERSON, KRISTINA SALEN, JAMES W.
BREYER, M. MICHELE BURNS, JONATHAN D. KLEIN, AND FRED WILSON.


FAST TAX SERVICE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broomfield" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA BROOMFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAST TAX SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05403-SSV-KWR (E.D. La., May 29,
2018) seeks to stops the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages and prerecorded messages to cellular
telephones without the recipient's prior express written consent.

Fast Tax is a corporation licensed to do and doing business in
Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Kirkland, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956


FBCS INC: Allen Sues over Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Lysa Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02681-MHC-RGV (N.D. Ga., May 31,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect debt.

FBCS, Inc. is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1100 Peachtree St. NE, Ste 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Wants Judge to Trim Claims Cherokee Defect Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Fiat Chrysler asked
a California federal judge on June 8 to trim claims in a suit
alleging it deceived consumers into buying Jeep Grand Cherokees
with defective power distribution systems, saying the plaintiffs
have no evidence to back their claims.

The automaker's U.S. unit FCA US LLC moved for partial summary
judgment on plaintiffs David and Kathleen Donner's fraudulent
inducement and punitive damages claims in their suit alleging the
company knowingly sold 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokees with defective
"totally integrated power modules."

The case is David I. Donner et al v. FCA US LLC et al, Case No.
2:17-cv-02303 (C.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Michael R. Wilner.  The case was filed March 24, 2017. [GN]


FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Underpays Room Attendant, Romero Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FILLMORE HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a
CAMBRIA EL SEGUNDO; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC705667 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to authorize and permit all rest periods,
pay all vacation wages, pay all wages owed upon termination, and
provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Ms. Romero was employed by the Defendants as room attendant from
April 3, 2017 to September 2017.

Fillmore Hospitality LLC provides a full spectrum of investment
management and property management services to owners of hotels
and resorts throughout North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
           Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
           LIDMAN LAW, APC
           222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
           El Segundo. CA 90245
           Telephone: (424) 322-4772
           Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
           E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                   enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

           Paul K. Haines, Esq.
           HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
           222 North Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 1550
           El Segundo, CA 90245
           Telephone: (424) 292-2350
           Facsimile (424) 292-2355
           E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


FINISH LINE INC: Barnett Sues over JD Sports Merger Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
COREY BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FINISH LINE, INC.; GLENN S. LYON;
TORRENCE BOONE; RICHARD P. CRYSTAL CATHERINE A. LANGHAM; STEPHEN
GOLDSMITH; WILLIAM P. CARMICHAEL; SAMUEL M. SATO; and FAISAL
MASUD, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01580-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., May
24, 2018) seeks to enjoin shareholder voting on a proposed merger
transaction, pursuant to which the The Finish Line, Inc. will be
acquired by JD Sports Fashion Plc through JD Sports' wholly-owned
subsidiary Genesis Merger Sub, Inc.

According to the complaint, that on March 26, 2018, Finish Line
issued a press release that announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with JD Sports, pursuant to which
each of Finish Line's issued and outstanding Class A common
shares will be converted into the right to receive $13.50 in
cash. The Proposed Merger is valued at approximately $558
million.

On May 7, 2018, Finish Line filed a Registration Statement with
the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that its
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (a) Finish Line's financial projections, including the
financial projections relied upon by its financial advisors, PJ
Solomon Securities, LLC and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.; (ii)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinions provided by Solomon and
Houlihan; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest.

Unless remedied, Finish Line's shareholders will be forced to
make a voting decision on the Proposed Merger without full
disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Merger being provided to them. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Merger unless and until such
Exchange Act violations are cured.

The Finish Line, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates
as a retailer of athletic shoes, apparel, and accessories for
men, women, and kids. The Finish Line, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com


FIRST CONNECT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST CONNECT INC. d/b/a US
MERCHANT SERVICE; KENT KUSZAJEWSKI; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04587 (C.D. Cal., May 25, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants has made unsolicited calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received telephone
calls from the Defendants using automatic telephone dialing
system, or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and the Plaintiff
had not previously provided his telephone number, and had not
given his express consent.

First Connect Inc. d/b/a US Merchant Service is a business
equipment sales company. [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


FLANNY PRODUCTIONS: Pollister Sues over Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Pollister, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILIZA SHLESINGER; FLANNY
PRODUCTIONS LTD; MARK BRIAN FLANAGAN; UNITED TALENT AGENCY LLC
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC705961 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants' gender exclusive admission practice which contravenes
strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants intentionally denied
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services to the Plaintiff and the Class, when the Defendants deny
the Plaintiff and the Class, admission into the Defendants' show
Girls Night In With Iliza - No Boys Allowed.

Flanny Productions Ltd. is a California corporation doing
business as The Coronet Theater. The Company operates a bar and a
theater. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 238-1993
          Facsimile: (619) 374-7288
          E-mail: alrava@cox.net


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settles Patient Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Curtis, writing for WTVY.com, reports that people who sued
after others used their stolen personal information to file
fraudulent income tax returns may soon receive financial
settlements.

Attorneys for Flowers Hospital and lawyers representing the
victims recently reached an agreement in a class action lawsuit.
The terms, not yet disclosed, must be approved by a federal
judge.

The hospital became aware of the thefts in 2014, when a police
officer noticed patient files in lab worker, Kamarian Millender's
car.  Police discovered the files after he ran out of gas in
Headland.

Mr. Millender admitted in court he sold the information to people
who used it file the returns and served two years in prison.
At least 70 people were scammed.

Prosecutors said the false tax returns attempted to defraud an
estimated $536,000 from the Internal Revenue Service.  "The IRS
was able to stop the vast majority of the falsely claimed
refunds, but approximately $18,915 in refunds were issued,"
according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney.

Generally speaking, in class action lawsuits that are settled, a
certain amount of money is set aside and a claims administrator
disperses the funds based upon loss and circumstances that are
often different in every case.

It's not clear when those affected by the data breach can begin
filing claims, assuming the settlement is approved by U.S.
District Judge Keith Watkins. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs CHARLES JOHNSON, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their consolidated lawsuit styled CHARLES JOHNSON, et
al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:13-cv-06529, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Huntington.

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought certification of 15 statewide classes.

The appellate case is captioned as Lance Belville, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 18-1470, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: jalmeida@gelaw.com
                  kmcgee@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4496
          E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Niall Anthony Paul, Esq.
          SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          Spilman Center
          300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340-3874
          E-mail: npaul@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          L. Lee Javins, II, Esq.
          BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, L.C.
          P. O. Box 3712
          Charleston, WV 25337-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-0346
          E-mail: Timbailey@BJC4U.com
                  Ljavins@BJC4U.com

               - and -

          James R. Bartimus, Esq.
          Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON & ROBERTSON, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com
                  steve@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stacey Kelly Breen, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
          E-mail: Breen@whafh.com

               - and -

          Keith G. Bremer, Esq.
          Jason H. Dang, Esq.
          Alison K. Hurley, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Price, Esq.
          BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, LLP
          20320 SW. Birch Street, Second Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 221-1000
          Facsimile: (949) 221-1001
          E-mail: kbremer@bremerwhyte.com
                  jdang@bremerwhyte.com
                  ahurley@bremerwhyte.com
                  bprice@bremerwhyte.com

               - and -

          Guy Richard Bucci, Esq.
          HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC
          214 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-5500
          E-mail: gbucci@handl.com

               - and -

          Grant Lavalle Davis, Esq.
          Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
          DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES
          1100 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-1600
          Facsimile: (816) 472-5972
          E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
                  tgaarder@dbjlaw.net

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          DICELLO LAW FIRM
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Western Reserve Law Building
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com
                  rfdicello@dicellolaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          10 North Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  jtangren@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Merpi II, Esq.
          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: rlm@millerlawpc.com
                  epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          John Timothy Murray, Sr., Esq.
          MURRAY AND MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: (419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com

               - and -

          John Scarola, Esq.
          C. Calvin Warriner III, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
                  ccw@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Matthew M. Wawrzyn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  mwawrzyn@siprut.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:

          Michael Bonasso, Esq.
          William Jameson Hanna, Esq.
          Susan W. Romaine, Esq.
          Bradley J. Schmalzer, Esq.
          FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC
          200 Capitol Street
          P. O. Box 3843
          Charleston, WV 25338-3843
          Telephone: (304) 347-4259
          E-mail: mbonasso@flahertylegal.com
                  whanna@flahertylegal.com
                  bschmalzer@flahertylegal.com

               - and -

          Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq.
          Perry Watson Miles, IV, Esq.
          Sarah Virginia Bondurant Price, Esq.
          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          John Tracy Walker, IV, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4758
          Facsimile: (804) 440-7770
          E-mail: tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com
                  pmiles@mcguirewoods.com
                  vbondurant@mcguirewoods.com
                  bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com
                  twalker@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Jill Crawley Griset, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          201 North Tyron Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2000
          E-mail: jgriset@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Fazio, Esq.
          AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DUETSCH
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 593-5458
          E-mail: pjfazio@arfdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Holmstrand, Esq.
          GROVE, HOLMSTRAND & DELK, PLLC
          44 1/2 15th Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 905-1961

               - and -

          Jodi Munn Schebel, Esq.
          BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP
          1800 Fisher Building
          3011 West Grand Boulevard
          Detroit, MI 48202-0000
          Telephone: (248) 205-3300
          E-mail: jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com

               - and -

          Harold C. Zuckerman, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          2 West Second Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587-0000
          E-mail: harold.zuckerman@mcafeetaft.com


FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD: Fails to Pay OT, "Carrasco" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
FATIMA CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03591 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2018)
alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff at
the proper overtime rate for all the work he performed in excess
of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ms. Carrasco was employed by the Defendant as inventory
coordinator.

Freudenberg Household Products LP is a corporation organized and
existing under laws of the State of Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Kunze, Esq.
          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630)355-7590
          Facsimile: (630)778-0400


FRIEZE NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Heat at Tent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Kinsella, writing for artnet News, reports that one day
after Frieze organizers sent an email to the nearly 200
exhibitors at its recent New York edition offering refunds of up
to 10 percent due to the excessive temperatures in its bespoke
tent, Shane Campbell fired back, saying, in effect, "not good
enough."

A lawsuit filed by the Chicago gallery seeks a full refund of its
fair costs.  The claim, for which the plaintiffs hope to achieve
class action status, requests judgment of $15 million, plus
damages.

A month after the seventh edition of Frieze New York opened to
VIPs on Randall's Island, the epic and "unbearable" heat inside
the tent remains a much-discussed issue.  By all accounts, the
tent's cooling and ventilation system failed miserably as a heat
wave hit New York, causing temperatures to soar and tempers to
flare among the well-heeled crowd.  The rumor mill and social
media were awash with complaints and puns about the effects of
the torrid atmosphere on the ability to look at, no less buy,
pricey artworks.

A representative for Frieze told artnet News that Frieze has not
received any formal notice of the lawsuit and therefore cannot
comment.

The lawsuit, filed June 8 in US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that Frieze Events breached its
contractual promise by "failing to properly design, test, and
regulate the ability of the air conditioning system at the Art
Fair to maintain an environment within which Exhibitors could
conduct commercial business." The lawsuit, in which the gallery's
co-owner Julie Campbell is also named as a plaintiff, asserts
that Frieze management admitted it was aware in advance of an
impending heatwave and was expecting record-breaking temperatures
"but was grossly negligent in preparing the site for such heat
and ensuring a reasonably efficient air conditioning system."

As a "direct result of the oppressive heat," the suit says "art
customers, collectors, consultants and their clients and other
attendees could not remain in the site and were forced to leave."
Exhibitors "suffered substantial financial losses," as a result.
The lawsuit is seeking cancellation of the contracts that
participating galleries signed and reimbursement of all sums paid
for participation at the fair.

Each exhibitor paid approximately $78.50 per square foot, for
booths ranging from about 431 square feet, to 1,292 square feet,
according to the complaint. The gallery's contract with Frieze is
attached as an exhibit to the complaint. Further, it says, Frieze
added a surcharge of up to 15 percent for "privileged locations"
such as corner booths or booths on the open squares.

"This case is not about us," according to a statement from Julie
Campbell given to artnet News via her attorney, Lewis Saul.
"It's about holding a professional organization responsible for
the losses caused by its failure to provide functional space.
All the galleries invest so much to set up a booth at the fair.
Frieze simply did not do their job."

Shane Campbell Gallery has exhibited at Frieze New York each year
since the launch of the edition in 2012.  The suit zeroes in on
the new tent structure introduced this year -- a series of tents
forming discrete sections as opposed to the previous snaking,
singular form -- and the fact that air conditioning vents were
relocated to the upper levels of the tents from the floor, as a
key source of the problem.

However, regular visitors to the fair know that weather-related
vulnerabilities are hardly a new thing.  Previous editions have
seen jitters about rain-driven leaks and excessive winds.
Indeed, excessive heat in some prior editions of Frieze New York
prompted fairgoers to amass around so-called "cool spots" in the
previous tent where vents pumped out conditioned air from below.

The lawsuit claims that according to Accuweather, the outdoor
temperature on Randall's Island reached 90 degrees on May 2, 93
degrees on May 3, and 84 degrees on May 4.

While some visitors "unable to bear the heat" were forced to exit
the tent, others canceled their planned appointments and "many
people became ill from the conditions," the lawsuit asserts.

After the fair, the gallery sought to negotiate a return of all
fees paid to Frieze in connection with participation.  Instead,
the suit says, Frieze offered to return 2.5 percent of the fees
the gallery paid.  The plaintiffs say that the requirements for a
class action are in place since "Frieze has acted or refused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the Class making
appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief with respect to
the Class as a whole."

The claims include breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial.

Mr. Saul describes Frieze's partial refund offer as "wholly
inadequate," adding: "We intend to litigate this to the fullest
extent possible to give galleries what they deserve." [GN]


FRONTLINE ASSET: Cirruzzo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Cirruzzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02866-AMD-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 14,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect debt. The case is assigned to Judge Ann M.
Donnelly and referred to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara.

FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC is headquartered in Twin Cities.
The Company offers debt collection, judgment enforcement, and
legal services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          237 Club Dr
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (718) 855-3834
          Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
          E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


GCI SOLAR: "Benkert" Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Benkert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GCI Solar LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01025, (D. Colo., May 2, 2018), seeks statutory
damages, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges that GCI called her residential phone without
consent, using an auto-dialer while her number was on the Do Not
Call Registry. GCI Solar is a company that provides solar energy
solutions to consumers, installing solar panels onto home roofs
and structures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick Peluso, Esq.
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
      3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Phone: (720) 213-0675
      Email: swoodrow@ppeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


GEICO GENERAL: Faces "Camme" over Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMME TRANSPORTATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO INTERNATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18CV776D (Mass. Super.,
Essex Cty., May 21, 2018) seeks to recover damages against the
Defendant for its unlawful willful and knowing practice of
refusing to tender amounts owed to third-party claimants in
consideration of the diminution in value their automobiles suffer
as a result of the negligence of the insured individual of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that on May 24, 2016, a motor vehicle was
involved in an accident involving the Defendant's insured, Ms.
Glenda Ortiz. At the time of the collision, Ms. Ortiz was insured
under a policy of insurance issued by the Defendant, which
included indemnity benefits available to pay for third-party
property damage. The Plaintiff made a demand for payment to the
Defendant in relation to the property damage claim of Ms. Ortiz.

The motor vehicle subject to the collision was examined by
Travelers Insurance Company. On May 27, 2016, Travelers Insurance
determined that the motor vehicle suffered $7,240.10 in damage.
On June 13, 2016, Travelers Insurance determined, through another
appraiser, that the motor vehicle suffered $8,725.83 in damage.
On June 13, 2016, an adjuster for Travelers Insurance revised the
estimate to reflect that the motor vehicle suffered a total of
$15,359.89 in damage. The Defendant then paid Travelers Insurance
for repairs made to the motor vehicle.

The Defendant paid Travelers Insurance an amount purportedly in
full consideration for the damages suffered by the motor vehicle
without ever appraising the vehicle. The Defendant's initial
tender for property damage did not include any consideration for
the inherent diminished value of the motor vehicle suffered as a
result of the collision.

Geico International Insurance Company is an automobile insurance
company licensed and registered in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
            FORREST LAMOTHE
            2 Salem Green, Suite 2
            Salem, MA 01970
            Telephone: (617) 231-7829
            E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com
                    jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
                    mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


GEICO GENERAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Green" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware granted in
part and denied in part without prejudice Geico's motion to
dismiss the case, YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION
CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, C.A. No. N17C-03-242 EMD CCLD (Del.
Super.).

Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center ("WPRC"),
and Rehabilitation Associates, P.A. ("RA") sued on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, against GEICO.

The Plaintiffs' case challenges GEICO's process for evaluating
personal injury protection ("PIP") claims submitted to Geico by
its insureds.  Under Delaware law and pursuant to GEICO's
contractual obligations, after an insured submits a proof of
loss, it must repay all reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred within two years from the date of the accident.  This
includes compensation for medical and hospital services.  In
evaluating PIP claims, GEICO relies on the Rules that purportedly
analyze all claims the same way, regardless of the facts giving
rise to the claim.  These Rules are the source of the present
litigation.

The first rule at issue is the Geographic Reduction Rule ("GRR").
Under the GRR, GEICO sets an arbitrary cap at the "80th
percentile" of other claims submitted to GEICO within a
particular geographic region.  As a result of the GRR, 20% of
bills submitted to GEICO for reimbursement are automatically
deemed "unreasonable," without inquiry into the facts giving rise
to the claim or any factors that could impact pricing.  Based on
this, the Plaintiffs allege that the GRR is, in effect, a secret
cap on what GEICO will pay.

The second rule at issue is the Passive Modality Rule ("PMR").
Under the PMR, GEICO automatically denies payment for certain
passive modalities when treatment occurs more than eight weeks
from the date of the automobile accident.  GEICO enforces the PMR
without making any inquiry into the facts or treatment to
determine if treatment is appropriate.  Based on this, the
Plaintiffs allege that the PMR is, in effect, a secret policy
exclusion on what GEICO will pay.  Additionally, GEICO does not
disclose its claims handling policies, the GRR, or the PMR to its
insureds.

On Aug. 1, 2017, GEICO filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Class Action Complaint, urging the Court to follow
the reasoning used by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware when decertifying a similar class.  GEICO argues that
the Court cannot certify a class in this case because individual
issues will predominate the case regarding damages.
Additionally, it argues that the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to
state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Judge Davis finds that it is premature to dismiss the civil
action before the Plaintiffs have an opportunity to engage in
discovery and retain experts.  It is not clear how Plaintiffs
plan to seek damages.  If they seek to get individual damages for
each class member for the difference between the insured's claim
and the amount paid by Geico on that claim, then the Plaintiffs'
individual issues may override the common questions.  However, at
this point in the litigation, he holds the Plaintiffs claim
survives and the issue of class certification is premature.

Because it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs will move or
maintain the class under a different subsection, the Judge does
not find based on a Rule 12(b)(6) standard that the Plaintiffs
could not maintain a class under any circumstances.

GEICO also claims that the class definitions in paragraphs 64 and
80 are facially deficient.  The Plaintiffs define the Claimant
Class as all persons who submitted PIP claims to Geico after
March 10, 2011, which were reduced or denied under the Rules.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs define the Insured Class as those
insureds whose PIP claims were submitted by medical providers
after March 10, 2011, which were reduced or denied under the
Rules.  The Claimant Sub-Class includes all medical providers who
submitted claims to Geico on behalf of patients after March 10,
2011, which were reduced or denied under the Rules.

The Judge finds that the class definitions do not presently limit
the class to those members who suffered an improper denial based
on the Rules.  This "problem," he says, can be rectified with an
amended pleading after discovery or through a claim process.
Taking the allegations as true, GEICO's use of the Rules created
this dilemma.  As argued to the Court, GEICO uses the Rules and
does not individually analyze each claim.  Therefore, no one,
including Geico, knows which GEICO customers had their claims
properly rejected and those that did not have their claims
properly rejected.  The Judge will allow the Plaintiffs, at this
early stage of the proceedings, a chance to further refine this
issue in discovery.

The Judge further finds that GEICO's ability to protect itself
will not suffer prejudice.  WPRC and RA were added to the Amended
Complaint on Dec. 11, 2015.  Although it argues that the
amendments increased the class, the amendment took place nearly
two years earlier.  In fact, the Plaintiffs have not moved to
certify the class at this point.  It does not appear that GEICO
would suffer harm in ability to defend itself.

Because the Plaintiffs allegedly suffered damages and were not
made whole under the code or otherwise, and Geico has not
remedied its purported breach of the contract or statute, the
Judge holds that declaratory judgment would not undermine the
General Assembly or the Insurance Commissioner's powers.  In
fact, the Insurance Commissioner stated in the Commissioner's
Letter that the insurance code does not provide for any private
enforcement action by his department.  If the Plaintiffs can
factually develop their case, the Judge finds that a declaratory
judgment would be an appropriate remedy for the issues raised in
the case.

At this stage in the proceeding, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that GEICO breached the implied
covenant.  Moreover, WPRC and RA were acting in the same capacity
as the insureds.  Therefore, WPRC and RA were not in horizontal
privity with Geico and cannot bring a DTP claim.

Finally, the Judge finds that the factual record in the matter is
not complete.  Discovery has yet to complete.  Based on the
Complaint, the allegations lead to the possibility of the award
of punitive damages based on Geico's conduct.  However, as the
factual record develops, punitive damages may no longer be viable
for the action.  As such, the Judge says this issue is more
appropriately addressed on a motion for summary judgment or
pretrial request to preclude the Plaintiffs from seeking punitive
damages.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Davis granted in part and denied
in part the Motion.  He permitted the Defendants to reassert any
relevant arguments during class certification.  The Parties
should contact the Court to schedule a status conference
regarding class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GK9nCr from Leagle.com.

Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esquire -- rcross@crosslaw.com --
Christopher P. Simon, Esquire -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- Cross &
Simon, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Yvonne
Green, Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center, and
Rehabilitation Associates, P.A.

Paul A. Bradley, Esquire -- PAB@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, George M.
Church, Esquire, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Baltimore, Maryland,
Meloney Perry, Esquire -- mperry@mperrylaw.com -- Perry Law,
P.C., Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant GEICO General
Insurance Company.


GENERAL DYNAMICS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Cunningham"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Franklin Floyd of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-
1592 (4th Cir.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Cunningham alleges that he received an autodialed, prerecorded
phone call from General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
("GDIT") advertising the commercial availability of health
insurance, without having given his prior express consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The district court granted GDIT's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that GDIT is immune
from suit under the Yearsley doctrine, which immunizes government
contractors from suit when the government authorized the
contractor's actions and the government validly conferred that
authorization.

On appeal, Cunningham argues that the district court erred in
conferring Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co. immunity and
consequently dismissing the suit for three distinct reasons.
First, he asserts that the Yearsley doctrine does not apply as a
matter of law to federal claims.  Next, he asserts that GDIT
fails to qualify for Yearsley immunity both because the
government did not authorize its actions and because the
authorization was not validly conferred.  Finally, he asserts
that even if Yearsley immunity applies, Yearsley is a merits
defense from liability rather than a jurisdictional immunity.

Judge Floyd finds Cunningham's arguments unpersuasive.

First, the Judge finds that in describing the immunity, he finds
no language in Yearsley indicating that the Supreme Court
intended to limit its holding to claims arising under state law.
Additionally, the Supreme Court identified instances when
government contractors were not immune from liability, and
notably did not mention federal law claims.  The test the Supreme
Court outlined for conferring Yearsley immunity, therefore,
omitted any requirement that the claim arise under state law and
omitted any reference to exempting federal law liability from its
reach.  Yearsley's progeny have also failed to make any such
distinction.  Consequently, he holds that the Yearsley doctrine
applies to claims arising under federal law.

Next, the Judge disagrees with Cunningham's attack on the merits
of the district court's decision by asserting that GDIT fails to
satisfy either prong required under Yearsley.  Because GDIT
adhered to the terms of its contract with CMS, he concludes that
the government authorized GDIT's actions, satisfying step one of
the Yearsley analysis.  And because the government authorized
GDIT's actions and that authorization was validly conferred, he
holds that the district court did not err in concluding that GDIT
was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity for this claim.

Finally, the Judge again disagrees with Cunningham's assertion
that even if the district court properly conferred Yearsley
immunity on GDIT, the district court nonetheless erred in
treating the Yearsley doctrine as immunity from suit and
dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
rather than treating the doctrine as a merits defense to
liability.  He says it is clear that if the basis for dismissing
a Yearsley claim is sovereign immunity, then a Yearsley defense
would be jurisdictional because sovereign immunity deprives
federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims, and a court
finding that a party is entitled to sovereign immunity must
dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  The
Judge holds that the district court did not err in treating
Yearsley applicability as a jurisdictional bar to suit and
granting GDIT's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on the basis that
GDIT is immune from suit under the Yearsley doctrine.

For these reasons, Judge Floyd affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/o39Vsy from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC, White
Plains, New York, for Appellant.

James P. Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- DAVIS, POLK &
WARDWELL, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Roger Furman, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant.

Neil H. MacBride -- neil.macbride@davispolk.com -- Washington,
D.C., Paul S. Mishkin -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK
& WARDWELL LLP, New York, New York; Attison L. Barnes, III --
abarnes@wileyrein.com -- Stephen J. Obermeier --
sobermeier@wileyrein.com -- WILEY REIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.


GFI GROUP: Summary Judgment in "Gross" Securities Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN GROSS, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GFI GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14cv9438 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge William H.
Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Gross filed the action on behalf of a class of investors who sold
GFI stock between July 30, 2014 and Sept. 9, 2014.  At the time
of the events giving rise to the lawsuit, GFI was a publicly
traded company with two principal business units: (1) an inter-
dealer broker ("IDB") business, which provided trading services;
and (2) a software unit, which licensed financial software
products.

In early 2013, Jefferies, LLC advised GFI Executive Chairman
Michael Gooch that GFI might be able to optimize shareholder
value by selling itself to another inter-dealer broker.  Gooch
was also GFI's largest shareholder, owning approximately 38% of
its outstanding shares.  Jefferies estimated GFI's "sum-of-the-
parts" value at $5.41/share, a 64% premium over GFI's current
trading price.

Gooch rejected Jefferies's advice, and expressed interest in
selling only GFI's software business, while retaining the IDB
business for himself.  In an October 2013 Board meeting, Gooch
recommended that GFI explore a potential sale of its software
unit to CME Group.  Under the terms of that proposal, CME would
acquire GFI, after which a private consortium -- including Gooch
and Heffron (GFI's Chief Executive Officer) -- would purchase
back the IDB business from CME at a substantial discount.

BGC Partners, another inter-dealer broker, had long expressed
interest in purchasing GFI.  Gooch rebuffed BGC's overtures and
forged ahead with the proposed CME transaction.  In October 2013,
GFI and CME entered into a non-disclosure agreement.  In January
2014, Gooch presented a proposed deal to the GFI Board.  Under
its terms, CME agreed to purchase all of GFI's outstanding stock
for $4.55/share.

On July 29, 2014, the special committee voted to recommend
approval of the CME transaction.  After Gooch and Heffron recused
themselves, the remaining members of the Board unanimously voted
to approve the CME transaction.

On July 30, 2014, GFI and CME issued a joint Press Release
announcing the proposed merger.  The Press Release  explained
that CME would acquire GFI's software business and that GFI
stockholders would receive $4.55/share.  It described that
following CME's acquisition, a private consortium of GFI
management would acquire GFI's IDB business.

The claims in the case stem from a single sentence on the second
page of that Press Release, in which Gooch opined on the proposed
CME transaction.  Specifically, Gooch stated that optimizing
GFI's value for stockholders has been a goal of management since
becoming a public company in 2005 and the transaction represents
a singular and unique opportunity to return value.

The Press Release noted that the proposed transaction was subject
to shareholder and regulatory approval, and that a registration
statement with more information would be forthcoming.  The Press
Release noted that the transaction would likely not close until
early 2015.

On July 31, 2014, GFI and CME publicly filed the proposed merger
agreement.  The Merger Agreement stated that the deal would not
close without approval of GFI's shareholders.  On that same day,
Gross sold 770 shares of GFI stock for $4.52/share.

Undeterred, BGC purchased millions of GFI shares in the ensuing
weeks as a prelude to making a competing bid.  On Sept. 9, 2014,
BGC announced that it would make an all-cash tender offer for GFI
for $5.25/share.  BGC simultaneously disclosed that it had
acquired 13.5% of GFI's common stock.  With the prospect of an
all cash tender-offer, GFI's share price skyrocketed from
$5.03/share to $6.02/share.

Thereafter, BGC and CME traded escalating bids for GFI.  In the
midst of that bidding war, GFI released its Proxy Statement,
which contained a 14-page description of the process and events
leading up to the CME proposed transaction.  In January 2015, the
bidding culminated with BGC's cash offer of $6.10/share.  On Jan.
30, 2015, GFI shareholders rejected the CME deal.  GFI and CME
terminated the proposed merger, and BGC completed its tender
offer, obtaining a controlling interest in GFI.

Gross represents a class of GFI investors who sold their stock
after the July 30, 2014 Press Release, but before BGC announced
its tender offer on Sept. 9, 2014.   He claims that Gooch's
statement misleadingly implied that the CME transaction was the
best available deal for GFI, meaning that it represented the best
opportunity for GFI shareholders to attain value.

The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the
securities class action.  They argue that the Plaintiffs fail to
establish triable issues of fact on falsity, scienter, reliance,
and loss causation.

Judge Pauley finds that the inevitable release of the Proxy
Statement, which publicly provided the pros and cons of the CME
transaction, as well as GFI's due diligence (or lack thereof) in
approving it, demonstrates that shareholders and analysts had all
confounding information to Gooch's statement prior to voting.
Accordingly, there was no opportunity to foist Gooch's preferred
deal on shareholders.  Even if Gooch's statement was misleading,
a short respite from an inevitable day of reckoning" does not
demonstrate scienter.

Scienter can also be shown through conscious misbehavior or
recklessness.  But even under this standard, the Judge says a
plaintiff must establish that a material benefit could have been
obtained through the misstatement.  Accordingly, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs' claim of scienter under the conscious
misbehavior or recklessness test fails for the same reason -- the
Proxy Statement demonstrates that any fraudulent scheme was
doomed to fail.

The Judge also finds that there is sufficient evidence of
materiality to withstand summary judgment.  Typically, he says
loss causation is demonstrated through a corrective disclosure
that reveals the falsity of previous information.  But it may
also be shown by the materialization of risk method, whereby a
concealed risk comes to light in a series of revealing events
that negatively affect stock price over time.  Irrespective of
the Plaintiffs' theory (corrective disclosure or materialization
of the risk), a jury would not be able to disaggregate that
portion of the increase in GFI's share price attributable to a
correction of Gooch's statement from that portion of the increase
attributable to the other information simultaneously disclosed to
the market.

Finally, because the Plaintiffs fail to establish a primary
violation of the federal securities laws, summary judgment on
their control person liability claimsis equally warranted.

For these reasons, Judge Pauley granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.  He directed the Clerk of Court to
terminate all pending motions and mark the case as closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/JmcVtd from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Gross, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David R. Scott
-- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Scott and Scott LLP, pro hac
vice, Jack I. Zwick, Jack I Zwick -- jack@zwickfirm.com -- Joseph
Peter Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott,
L.L.P., Stephen J. Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP & Jonathan M. Rotter --
jrotter@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

GFI Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Lynch --
JLynch@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Paul K. Rowe,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Warren R. Stern --
WRStern@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Joshua
Jeffrey Card -- JJCard@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, Michael Steven Popok, Cantor Fitzgerald & Nirav Sanjay
Shah, Cantor Fitzgerald.

Colin Heffron & Michael Gooch, Defendants, represented by
Christopher Daniel Kercher -- christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.


GOLD STANDARD: Court Narrows Claims in Racial Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMES
ZOLLICOFFER, ANTWOIN HUNT, and NORMAN GREEN, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated laborers, Plaintiffs, v. GOLD
STANDARD BAKING, INC., PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MOST
VALUABLE PERSONNEL d/b/a MVP, Defendants, No. 13 C 1524 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs James Zollicoffer, Antwoin Hunt, and Norman Green,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated job
applicants, filed a sixth amended complaint (6AC) against
Defendants Gold Standard Baking, Inc. (GSB) and Personnel
Staffing Group, LLC, doing business as Most Valuable Personnel
(MVP), alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII and
42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

The Defendants jointly move to dismiss counts III through VI on
the basis that the Plaintiffs have not exhausted their
administrative remedies and so cannot bring a claim under Title
VII.  GSB further brings a motion to dismiss counts I and II on
the basis that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a contractual
relationship with them, which the Defendants argue is necessary
to maintain a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

Defendants' Joint Motions to Dismiss Counts III- VI and Deny
Class Certification

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' failure to bring EEOC
charges related to their claims in the 6AC is fatal to their
Title VII claims. They are correct.

To bring a Title VII suit, a plaintiff must have filed a timely
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge and
received a right to sue letter. However, certain exceptions to
this rule exist: known as the single-filing rule or piggybacking,
parties who have not filed charges with the EEOC may join as co-
plaintiffs or as class members in a civil action with plaintiffs
who have filed EEOC charges.  Plaintiffs who have not timely
filed a charge can rely on the timely charge of another plaintiff
in a class action.

Once a Title VII class action is up and running the class members
are not required to inundate the EEOC with what amount to
meaningless requests for right to sue letters. There are limits
to the single-filing rule: where the court determines that the
original plaintiff is an inadequate class representative, another
individual seeking to intervene as plaintiff cannot piggyback off
of the original plaintiff's EEOC charge.

Here, rather than using the EEOC charges of a co-plaintiff to
satisfy their administrative exhaustion requirements, the
Plaintiffs argue that they should be able to use the EEOC charges
of former named plaintiffs, now putative class members, who would
still be properly involved as named plaintiffs had personal
reasons not intervened.

The Seventh Circuit has not yet addressed this specific question.

The Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Robinson v. Sheriff of Cook
County, 167 F.3d 1155, 1158 (7th Cir. 1999), and Wakeen v.
Hoffman House, Inc., 724 F.2d 1238, 1246 (7th Cir. 1983), as
situations where the original named plaintiffs were no longer
members of the putative class. In Robinson, the district court
found that the original named plaintiff was not suitable as a
class representative prior to class certification, and the new
plaintiff who wanted to replace the original had not filed an
EEOC charge.  In Wakeen, the district court found that the
original named plaintiff's claims had no merit, and another
plaintiff sought to intervene, even though the new plaintiff had
not filed an EEOC charge.

However, no Seventh Circuit case law supports the idea that a
putative class member's EEOC charge obviates the need for a named
plaintiff to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Seventh Circuit supported this in
Romasanta v. United Airlines, 537 F.2d 915, 917 (7th Cir. 1976),
but that decision is easily distinguishable. In Romasanta, the
district court did not allow the case to proceed as a class
action, although the original named plaintiffs ultimately
received settlements for their claims.

For obvious reasons, those plaintiffs decided not to appeal the
adverse class determination, and the Seventh Circuit allowed
another individual from the class to intervene, despite the fact
that this new individual had not filed the prerequisite EEOC
charge. In so ruling, the appellate court was concerned that
refusing class members the opportunity to appeal in this
situation would permit one member of the class to obtain benefits
greater than other members.

However, as in Wakeen, here the original plaintiffs did not
abdicate at a point where the suit had gone far enough to affect
the rights of other class members. At this motion to dismiss
stage, where the Court has yet to make any class determinations,
there is not the same concern for equality among potential class
members, nor is there a risk that the named plaintiffs will be
able to capitalize on this ruling for better treatment than the
other putative class members.

GSB's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II

GSB brings a separate motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, arguing that the fact that a
client company acts as a joint employer with a staffing agency
does not sufficiently establish a contractual relationship
between the client company and the plaintiff employee to
establish a claim under Section 1981.

Section 1981 provides that all persons have the same right to
make and enforce contracts, which includes the making,
performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of
the contractual relationship.

GSB incorrectly focuses on the party on the other end of the
Plaintiffs' potential contract. The Plaintiffs do not need to
allege that GSB interfered with the creation of a contract
between Plaintiffs and GSB. To satisfy the requirements of
Section 1981, the contractual relationship involved need not be
between the plaintiff and the defendant, it may rest on
discriminatory interference by the defendant with the plaintiff's
contractual relationship or attempt to create a contractual
relationship with a third party. The Seventh Circuit has clearly
established that a third party's interference with a contract can
support civil rights claims under Section 1981.

Here, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that GSB
interfered with their enjoyment of the benefits and privileges of
a potential contract with MVP when GSB sought to limit the
Plaintiffs' job opportunities through MVP. The Plaintiffs have
also sufficiently pleaded that GSB interfered with a potential
contract with GSB when GSB prevented the formation of at-will
employment with GSB by directing MVP not to send the Plaintiffs
to GSB. But what matters here is that the Plaintiffs have clearly
and unambiguously alleged that GSB interfered with the
Plaintiffs' formation of a contract, and that is sufficient to
maintain a claim under Section 1981.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
counts III through VI of the Sixth Amended Complaint and strikes
the class allegations related to those counts, but denies GSB's
motion to dismiss counts I and II. The Court dismisses counts III
through VI and the class allegations related to the Title VII
claims with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yck7fme9 from
Leagle.com.

Norman Green, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
laborers, Plaintiff, represented by Miriam Rose Nemeth --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Pllc
& Christopher J. Williams, Workers' Law Office.

Antwoin Hunt & James Zollicoffer, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher J. Williams, Workers' Law Office, PC.

Gold Standard Baking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Blake T.
Hannafan, Hannafan & Hannafan Ltd., Clifford Raymond Perry, III -
- cperry@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd., James J. Convery
-- jconvery@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd. & Peter James
Gillespie -- pgillespie@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd.

Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Carter A. Korey -- ckorey@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -
- Korey Richardson LLC, Elliot S. Richardson
erichardson@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- Korey Richardson LLC,
Navdeep Kaur Gill, Alex J. Maturi, Paul Hastings Llp, Amy Jo
Hoffman, Korey Richardson Llc, Ashley M. Vanpool, Korey
Richardson Llc, Daniel J. Stoller --
dstoller@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- Korey Richardson Llc, Emily
Lora Mallor -- ckorey@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- KOREY RICHARDSON
LLC, Kenneth W. Gage -- kennethgage@paulhastings.com -Paul
Hastings LLP, Michele Denise Dougherty, Korey Richardson LLC,
Peter James Gillespie -- pgillespie@lanermuchin.com -- Laner
Muchin, Ltd. & Ryan D Gibson, Korey Cotter Heather & Richardson,
LlC.

Working Hands Legal Clinic, Chicago Workers' Collaborative, South
Austin Coalition Community Council & Elce Redmond, Movants,
represented by Michael Paul Persoon -- mpersoon@dsgchicago.com --
Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan.


GOOGLE INC: Simpson Thacher Attorneys Discuss Cy Press Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq. -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- and
Shannon K. McGovern, Esq., of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, in an
article for Law.com, report that when a class action settles, a
potential "cy pres" distribution may come into play where direct
distribution of all or part of the settlement consideration to
class members is infeasible.  For decades, district courts have
exercised discretion to determine that direct distribution is
infeasible either because class members cannot be identified, or
because the settlement fund would yield a negligible payment to
individual class members (or be consumed by the administrative
costs of distribution).  Cy pres settlements have grown into a
limited but important feature of the class action settlement
landscape without Supreme Court guidance.  The high court
recently granted certiorari, however, to decide the propriety and
potential limits of cy pres settlements. Frank v. Gaos, 2018 WL
324121 (U.S.
April 30, 2018).

Background

The cy pres ("as near as") doctrine is an equitable rule of
construction with roots in the Middle Ages. Historically, the
doctrine applied where a settlor's original purpose for a trust
cannot be implemented because, for instance, the intended
recipient no longer exists or the purpose of the trust has been
accomplished.  A balance of a settlement fund often remains
unclaimed after distributions to identifiable class members are
complete and it is not feasible or cost-effective to make further
distributions to the class.  Since the 1970s, courts have used a
variant of the cy pres doctrine to distribute a portion of class
action settlement funds to third party charitable organizations,
often selected by or in consultation with the parties' counsel.
More rarely (and recently), courts have approved "cy-pres only"
settlements in which no class members receive any compensation:
The sole recipients of net settlement funds, after deduction of
attorney fees, are third-party nonprofits that seek to promote
the same interests as those underlying those of the proposed
settlement class.  The federal circuits currently require that
district court approval of a cy pres distribution include a
specific finding that a close nexus exists between the work of
any cy pres recipient and the interests pursued by the class in
the relevant action. See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865
(9th Cir. 2012); In re Airline Ticket Com'n Antitrust Litig., 307
F.3d 679, 683 (8th Cir. 2002).

Google Privacy Litigation
On April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court granted a petition for
certiorari to address whether "cy pres-only settlements" comply
with the requirement in Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules that any
settlement that binds class members must be "fair, reasonable,
and adequate." In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
involves an $8.5 million settlement of privacy litigation against
Google for disclosing search queries made by users of its search
engine to third-party websites via the use of "referrer headers"
embedded in URLs.  The parties estimated that the class contains
129 million members.  After deduction of attorney fees and
expenses, the $5.3 million net settlement fund is to be
distributed to six nonprofit recipients, including the AARP,
academic institutions and research groups, to fund education
and/or research relating to Internet privacy.  A U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's
approval of the settlement as fair and adequate.  One judge
concurred and dissented in part, arguing the court should have
vacated and remanded for development of a fuller record on the
relationships between class counsel and the cy pres recipients,
half of which are the alma maters of class counsel. See In re
Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir.
2017).

The majority and dissent agreed, however, that a cy pres-only
settlement was appropriate because settlement funds were
effectively "non-distributable" where the recovery for each class
member would be four cents.  The Ninth Circuit rejected the
arguments by objectors that the settlement could be structured to
compensate at least some class members through lottery or by
awarding a few dollars to each of the fraction of class members
who could be expected to submit a valid proof of claim. The court
also "easily rejected" the argument that a class action was not
the superior method of adjudication, as required by Rule
23(b)(3), where the result is a non-distributable settlement. The
court also concluded that objectors failed to "'raise substantial
questions about whether the selection of the recipient[s] was
made on the merits'" of the recipients.

Sixteen state attorneys general filed an amicus brief urging the
Supreme Court to grant objectors' certiorari petition, arguing
that the Google case presents the "ideal vehicle" to address the
fairness of cy pres settlements.  In 2013, Chief Justice John
Roberts all but invited a cy pres test case, noting "fundamental
concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class action
litigation, including when, if ever, such relief should be
considered" and "how to assess its fairness as a general matter."
Marek v. Lane, 571 U.S. 1003 (2013).  Marek too involved a cy
pres-only settlement of a large Internet privacy class action in
the Ninth Circuit. Facebook agreed to fund a new entity led by a
board that would contain one of its own employees. In denying the
objectors' petition for certiorari, the Justice Roberts noted
that the court would not review, as requested, the "particular
features" on the settlement, including its amount and the alleged
conflicts of interest presented by Facebook's involvement in the
cy pres remedy.

The Google case will necessitate the Supreme Court tackling head-
on the evolving jurisprudence on cy pres settlements. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has memorably asserted
that the "cy pres" settlement is "badly misnamed." Mirfasihi v.
Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2004).  While the
historical use of cy pres provided an indirect benefit to a trust
settlor by putting trust funds to uses very similar to those
intended, "[t]here is no indirect benefit to the class from the
defendant's giving the money to someone else." Id. at 784. Thus
characterized, cy pres-only settlements may punish the defendant
and deter further misconduct, but arguably do not compensate
class members.

In opposing certiorari, Google argued that cy pres-only
settlements are increasingly rare, particularly in light of the
Justice Robert's comments in Marek. But Google nonetheless
presents the court's first opportunity to address the baseline
assumption of all cy pre settlements: that some or all of the
settlement fund may properly be diverted away from class members
to court-approved third parties where it is not feasible to
compensate the class directly.  In the Ninth Circuit's view, a
class action settlement is "non-distributable" when "the proof of
individual claims would be burdensome or distribution of damages
costly." Nachshin v. AOL, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011).

In practice, some portion of a settlement of any very large class
action -- including those common in Internet privacy cases --
will be "non-distributable."  In Google, the Ninth Circuit
quickly dispensed with the objectors' argument that if the
settlement fund could not be distributed, then the settlement
class failed to meet the superiority requirement of Rule 23.  The
objectors argued in their certiorari petition that cy pres-only
settlements are categorically inadequate because they entail
release of class members' claims in exchange for no direct
benefit to class members while class counsel secure an attorney
fee award.  The court also will likely need to assess the extent
to which lower courts and counsel can navigate class counsel's
potential conflict of interest in recommending a settlement that
awards attorney fees but provides no direct consideration to
class members.  The proponents of cy pres settlements will likely
argue that such settlements are fair and adequate when a court
determines that the charitable distribution in fact benefits
class members by promoting the interests underlying the suit.
Moreover, cy pres facilitates settlement of low value claims for
which defendants might otherwise have avoided any payment at all
because of the infeasibility of direct payment to class members.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court may more closely scrutinize certification of a
class of over a hundred million people where none will be
compensated.  Two decades ago, in Amchem Products v. Windsor, the
court rejected the certification of a class for settlement
purposes of "hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions" of asbestos
tort claimants, cautioning against "class certifications
dependent upon the court's gestalt judgment or overarching
impression of the settlement's fairness." 521 U.S. 591, 621
(1997). In other words, a class may be certified, for settlement
purposes or otherwise, only if each requirement of Rule 23 is
met.

The conclusion that a settlement fund is "non-distributable"
ordinarily has much to do with the relationship between the
strength of the claim and the negotiated settlement amount.
Class counsel has every incentive to bargain for the largest
settlement obtainable, but if the claim is vulnerable a modest
settlement fund is better than none. If the paramount settlement
objective of compensating class members directly is unattainable
given the dynamics, a cy pres-only recovery should be within the
permissible range of a fair and adequate settlement.  In
addition, a number of intermediate alternatives short of
rejecting cy pres settlements may be available under the
applicable abuse of discretion standard, focusing on the meaning
of "infeasible to distribute." For example, several courts have
approved cy pres distributions but barred its use where it is
possible to compensate at least some class members. See, e.g., In
re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060, 1064 (8th Cir.
2015) ("Because the settlement funds are the property of the
class, a cy pres distribution to a third party of unclaimed
settlement funds is permissible 'only when it is not feasible to
make further distributions to class members'  . . . except where
an additional distribution would provide a windfall to class
members with liquidated-damages claims that were 100 percent
satisfied by the initial distribution.") (citations omitted).
This approach would leave the door open to approval of the
flexible use of cy pres doctrine where good faith mechanisms
are in place to distribute settlement consideration to the extent
practicable. [GN]


GUESS? RETAIL: "Miranda" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Miranda, Jr., an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Guess? Retail, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC702270 (Cal.
Super., May 1, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.

Guess? Retail operates a clothing store where Miranda used to
work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             mstahle@maternlawgroup.com


H MART MIDWEST: Fails to Pay OT to Purchasers, "Lee" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bum Hoon Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H Mart Midwest Corp., H Mart Glenview,
LLC, H Mart Chicago, LLC, H Mart Champaign, LLC, BK Schaumburg,
Inc., Brian Kwon, Ilyeon Kwon and Hye Joo Choi, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03593 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff Lee was employed by the Defendants as purchaser
from April 20, 2015 to December 10, 2017.

H Mart Midwest Corp. was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of used merchandise, antiques,
and second hand goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
           INSEED LAW, P.C.
           2454 E Dempster St Suite 301
           Des Plaines, IL 60016


HERTZ LOCAL: Court Grants Discovery Stipulation in "Johnston"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Parties' Stipulation Regarding Discovery in
the case captioned EMY JOHNSTON, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on
behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), v. HERTZ
LOCAL EDITION CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-01966-JAM-EFB (E.D.
Cal.).

Emy Johnston, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
and the allegedly aggrieved employees under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, seeks unpaid overtime
wages and other relief against Defendant Hertz Local Edition
Corp. for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and
other unlawful business practices alleged in the complaint.

The parties met and conferred about the information sought and
agreed to a method balancing the Plaintiff's need for the
information and the privacy rights of the Defendant's employees.

The parties stipulated, and the Court approves, that:

     If a Putative Class Member does not want his/her full name,
address, e-mail addresses, or telephone number to be provided to
Plaintiff, he/she must (1) sign and return a postcard
substantially the sa2 me as that attached as Exhibit B or (2)
respond by e-mail with the information contained in Exhibit B to
the Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days after the
mailing of Exhibit A.

     Plaintiff shall keep any information discovered by this
process confidential, shall use such information only for
purposes of this litigation, and shall return the information to
Defendant or certify its destruction (including all copies) at
the end of this litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrv32ny from Leagle.com.

Emy Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by David Glenn Spivak --
david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm.

Hertz Local Edition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Valles -- dvalles@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP & Robert
A. Dolinko -- rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP.


HYDRO-QUEBEC: Osler Hoskin Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Lussier, Esq. -- slussier@osler.com -- and Frederic
Plamondon, Esq. -- fplamondon@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that it is not
every day in a class action that the Superior Court renders a
decision on the merits of the case.  Yet, not only is this the
situation in Charland v. Hydro-Quebec, the Superior Court also
includes scathing criticisms against the plaintiff.

On May 29, 2018, Justice Steve J. Reimnitz dismissed the class
action in which the plaintiff was claiming from the defendant,
Hydro-Quebec, the refund of "administration fees," which she had
qualified as "interest" to be paid in addition to the 5% rate
provided in the Interest Act (the IA).  In support of her claims,
the plaintiff unsuccessfully submitted to the Court numerous
arguments.

In regard to the nature of the "administration fees," the Court
decided in favour of the defendant by stating that these fees
could not be considered as interest.  In particular, the
legislator adopted this consumer protection law in order to force
the lender to reveal the annual rate contracted by the borrower.
This case cannot be classified as a borrower/lender situation,
and the plaintiff cannot further find herself in such a situation
since her relationship with Hydro-Quebec is regulated.  The judge
was careful in specifying that the interpretation suggested by
the plaintiff has nothing to do with the intent of the legislator
at the time that the IA was adopted. In fact, this interpretation
does not account in any way for the particular context imposed by
a regulated contract of a mandatory nature applicable to the
defendant. For this sole reason, the Court dismissed the class
action.

The judge, in obiter, also rendered a decision on all other
arguments raised by the plaintiff and formulated several
criticisms against her.  For example, while the plaintiff was
raising the issue of Hydro-Quebec's failure to inform, given the
difficulty in obtaining the true information on the rate of paid
"administration fees," the judge noted the absence of prejudice
and the failure to respect the obligation to inform oneself. In
particular, administration fees billed by Hydro-Quebec were lower
than the rate authorized by the Regie de l'energie.  The judge
also criticized the plaintiff for being the author of her own
misfortune.  In fact, the plaintiff willfully omitted to pay her
bills so that she would be billed for administration fees,
"[translation] so as to artificially create a prejudice that she
alleges having suffered, and thus, with the goal of fabricating
the class action submitted before the Court."

The last remark should incite our courts to scrutinize more
carefully certain class actions that demonstrate, from the
authorization stage, an aspect that is artificial and concocted.
[GN]


I.Q. DATA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ward" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
RANDY WARD and KURT WARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL,
INC. d/b/a RENT COLLECT GLOBAL, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
01083-JFW-AS (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendant in negligently and intentionally contacting the
Plaintiffs' respective cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

I.Q. Data International, Inc. d/b/a Rent Collect Global is
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington. The Company specialized in third party debt
collection for the property management industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


INDIANA: Ct. Won't Approve Settlement in Inmates' HCV Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of a Proposed Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
MICHAEL RAY STAFFORD, CHARLES SMITH, DOUGLAS SMITH, Plaintiffs,
v. ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., MICHAEL MITCHEFF, M.D., MONICA GIPSON,
R.N., WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:17-cv-00289-JMS-
MJD (S.D. Ind.).

This matter concerns a class action lawsuit brought by inmates of
Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) facilities regarding the
provision of medical care to treat the chronic Hepatitis C virus
(HCV).

Here, exercising that duty of vigilance, the Court concludes that
the proposed settlement does not meet the standard of being fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The parties stress that the Settlement
Agreement is confidential, so the Court avoids reciting in detail
its specific provisions.  For example, it asks members of the
class to agree to an extremely wide-ranging release and discharge
of claims, including those having nothing to do with the subject
matter of this lawsuit. Without further information or assurances
regarding the propriety of these releases, the Court cannot
conclude that the Agreement is either fair or reasonable.

The Court denies the Defendants' Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9alv3g9 from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL RAY STAFFORD, CHARLES SMITH & DOUGLAS SMITH, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark W. Sniderman, SNIDERMAN NGUYEN LLP, & Robert
A. Katz -- rokatz@iupui.edu -- INDIANA UNIVERSITY MCKINNEY SCHOOL
OF LAW, pro hac vice.

ROBERT E. CARTER, JR. & MONICA GIPSON, R.N., Defendants,
represented by Aleksandrina Penkova Pratt, INDIANA ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Benjamin Myron Lane Jones, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Jonathan Paul Nagy, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL & Kelly Suzanne
Thompson, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MICHAEL MITCHEFF, M.D., Defendant, represented by Aleksandrina
Penkova Pratt, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Benjamin Myron Lane
Jones, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Douglass R. Bitner, KATZ KORIN
CUNNINGHAM, P.C., Jonathan Paul Nagy, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL &
Kelly Suzanne Thompson, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglass R.
Bitner, KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. & Jarrod Alvin Malone, KATZ
KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C..


INTEL CORP: "East" CPU Defect Row Transferred to Oregon Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Andrew East, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01733, (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
on May 2, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-00757.

Plaintiff seeks all proper measures of monetary relief and
damages, plus interest, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief including restitution and disgorgement, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such
further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

East purchased a PowerSpec G151 PC from Micro Center in May 2016.
It is powered by a Intel Core i5-7500. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Haakon Watson, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Tel: (916) 924-3100
      Fax: (916) 924-1829
      Email: jwatson@justice4you.com

Intel Corporation is represented by:

      Miriam Kim, Esq.
      Allison Marie Day, Esq.
      MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
      560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 512-4041, 512-4079
      Fax: (415) 512-4077
      Email: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
             allison.day@mto.com


INTER-COAST INT'L: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Nguyen" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY NGUYEN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. INTER-COAST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING, INC., Defendant and
Appellant, Case No. B270305 (Cal. App.), Judge Audrey B. Collins
of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Four, affirmed the trial court denial of Inter-Coast's
motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff and Respondent Nguyen filed a class action lawsuit
against his former employer, Defendant and Appellant Inter-Coast,
on May 13, 2011.  He alleged various wage and hour claims on
behalf of himself and other current and former Inter-Coast
employees.  He sought to establish a class of all non-exempt
employees Inter-Coast employed during the previous four years.
At the time the suit was filed, neither Nguyen nor any of the
putative class members had signed arbitration agreements with
Inter-Coast.

Inter-Coast subsequently revised its employee handbook to add an
arbitration provision, which many potential members of the class
signed during the pendency of the suit.  After the court
certified the class, Inter-Coast filed a motion to compel
arbitration of the claims of the class members who signed the
arbitration provision.

The Plaintiffs -- Nguyen, later-added named Plaintiff Cheryl
Alexander, and the rest of the class -- opposed the motion,
arguing that the arbitration provision was procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.  The trial court agreed with the
Plaintiffs and denied the motion to compel.  It concluded that
Inter-Coast met its burden of showing the existence of
arbitration agreements that covered the claims at issue in the
class action.  It also concluded that the Plaintiffs met their
burden of proving their asserted defense of unconscionability.

Inter-Coast appealed, contending that the Plaintiffs failed to
prove both procedural and substantive unconscionability.  As to
the former, Inter-Coast argues that the Plaintiffs failed to
submit any evidence that any employee's signature to the 180
Agreements was in any way procedurally defective, aside from two
self-serving Declarations from two former employees. Thus, Inter-
Coast asserts, the trial court misunderstood or misread the
arbitration clause itself.

Judge Collins disagrees. She holds that procedural
unconscionability focuses on contract formation and requires
oppression or surprise.  Oppression occurs where a contract
involves lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, surprise
where the allegedly unconscionable provision is hidden within a
prolix printed form.  Substantial evidence of both oppression and
surprise is present in the record.  The nature of the provision,
and the circumstances under which employees signed it, support
the trial court's finding of procedural unconscionability.

The Judge further concludes that the trial court made the correct
determination.  She says there is no dispute that Inter-Coast did
not apprise the employees at the time of signing these agreements
that their rights in the class action could be affected thereby.
Inter-Coast points to opt-out agreements that some employees
signed later as confirming the validity of their earlier signed
Arbitration Agreements, but the question before for the trial
court was whether the agreement was unconscionable at the time it
was signed, not in hindsight.  Substantial evidence supported the
trial court's finding that the language of the provision and the
circumstances under which it was presented to putative class
members rendered it unfair, one-sided, and substantively
unconscionable.

She concludes the arbitration provision is significantly
unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively.
Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Inter-Coast's motion
to compel arbitration.  She affirmed the order.  The Respondents
are entitled to their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/KP5S81 from Leagle.com.

Neil C. Evans for Defendant and Appellant.

Aequitas Legal Group, Ronald H. Bae and Olivia D. Scharrer for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Calhoun Sues over Promotion Services
----------------------------------------------------------
Etta Calhoun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Invention Submission Corporation d/b/a
InventHelp; Technosystems Consolidated Corp.; Technosystems
Service Corp.; Western Invention Submission Corp.; Universal
Payment Corporation; Intromark Incorporated; Innovation Credit
Corp.; Robert J. Susa; Thomas Frost, P.A.; Above Board Drafting,
Inc.; John Doe Companies 1-10; John Doe Individuals 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02307-JS (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants conducted a deceptive and fraudulent
invention promotion scam that has bilked thousands of aspiring
inventors and entrepreneurs into paying millions of dollars to
Defendants for invention promotion services that Defendants do
not, and never intend to, provide.

The complaint alleges that all "efforts" made on the Plaintiff's
behalf by the Defendants in order to help her "commercialize her
invention" are lies and scams. The Defendants, contrary to their
written and verbal representations, have no meaningful interest
or investment in fulfilling their contractual promises; rather,
their business model is based upon receipt of Submission Service
fees, and nothing more.

Invention Submission Corporation d/b/a InventHelp is a
Pennsylvania corporation doing business at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Levan Esq.
          Jon-Jorge Aras, Esq.
          LEVAN LEGAL LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 688-7781

               - and -

          Julie Pechersky Plitt, Esq.
          Marc S. Oxman, Esq.
          OXMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          120 Bloomingdale Road
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 422-3900


ISRAEL: May Have to Reverse Speed Traffic Camera Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------
Dubi Ben-Gedalyahu, writing for Globes, reports that tickets
totaling hundreds of millions of shekels are liable to be
reversed if a test of the Gatso A3 high-speed camera system shows
it is unreliable.

The state is exposed to lawsuits totaling hundreds of millions of
shekels if it is proved that the high-speed cameras on Israel's
roads are unreliable, a leading traffic law specialist has told
"Globes."

Last night, Israel's Channel 2 news reported that Israel Police
had stopped issuing tickets from all speed cameras around the
country after the Technion, Institute of Technology cast doubts
on the accuracy of the cameras.

As reported by "Globes" in January 2018, fines for traffic
violations generated NIS 900 million for the state treasury in
2012-2016, not including parking violations.  Speeding violations
averaged 16% of the tickets issued, but in financial terms their
proportion of the total amount collected is far greater; they
accounted for 60-70% of state revenues from traffic fines during
those years.  These cameras also generated tens of thousands of
tickets for crossing intersections on a red light.  It is
believed that the flow of revenue from fines grew substantially
in 2017 because the Knesset raised the ceiling for fines for
speeding imposed without a trial to NIS 1,500 after the
enforcement speed threshold was lowered.

The direct fines, however, are only part of the damages for which
the state is liable to be sued.  It is believed that tens of
thousands of driving licenses were invalidated, some for
prolonged periods, during the years during which the A3 system
with nearly 120 active cameras was in operation.  The state is
liable to be sued for damages incurred by these invalidations
through both individual and class action lawsuits.  It was
reported on June 10 that Israel Police had stopped issuing
traffic tickets for speeding detected by A3 speed cameras based
on the Gatso company's systems pending a test of the cameras'
reliability.

The deputy state attorney issued the order for the suspension and
the test.  The Israel Police traffic department announced that
the stationary cameras would continue documenting speed
violations, while the decision about actual enforcement would be
taken after the test is completed.  The deputy state attorney's
order was preceded by a two year-old test case in the Akko
Magistrates Court conducted by Advocate Tomer Gonen, a Haifa
lawyer, representing 20 drivers who received tickets from the
system.  During the trial, serious doubts were raised about the
process for testing the cameras' reliability.  The police
nevertheless stepped up the pace of issuing traffic tickets using
the system, among other things by lowering the speed threshold
for issuing tickets.

The State Comptroller published a severely critical report in
February 2016 about the use and operation of the A3 system. The
report stated that the high-speed cameras project was replete
with organizational and value failures affecting almost every
aspect of its construction and operation.  The State Comptroller
examined the project, in the which the state invested over NIS
100 million.  The examination, which was completed in early 2015,
included the tender stages, construction, and operation of the
system.

The report stated that the State Comptroller's Office took a
grave view of the systematic failure in effective operation of
the array of cameras, and also regarded "with extremely gravity
the order for 40 more cameras at an additional cost of NIS 4.8
million in annual spending on operating the A3 project even
before the police solved the failures in operating the first
cameras installed."

What will happen if the A3 system of cameras is legally declared
unreliable? If you have received a speeding ticket photographed
by the A3 system of cameras, you still do not have grounds for
demanding compensation or cancelation of your speeding points. It
is believed that the state will do all it can to retroactively
declare the cameras valid in order to avoid opening a Pandora's
box of lawsuits for already issued tickets.  Furthermore, the
ticket-producing machine is still operating in full force with an
option to issue them when the test is concluded. A theoretical
scenario, however, in which the District Court, or even the High
Court of Justice, invalidates the reliability of the system's
speeding tickets cannot be ruled out.

What happens in such a case? Globes asked former Israel Bar
Association transportation committee chairperson Adv. Shai Gilad
a number of questions relating to a possible invalidation of the
A3 cameras' reliability.

"Globes": Say I received a ticket with a fine option. I did not
appeal; I paid it and was given speeding points. Do I have
grounds for a retroactive appeal?

Mr. Gilad: "Payment of the find constitutes confession of a
violation.  Someone who paid the ticket fine without appealing it
is therefore in a legal position inferior to that of others who
appealed their conviction in court, went through a trial, and had
their appeal dismissed.  Nevertheless, there is still a
theoretical legal path for requesting a retrial on the basis of
new evidence."

What happens to the points given as a direct result of a
violation filmed by A3?

"Getting the points removed is a very complicated business,
especially when violations committed several years ago are
involved.  At the same time, if the points are still in effect,
there is a possibility of having them retroactively reversed."

What happens if a driving license was invalidated following my
conviction for a photographed violation or as a result of points
accumulated from such violations?

"Theoretically, if the reliability of A3 cameras is disallowed,
the damage caused by invalidation of licenses can be assessed and
a lawsuit filed for them.  This is only, however, if it is proven
that the A3 tickets are solely responsible for the invalidation.

The A3 cameras also filmed violations of crossing intersections
on a red light.
Are these tickets also liable to be invalidated?

"In contrast to speeding tickets, crossing intersections on a red
light are documented with still photographs that film the car
committing the violation together with the traffic light.  The
chances of an appeal against such tickets are therefore not
good." [GN]


J.C. PENNEY: Underpays Associate Designers, "Hernandez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. BC705668 (Cal. Super., May
18, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at one of their
department stores in California as an Associate Designer from
February 2016 to November 2017.

J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. operates departmental stores that
offers merchandise and services to consumers. The company was
founded in 1902 and is based in Plano, Texas.  J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of J. C. Penney
Company, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          IQT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: vachc@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounscI.com


J.M. HARVEY: Doesn't Pay OT to Kitchen Staff, Rodriguez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EDVIN CHAVARRIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated individual, Plaintiff v. J. M. HARVEY,
INC. d/b/a LEDO PIZZA; JOAN MARIE MASON; CURTIS H. NOLAND III,
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-CV-01540-PWG (D. Md., May 29, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen staff
from the year 2011 to February 28, 2018. He prepared and baked
pizzas at the Defendants business establishment.

J. M. Harvey, Inc. d/b/a Ledo Pizza is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, engaged in
the business of selling pizza in Prince George, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
          DCWAGELAW
          519 H Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 803-6083
          Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
          E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


JAFT LLC: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, "Katz" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
LEEMORE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAFT LLC and JAFT SANTA MONICA D/B/A
JIMMY'S FAMOUS AMERICAN TAVERN, and DOES 1 25, Defendants, Case
No. BC705976 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 17, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Katz was employed by the Defendants as server on
December 27, 2016.

JAFT LLC operate and maintain popular restaurants throughout Los
Angeles County, Orange County, and San Diego County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 2974022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq,
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800)520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          William Rose, Esq.
          ROSE CONSUMER LAW
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 581-6600
          Facsimile: (310) 999-6569
          E-mail: bill@roseconsumerlaw.com


JAMES SQUARE: Judge Allows NY Residents to Pursue Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Marselas, writing for McKnight's, reports that a
New York judge has cleared the way for residents of a troubled
nursing home to pursue a class-action lawsuit against its former
owners.

Onondaga County Supreme Court Judge Anthony Paris agreed on
June 13 to certify the class, which could include more than 1,000
residents, former residents or survivors of those who had lived
at the former James Square facility since 2015.

A suit brought by attorney Jeremiah Frei-Pearson claims that
short-staffing harmed residents, "some of whom were left lying in
their own feces and urine for hours," according to Syracuse.com.

"We look forward to taking the former owners for every nickel,"
Mr. Frei-Pearson told media gathered outside the courtroom.

The facility had gained notoriety for several lapses in recent
years, including a management shakeup in March, last August's
resuscitation of a resident with a DNR and Legionnaires cases in
2017.

Clinton Square Operations bought the facility in December and
renamed it Bishop Rehabilitation & Nursing Center.
Mr. Frei-Pearson already reached an agreement with Clinton
Square, in which the new owner will pay $495,000, which includes
$300,000 to the plaintiffs.  Clinton Square also agreed to
increase hiring and make other changes.

Syracuse.com reported that previous owners River Meadows LLC,
James Square Nursing Home Inc. and 918 James Receiver LLC have
not settled.  They companies argued against the class
certification, noting the peculiarities of multiple ownerships
and several existing individual lawsuits.

The state Attorney General's Office raided the nursing home in
June 2017 and seized records as part of an ongoing investigation
into patient care. [GN]


JANBAR INC: Underpays Construction Workers, "Cedillo" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO CEDILLO, MANUEL E. BERREZUETYA, and GERMAN MOROCHO
CHINCHILIMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JANBAR, INC., JANUSZ BARTNICKI, and
MARCIN BOLESTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03153 (E.D.N.Y., May
30, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Mr. Cedillo was employed by the Defendants as mechanic and
construction worker from August 2015 to April 27, 2018.

Mr. Berrezuetya was employed by the Defendants as mechanic and
construction worker from June 2012 to April 27, 2018.

Mr. Chinchilima was employed by the Defendants as mechanic and
construction worker from April 2010 to December 2016.

Janbar, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York, with place of business at Ridgewood,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JONES MOTOR: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daley" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Daley filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Michael Daley v. Jones Motor Company,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00056-NJR-DGW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Daley v. Jones Motor
Company, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 18-1924, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Appellant's brief was due on or before June 6, 2018, for Michael
Daley.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL DALEY, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Todd Blotevogel, Esq.
          ARMBRUSTER, DRIPPS, WINTERSCHEIDT & BLOTEVOGEL, LLC
          219 Piasa Street
          P.O. Box 8338
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (800) 917-1529
          E-mail: mikeb@adwblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee JONES MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          David M. Krueger, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF
          200 Public Square
          2300 BP Tower
          Cleveland, OH 44114-2378
          Telephone: (216) 363-4500
          E-mail: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Beth Ann Berger Zerman, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          550 W. Adams Street
          Chicago, IL 60661-0000
          Telephone: (312) 463-3363
          E-mail: bethann.berger@lewisbrisbois.com


KAMRAN STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Morales" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAMRAN STAFFING, INC.; SUPERIOR
COMMUNICATIONS INC.; ASC STAFFING GROUP LLC; SELECT STAFFING
INC.; REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES LLC; STAFFMARK; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC706903 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Morales was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee.

Kamran Staffing, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Anna Salusky, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802447
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  asalusky@ mahoney-law.net
                  aperez@ mahoney-law.net


KFF ARBITRATION: Anderson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUNSHINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KFF ARBITRATION LLC, and DOES 1
10, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04825 (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect debt.

KFF Arbitration LLC is a company engaged in the business of
providing dispute resolution services. [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


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Ochoa" Suit over No-Poach Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Ochoa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE
COMPANY; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE COMPANY; WABTEC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR
BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
TECHNOLOIES CORPORATION PASSENGER TRANSIT; FAIVELY TRANSPORT
NORTH AMERICA INC.; and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT S.A., Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00638-CB (W.D. Pa., May 14, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants agreed not to solicit,
recruit, or hire each other's employees without prior approval,
or otherwise compete for employees, known as the Defendants' No-
Poach Agreements.

The conspiratorial No-Poach Agreements had the effect of
unlawfully allocating employees among the Defendants, thereby
reducing or eliminating competition for and suppressing
compensation to U.S. workers, among other injuries. Despite the
high demand for a limited supply of skilled employees who have
the relevant technical and industry experience, the unlawful No-
Poach Agreements substantially limited U.S. rail industry
worker's access to better job opportunities, restricted mobility,
and deprived them of information useful in negotiating better
terms of employment, including higher compensation.

Knorr-Bremse Aktiengesellschaft develops, produces, markets, and
services braking systems for rail and commercial vehicles. The
Company provides entrance, windscreen wiper, driver assistance,
and power supply systems, as well as platform screen doors and
torsional vibration dampers. Knorr-Bremse serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Patricia Diulus-Myers, Esq.
          SEGMILLER & ASSOCIATES
          Rivertech Centre
          3700 South Water Street, Suite 130
          Pittsburg, PA 15203
          Telephone: (412) 227-5886
          Facsimile: (412) 227-5887
          E-mail: apdm@segmend.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          R. Anthony Rupp, III
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Center 424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                  cercone@ruppbaase.com
                  rupp@ruppbaase.com


LAZARD LTD: Faces "Burbon" Suit over Website Access for Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAZARD LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04631 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2018) is an action against the Defendant
for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's website,
WWW.LAZARD.COM is not equally accessible to blind and visually-
impaired consumers, and violates the Americans with Disability
Act. The Plaintiff seeks to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Lazard Ltd, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
financial advisory and asset management firm worldwide.  Lazard
Ltd was founded in 1848 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


LEASE AND RENTAL: Garcia Sues over Car Repossession Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANITA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEASE AND RENTAL MANAGEMENT
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 181457 (Mass. Super., Middlesex Cty.,
May 18, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful car
repossession practices.

The complaint alleges that after repossessing the Plaintiff's and
the class members' vehicles, the Defendant sent them form post-
repossession notices that failed to include key provisions
required by law. The failure to provide a consumer with all
appropriate repossession notices and information required by
Massachusetts law gives rise to statutory and other damages.

Lease And Rental Management Corp., doing business as Auto Loan,
provides automotive financing services to franchised and
independent auto dealers in the United States. It offers prime
and subprime retail, inventory, and auction financing services,
as well as consumer car loan services. The company was founded in
1978 and is based in Andover, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Underpays Bartenders, "Hightower" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRI HIGHTOWER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGENDS HOSPITALITY, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18CV328576 (Cal. Super.,
May 17, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular wages, overtime hours, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Hightower was employed by the Defendants as
bartender from May 2015 to November 2017.

Legends Hospitality LLC provides integrated solutions for sports,
entertainment, and leisure industries. The company serves
professional sports owners and franchises, collegiate athletic
departments, municipalities, and convention centers in the United
States and internationally. Legends Hospitality LLC was founded
in 2008 and is based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


LS & PARTNERS: Underpays Waiters and Servers, "Miller" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MILLER; ASHLEY LEON; AND DAMESHA CHRISTOPHER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LS &
PARTNERS @ CA, CA, LLC; LS and PARTNERS AT LAX, LLC; PARADIES
LAGARDERE@LAX (F&B, LLC; PARADIES LAGARDERE@LAX, LLC and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC706919 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Miller was employed by the Defendant as a waiter. Ms. Leon
and Ms. Christopher were employed as a server.

LS & Partners @ CA, CA, LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. McLachlan, Esq.
          Jaclyn E. Fortini Laing, Esq.
          McLACHLAN LAW, APC
          2447 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 954-8270
          Facsimile: (310) 954-8271
          E-mail: mike@mclachlan-law.com
                  jaclyn@mclachlan-law.com

               - and -

          W. Kielty, Esq.
          4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 500
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292-6636
          Telephone: (310) 393-0515
          Facsimile: (310) 626-8521
          E-mail: tomkielty@earthlink.net


MAIDEN LANE: NY High Ct. Certifies Class in Superstorm Sandy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned JERRY MENNA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MAIDEN LANE PROPERTIES, LLC., and A.D. REAL ESTATE
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Docket No. 157710/15 (N.Y.).

Plaintiff Jerry Menna moves for an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR
Article 9, certifying this action as a class action; (2)
appointing him as class representative; and (3) appointing Imbesi
Law PC (Imbesi) and Napoli Shkolnik PLLC (Napoli) as class
counsel.

The Plaintiff commenced this action as a purported class action
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated residents
of 100 Maiden Lane, New York, New York 10038.  The proposed class
includes all individuals who resided at the Premises on October
29, 2012.  The complaint identifies defendant A.D. Real Estate
Management, Inc., as the managing agent for the Premises
responsible for assisting in protecting the Premises regarding
"Superstorm Sandy."  Defendant Maiden Lane Properties, LLC, is
the owner of the Premises.  The Plaintiff claims that the
defendants failed to exercise due care to adequately safeguard
the Premises from damage by Sandy.

In opposing certification, the defendants argue that the
Residents incurred vastly differing losses and expenses because
of the flooding.  Moreover, the defendants contend that the
Residents may assert different theories of liability or may raise
different affirmative defenses which may include the failure to
purchase renter's or flood insurance to insure against personal
property loss as required by the leases.

Pursuant to CPLR 901(a), one or more members of a class may sue
as representative parties on behalf of all if: (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2)
there are questions of law or fact common to the class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class; and (5) a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy.

Here, the defendants argue that there is a lack of commonality
because the Premises incurred differing losses and expenses.
According to the defendants, some tenants failed to mitigate
their claimed personal property damage.

The Court finds these contentions unconvincing. In Roberts v
Ocean Prime, LLC, the Court recognized that the trial court may,
in its discretion, establish subclasses (citing City of New York
v Maul, supra at 513). The need to conduct individualized damages
inquiries does not obviate the utility of the class mechanism for
this action, given the predominant common issues of liability.
Moreover, typical claims are those that arise from the same facts
and circumstances as the claims of the class members. The court's
findings in Roberts v Ocean Prime, LLC, that the claims of the
putative class representatives are typical of the class's claims
since each resides or leases space in the building and their
injuries, if any, derive from the same course of conduct by
defendants is applicable in this matter currently before the
Court.

The Plaintiff's situation is typical of the claims or defenses of
the class, because he was a tenant residing in the Premises, and
alleges that he was adversely affected by the defendant's alleged
wrongdoing as the other members of the proposed class. All
proposed class members, including the plaintiff, were forced to
evacuate, and allegedly, the defendants' negligence led to the
apartments' uninhabitability.

Since the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the
claims and the transaction, not the amount or measure of damages,
that the plaintiff's damages may differ from those of other
members of the class is not a proper basis to deny class
certification.

The Court finds that the Defendants have not identified any
conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the class that he
seeks to represent. The Plaintiff's proposed class counsel have
substantial experience in complex class action litigation. Imbesi
and Napoli are jointly representing class members in several
class action cases.

In an action brought by multiple tenants, a class action is
superior to individual actions as it conserves judicial resources
by avoiding a multiplicity of lawsuits involving the same basic
facts, the state Supreme Court rules.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and for the
plaintiff to prosecute the action on behalf of a class consisting
of all individuals who resided at 100 Maiden Lane, New York, New
York 10038 on October 29, 2012, excluding the defendants and
their affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers,
agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, their
affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their
governmental capacities; any judicial officer presiding over this
matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial
staff; and class counsel, is granted.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's April 23, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89b88cr from
Leagle.com.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Wants Minor Leaguers' Class Certification Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that conflicting state laws and wide variations in hours worked
make it impractical and wrong to let Minor League players team up
to sue their employers for minimum wage, a Major League Baseball
lawyer told the Ninth Circuit on June 13.

"The question is will the court be required to do an
individualized analysis for each of these players," MLB lawyer
Elise Bloom, Esq. -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose in
New York, asked the panel.  "The answer is yes.  That destroys
predominance."

Ms. Bloom urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse a March 2017 ruling
that certified a class of Minor League players in California who
say they were paid as little as $3,000 per season and not paid
overtime or compensated for off-season work, including spring
training.

Ms. Bloom said surveys the plaintiffs submitted as evidence only
show when players arrived and left ballparks.  They don't prove
how many hours the players actually worked, she said.

"The data in the survey tells you absolutely nothing about what
happened with players in the California leagues," Ms. Bloom said.
"There's no way to quantify compensable time."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero reached the opposite
conclusion last year when he found the July 2016 survey of 720
players was more reliable than a previously rejected study.  The
newer survey sought to eliminate self-interest bias by not
telling players the purpose of it and asked questions to jog
their memories.  A plaintiffs' expert also cross-checked the data
with team schedules.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Senne, who played for a Miami Marlins farm
team in upstate New York, sued former MLB Commissioner Bud Selig
and 30 Major League clubs in February 2014.  Judge Spero
previously dismissed eight Major League clubs from the suit for
lack of jurisdiction.  He also decertified the players' class
status in 2016 before re-certifying a class of players who did
championship season or off-season work in California starting in
February 2011.

On June 13, Ms. Bloom also asked the Ninth Circuit to uphold
Judge Spero's decision rejecting class certification for two
other groups of players in Arizona and Florida, due to
conflicting state labor laws.  The judge found California has a
strong interest in making sure its stronger labor laws apply to
work performed in the Golden State, but he did not reach the same
conclusion for work done in Arizona and Florida.

The Minor League players argue that because they are only seeking
minimum wage in those states, and not overtime, the court won't
have to engage in a laborious "governmental interest test" to
determine which state's law should apply to each player's claims.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Robert King of Korein Tillery in St.
Louis, said it makes sense that Arizona and Florida laws should
apply to work done in those states.

"The general proposition here is the old ancient maxim: when in
Rome, do as the Romans," Mr. King told the panel on June 13.

But Ms. Bloom said it's not that simple.

She asked why players from states like Washington and
Massachusetts, with higher minimum wages and more generous
statutes of limitations, would choose to pursue claims under the
less worker-friendly laws of Florida and Arizona.

Ms. Bloom cited the example of one plaintiff, Joel Weeks, who
signed a contract with the San Francisco Giants in 2008.
Mr. Weeks spends most of his time in California, but goes to
Arizona for spring training four weeks per year.

Ms. Bloom said Mr. Weeks would almost certainly argue he is
entitled to California's higher minimum wage and not Arizona's.

"Can't he opt out?" U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez asked.

Ms. Bloom acknowledged players can opt out of the class, but she
insisted that each player's situation is too unique to justify
class certification.

Representing the players, Mr. King argued it's not the interests
of the players that count in a "governmental interest analysis."
Each state has a strong motive to make sure its own laws apply to
work performed within that state, he said.

"Every state has an interest in the certainty that an employer
knows when the work is being performed in that state . . . you've
got to apply the law of the state where the work was performed,"
Mr. King said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said she is sympathetic to the
district court's concern that "there are a lot of different state
laws it would have to look at" in evaluating the claims of Minor
League players in Florida and Arizona.

Mr. King argued that resolving the players' claims of labor law
violations requires answering two basic questions, which can be
handled on a class-wide basis: were the Minor League players
employees, and did the actions they perform count as work?

If the Ninth Circuit allows the California players to proceed as
a class in their lawsuit, a recent state Supreme Court ruling
will give the plaintiffs a boost.

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court expanded the
number of workers eligible for minimum wage and made it harder
for employers to classify workers as independent contractors and
deny them employment benefits.

Visiting 10th Circuit Judge Michael Murphy joined Paez and Ikuta
on the panel.  Judge Paez and Judge Murphy were appointed by
President Bill Clinton.  Judge Ikuta was appointed by President
George W. Bush. [GN]


MARVELL TECH: "Luna" Securities Suit Settlement Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL LUNA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 15-05447 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of a proposed settlement agreement; and granted in
part the Lead Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.

Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
asserted class claims against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities and Exchange Act based on allegedly fraudulent
pull-in sales which caused the price of Marvell common stock to
be artificially inflated.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in March 2016,
asserting claims against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Orders granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

A subsequent order certified the class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Marvell during the period from Feb. 19, 2015 through Dec. 7,
2015, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

A December 2017 order granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement.  The order
also approved, as to form and content, a notice concerning the
class settlement agreement and final approval hearing.

The claims administrator sent the class notice to 135 potential
class members at addresses obtained from the transfer agent for
To date, the claims administrator has mailed 38,513 notices to
potential class members and nominees.  As of April 12, the claims
administrator had received 1,363 claims from potential class
members, with a number of additional claims expected as the May 7
claims deadline approaches.  The administrator received no
objections to the proposed class settlement or requested
attorney's fees and received only four requests to opt out of the
class.

The order now considers the Lead Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the proposed class settlement.  The Lead Counsel also
move for $15,950,000 in attorney's fees (comprising 22% of the
total settlement fund) and seek reimbursement of $496,656.65 in
litigation expenses.

Having found that the proposed class settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to the class, the Lead Plaintiff, and
the Defendants, Judge Alsup approved the settlement.

Having considered the Lead Counsel's motion for attorney's fees
and reimbursement of expenses, the Judge awarded the Lead Counsel
attorney's fees of $13,602,481 with interest accrued.  Half of
this amount will be paid after the "effective date" as defined in
the stipulation of settlement dated Dec.  19, 2017.  The other
half will be paid when the Lead Counsel certifies that all funds
have been properly distributed and the file can be completely
closed.

The Judge also awarded the Lead Counsel $496,656.65 as
reimbursement for their litigation expenses, to be paid from the
settlement fund.  By May 11, 2018, the parties will submit a
final class list (with names and cities) setting forth the class
members bound by the class settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/axd2XP from Leagle.com.

Daniel Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Casey
Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongayn & Murrary LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Philip Limbacher, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Jim Farno, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Marvell Technology Group LTD, Defendant, represented by Diane M.
Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Harry Arthur Olivar, Jr. --
harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Alyssa L. Greenberg --
alygreenberg@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan
LLP, Jason Frank Lake -- jasonlake@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan & Valerie Suzanne Roddy --
valerieroddy@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP.

Sehat Sutardja, Defendant, represented by Jason David Russell --
jason.russell@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.

Michael Rashkin, Defendant, represented by Joshua Garrett
Hamilton -- joshua.hamilton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP &
James Hyeoun Ju Moon -- james.moon@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.

Sukhi Nagesh, Defendant, represented by Bahram Seyedin-Noor --
bahram@altolit.com -- Alto Litigation, PC, Bryan Jacob Ketroser,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Ian Edward Browning, Alto
Litigation, PC.

Employees Pension Plan Of The City Of Clearwater, Movant,
represented by Curtis Victor Trinko -- ctrinko@trinko.com -- Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Movant,
represented by Carissa Jasmine Dolan -- cdolan@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Matthew Isaac Alpert -- malpert@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Nadim Gamal Hegazi -- nhegazi@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Scott H. Saham --
scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Cambridge Retirement System, Movant, represented by Gerald H.
Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP & Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP &
Avi Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Hui Qian, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Pomerantz
LLP.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Marvell
Technology Group, Ltd., Miscellaneous, represented by John P.
Stigi, III -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP.


MARVELL TECH: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Luna" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL LUNA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 15-05447 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of
Allocation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge finds
and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to
Persons who are Class Members advising them of the Plan of
Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and
fair opportunity was accorded to such Persons and entities who
are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of
Allocation.

He finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of
the claims of Authorized Claimants, which is set forth in the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action sent to the Class
Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund provided by the
settlement among eligible Class Members, with due consideration
having been given to administrative convenience and necessity.

Finally, he finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as
set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and
reasonable.  Accordingly, he approved the Plan of Allocation.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RqG2fc from Leagle.com.

Daniel Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Casey
Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongayn & Murrary LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Philip Limbacher, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Jim Farno, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Marvell Technology Group LTD, Defendant, represented by Diane M.
Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Harry Arthur Olivar, Jr. --
harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Alyssa L. Greenberg --
alygreenberg@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan
LLP, Jason Frank Lake -- jasonlake@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan & Valerie Suzanne Roddy --
valerieroddy@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP.

Sehat Sutardja, Defendant, represented by Jason David Russell --
jason.russell@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.

Michael Rashkin, Defendant, represented by Joshua Garrett
Hamilton -- joshua.hamilton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP &
James Hyeoun Ju Moon -- james.moon@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.

Sukhi Nagesh, Defendant, represented by Bahram Seyedin-Noor --
bahram@altolit.com -- Alto Litigation, PC, Bryan Jacob Ketroser,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Ian Edward Browning, Alto
Litigation, PC.

Employees Pension Plan Of The City Of Clearwater, Movant,
represented by Curtis Victor Trinko -- ctrinko@trinko.com -- Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Movant,
represented by Carissa Jasmine Dolan -- cdolan@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Matthew Isaac Alpert -- malpert@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Nadim Gamal Hegazi -- nhegazi@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Scott H. Saham --
scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Cambridge Retirement System, Movant, represented by Gerald H.
Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP & Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP &
Avi Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Hui Qian, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Pomerantz
LLP.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Marvell
Technology Group, Ltd., Miscellaneous, represented by John P.
Stigi, III -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Doesn't Pay OT to Medical Staff, Duran Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and Does
1-50, Defendants, Case No. BC705663 (Cal. Super., May 17, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular wages,
overtime hours, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Duran was employed by the Defendants as medical staff from
July 2013 to December 2014.

MAXIM is a healthcare/medical staffing agency business providing
labor and services as an employer or joint-employer throughout
the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari E. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310)982-2984
          Facsimile: (818) 983-5954
          E-mail: ari@mossbollinger.com


MDL 2617: Special Master Recommends $29MM Attys' Fees, $2MM Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No.:
15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Special Master James P. Kleinberg of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, entered his report and recommendation
regarding award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses.

By Order of Feb. 8, 2018, the Special Master was charged with
reviewing the lodestar for fees and expenses for the
representation of the Class.  In doing so, he is authorized to
review the time and expenses spent litigating the case and to
deduct time and expenses that are excessive, unnecessary, or
duplicative.

The case settled in June 2017.  Anthem agreed to an all-inclusive
fund of $115 million, out of which the class counsel moved
pursuant to Rule 23(h) for fees and expenses totaling $39.95
million as the counsel's "lodestar."  That amount is 34.7% of the
gross and 43.4% of the net settlement.  This claimed amount is
derived from the time records of 53 law firms comprising over 300
timekeepers.

With all of the competing considerations in mind, the Special
Master has reviewed the counsel's billing records, rates, hours,
tasks, number of personnel employed, and the claimed expenses for
each billing firm.  He has reviewed the settlement terms between
the class and the Defendant, including whether the counsel's
representation is correct that there is no collusion or conflicts
of interest (e.g., fee splitting among counsel), and whether
there is a "clear sailing" arrangement providing for the payment
of attorneys' fees separate and apart from class funds.  The
Special Master has not been charged with assessment of the
reasonableness or fairness of the settlement.

The Special Master takes the position that, to the extent the
lodestar is adjusted downwards from what the class counsel is
seeking, the difference will revert to the class members.
Further, he recommends that the costs of litigation and the fees
of the Special Master be deducted from the counsels' share rather
than that of the class.

The risks undertaken by the class counsel and their sizable
investment in an unknown result, typical of class actions, were
magnified in the instant megafund case.  And, as noted, the
settlement here was extremely positive, including the commitment
by Anthem to undertake extensive curative actions.  However, the
number of the counsel, the overlapping staffing and the excessive
rates charged for contract lawyers -- in contravention of the
Court's admonitions -- weigh heavily in the report's
recommendations.

Taking all these factors into account, and good cause appearing,
the Special Master makes the following alternative
recommendations:

     a. The 25% Benchmark:  As articulated in the Ninth Circuit's
ruling in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation,
there is authority to simply apply 25% to the settlement figure
as the amount to be awarded to the counsel.  If the total figure
here is $115 million, that amount of fees is $28,750,000.  The
Class counsel would then need to deduct approximately $2 million
for expenses (paid or outstanding), leaving counsel with a net
recovery of $26,750,000.  Using the "benchmark" approach, either
the "gross" or "net" recovery is well below the approximate
amount sought by counsel of $39,950,000.

     b. The revised, average billing rate: By taking the averages
of all firms' billings, an overall average rate, meaning all
personnel regardless of rank, equals $455.  Applying that rate to
the billable hours, a total of $35,896,087 is achieved.  Again,
that is before deduction of about $2 million for expenses,
leaving counsel with a net recovery of $33,896,087.  This is also
well below the amount sought by the counsel.

     c. Reducing the claimed lodestar by a "haircut" of 10% and a
reduction for contract attorneys:  This approach is articulated
in the Ninth Circuit's Moreno opinion.  In this case, a two-step
process is required.  First, the overbilling for contract
attorneys needs to be deducted from the gross fees sought, as
follows: Total claimed fees = $37,950,000, minus the $3,963,671
in arguable overcharges (see Section II.B. above) yields
$33,986,328 in fees.  Then, a "haircut" of 10% further due to the
factors described above, reduces the lodestar to $30,587,696.
That figure is 26.6% of the total $115 million gross settlement
and 34% of the $90 million net settlement fund (if expenses and
administrative costs are excluded).  The Special Master assumes
litigation expenses (including experts) have been paid by this
date, so they are reimbursable to counsel but should be deducted
in computing the lawyers' fee recovery.  To summarize, when the
approximately $2 million in expenses are deducted from the
counsel's recovery, the net received by class counsel is
$28,587,696 or 24.9% of the settlement's $115 million gross
figure.  This compares with the Counsel's request for 33% of the
$115 million settlement fund.

The above three alternative analyses recommended by the Special
Master yield fees compensation to the class counsel as follows:

     a. Benchmark 25% = $26,750,000

     b. $455/Hr. Billing rate = $33,896,087

     c. 10% Haircut off counsel's lodestar = $28,587,696.  The
third, "haircut" analysis is the one the Special Master
recommends.  This approach equals $9,362,304 or 24.7% reduction
off of the counsel's claimed lodestar.  It is considerate of the
counsel's efforts which are appropriate in light of the results
achieved for the present and the future.  It allows a significant
monetary reward for the class.  It also recognizes the
overcharging outlined.  If the lodestar is adjusted downwards
from what the class counsel is seeking, the difference should
revert to the class members.

Therefore, the Special Master recommended $28,587,696 to the
class counsel, $2,005,069 for litigation expenses, $23 million
for notice and administrative fees.  He further recommended that
the costs for a reserve of $132,000 ($60,000 for expert
monitoring services and $72,000 for a call-in center), and
service awards of $5,000 and $7,500 per awardee be borne by the
class counsel, and not the Class.  Finally, the Special Master's
charges should also be borne by the counsel, and not the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZVWnkL from Leagle.com.

Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
Plaintiff, represented by Craig Alan Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells, Eve
Hedy Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan --
michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter
R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
& Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak.

Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti --
tlopresti1@gmail.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn
Leonard  -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol --
msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Nicole Diane Sugnet -- Nicole.Sugnet@jud.ca.gov -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & RoseMarie Maliekel, Clarence Dyer &
Cohen LLP.

Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard --
dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Donald W.
Stewart, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William
Foster -- fosterg@saccounty.net -- STEWART AND STEWART PC, Nicole
Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan
Reeves, STEWART & STEWART PC.

Susanne Powell, Casey Silva & Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo
C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation,
Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C.
Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya --
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Bradley Keith King --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson APC, Danielle Evelyn
Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan and Morgan, P.A.,
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Robert Ahdoot -- RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C. & Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C.

Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
David Michael Berger -- dmb@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs
LLP, Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group
LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane
Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Scott M.
Grzenczyk -- smg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven
Augustine Lopez -- sal@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Susan Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, M. Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm, PC &
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Joseph D'Angelo, III, Shawn P. Haggerty, Charity L. Latimer, Kurt
J. McLaughlin, Tamara Nedlouf, John A. Thomas, II & Richard
Gillespie, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard  Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Edward Adam Webb -- Contact@WebbLLC.com -- Webb, Klase &
Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G.
Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb, Klase and Lemond, LLC, Matthew C.
Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Lauren Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Webb,
Klase and Lemond, LLC, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
Matthew C. Klase, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC & Nicole Diane
Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Rosalynn C. Krissman, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney
-- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock
-- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon
LLP & Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Anthem, Inc., formerly known as WellPoint Inc doing business as
Anthem Health Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes,
Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie Holt, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,
Cassandra Lauren Crawford -- cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com --
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble --
ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker --
cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H.
Smith, Hogan Lovells US LLP, David R. Boyd, Comey & Boyd, E.
Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez -- sanchez@rhrsb.com --
Roach Hewitt Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Glenn Virgil
Whitaker -- gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease,
Gregory Haynes -- ghaynes@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
LLP, Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja,
Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin --
john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lisa Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Lucile Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford --
mark.stafford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Matthew H. Geelan -- Mgeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham &
Noonan, P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly, Vorys, Sater Seymour and
Pease LLP, Michael G. Durham, Donahue Durham & Noonan PC, Michael
C. Theis, Hogan Lovells US LLP-Denver, Michael J. Tuteur, Foley &
Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Neal F. Perryman, LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, Sr., Perez Law Firm
Co. LPA, Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP,
Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A. Norwood, LEWIS
RICE, LLC, Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney,
Jr., Hogan & Hartson, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell --
david.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross,
Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam
Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders
LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur
Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley
Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van
Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel,
Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia
Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E.
Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja,
Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick
Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright
Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins & Vassiliki Iliadis.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented
by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan,
Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Community Insurance Company, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley,
Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary
Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin
J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of New
Hampshire, Inc., RightChoice Managed Care, Inc., Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Wisconsin & Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam
Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders
LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur
Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley
Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van
Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel,
Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia
Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan
Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter
R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia
Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Companies, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Wisconsin doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Kentucky, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet
Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans, Inc, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E.
Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja,
Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.
Amerigroup Corporation & Amerigroup Kansas, Inc., Defendants,
represented by represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam
Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders
LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur
Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley
Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van
Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel,
Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins,
Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., doing business as Anthem
Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John
Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia
Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.


MDL 2672: Franchise Dealers Can't Compel Withheld Docs Production
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 4967. Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 16-cv-02086-CRB, MDL No.
2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. Corley
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Franchise Dealers' motion to compel the
withheld production.

A group of Volkswagen-branded franchise dealers allege that
Robert Bosch, LLC, and Robert Bosch GmbH conspired with
Volkswagen to develop the defeat device that Volkswagen used in
its "clean diesel" vehicles to cheat on emissions tests.
Presently before the Court is a discovery dispute between the
Franchise Dealers and Bosch.

The Franchise Dealers have served Bosch with subject-matter-
specific requests for the production of documents.  They also
have served Bosch with a request for the production of documents
that Bosch previously provided to certain federal and state
agencies that are investigating the "clean diesel" emissions
fraud.  Bosch is in the process of responding to the former
requests, but has objected to the latter.  With respect to the
latter, Bosch asserts that the government investigations are not
coextensive with the Franchise Dealers' claims, and that the
request would therefore lead to the production of documents that
are not discoverable in the case.

The Franchise Dealers have moved to compel the withheld
production.  Specifically, they have moved to compel Bosch to
produce documents provided to US, NY and CA government agencies
in the United States in connection with investigations of defeat
devices installed in Affected Vehicles.

Magistrate Judge Corley finds that the Franchise Dealers' request
is comparable to the one addressed in King County v. Merrill
Lynch & Co.  The plaintiffs there filed a securities action
against the defendants, and requested that the defendants produce
all documents that they had previously provided to certain
government entities that were investigating the same conduct.
While acknowledging that some portion of documents encompassed by
the plaintiffs' request may be relevant, the court reasoned that
it had no method of determining which of those documents are
relevant, and which are not.  As a result, the court denied the
request and instructed the plaintiffs to make proper discovery
requests, identifying the specific categories of documents
sought.

The Magistrate Judge agrees with the approach taken in King
County, as it avoids the guesswork involved in comparing the
scope of an investigation that is not before the Court to the
scope of a case that is.  Further, under the circumstances of the
case, there is little need to engage in this guesswork.  Bosch
has made clear to the Franchise Dealers and the Court that it
will not withhold relevant documents solely because they were
previously produced to a government authority.  The documents
that Bosch produced to the government agencies at issue are
therefore not beyond the Franchise Dealers' reach if they are
indeed relevant to their case.

To be sure, she says it may be less burdensome for the Franchise
Dealers to ask for and receive a wholesale reproduction of what
Bosch produced in the government investigations.  But such an
approach makes it difficult to ensure that the scope of discovery
is not expanded beyond what is allowed by the Federal Rules.  Nor
does the need for the government productions outweigh the
possible overbreadth, as the Franchise Dealers are well-
represented and can fashion their own document requests without
relying upon the government productions.

If the Franchise Dealers are not satisfied with what they receive
from Bosch in response to their subject-matter-specific requests,
they may serve additional requests if needed, and to the extent
permitted by the federal and local rules.  But they are not
entitled to complete access to Bosch's prior government
productions simply because there is some overlap between their
claims and the government investigations.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Corley accordingly denied the
motion to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/P0DnL0 from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of
Peter Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tana Lin --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Todd A. Walburg,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Dean Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
-- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan,
War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The
Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller, McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J.
Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey, Johns &
Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC,
Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and
Rice LLC, John L. Hone, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis, Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Larry Martin Roth, Rumberger,
Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk &
Caldwell, PA, Michael R. McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie
Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald,
Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot Ffanklin & White LLC,
Seth Abram Schaeffer, McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons
PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Adam K.
Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Allison Rachel McLaughlin,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak &
Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Anne Katherine Guillory, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L.
Watson, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Benjamin K. Reitz, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, Blake Adam Gansborg, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP, Brett R. Leland, Verrill Dana LLP, Brian C.
Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Carine M. Williams,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley, BAKER
AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr., McGuireWoods
LLP, Charles Pendleton Mitchell, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell,
Christine Kingston, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP,
Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R.
Larsen, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell L. Barger, Hartline Dacus
Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Ayers, Watkins and Eager PLLC, David
A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N. May,
Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W.
Hearn, JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elena Lalli Coronado, Sullivan and
Cromwell, Elizabeth Righton Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP, Emily
Anne Ellis, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Eric R. Burris,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Erin Patricia Mead, Thorn,
Gershon, Tymann & Bonanni, LLP, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber Law
Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, Harlan I.
Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt,
McNatt, Greene & Peterson, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E.
Peifer, Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David
Ayers, WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and
Gray LLP, John Alan Knox, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John Garrett
McCarthy, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John Thomas
Prisbe, Venable LLP, Jonathan M. Hoffman, MB Law Group, LLP, Joy
Goldberg Braun, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Mark A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary
E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Matthew A. Schwartz,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Fletcher
Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J.
McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee,
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney
LLP-HTFD, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice,
Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Donnell,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W.
Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith
Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu, Herzfeld & Rubin PC,
Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul T. Collins, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Paul E.D. Darsow, Hanson Bolkcom
Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT,
Richard White Crews, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ryan A.
Morrison, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, S. Keith Hutto, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, PLLC, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon
L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P.
George, George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods
LLP, Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steve S. Tervooren,
Hughes Gorski Seedorf Odsen & Tervooren LLC, Stuart A. Drake,
Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sverker K. Hogberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Thomas R. Ferguson, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, PLLC, Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP, William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & William Henry
Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew
Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin --
levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m -- Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com -- Verrill Dana
LLP, David Maxwell James Rein --  reind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr. -- gswebb@Venable.com --
Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson
& Bell LTD, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. --
gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, John
Thomas Prisbe -- jtprisbe@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon L. Nelles --
nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L.
Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell --
bell.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stuart A. Drake --
stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William
B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush,
Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Michael R. Williams, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Ritchie E. Berger, Esq., Dinse, Knapp &
McAndrew, P.C., Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro
hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC,
Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth &
Paige, PLLC, Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice,
John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Michael R. Williams,
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Parsons, King & Spalding LLP, Adam G. Sowatzka, King & Spalding
LLP, Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M. Fine, King, Spaulding Law Firm, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha,
Nixon Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, James K.
Vines, King & Spalding, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph
Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth Yeatts Turnbull, King &
Spalding LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper
LLP, Sheldon T. Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING, Sonya R. Braunschweig,
DLA Piper LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac
vice & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.

David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Moen,
Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King &
Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA
Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong,
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr.,
DLA Piper LLP.

Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D.
Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice
& David Lloyd Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP.

Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, represented by Natalie
Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

Audi USA, Defendant, represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP.


MDL 2795: Related Securities Suits v. CenturyLink Consolidates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota consolidated Civil File No. 18-296
(MJD/KMM), Civil File No. 18-297 (MJD/KMM), Civil File No. 18-298
(MJD/KMM), and Civil File No. 18-299 (MJD/KMM), with the case
captioned IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.).

On June 16, 2017, Bloomberg reported that a former CenturyLink,
sales representative, Heidi Heiser, had filed a lawsuit against
CenturyLink in Arizona state court because she was fired for
blowing the whistle on the telecommunications company's high-
pressure sales culture that left customers paying millions of
dollars for accounts they didn't request.  The whistleblower
alleged that CenturyLink engaged in systemic misconduct by
signing up and charging customers for services that they did not
request and that she was fired days after notifying Chief
Executive Officer Glen Post of the alleged scheme.  CenturyLink's
stock dropped 4.5% from June 15, 2017 to June 16, 2017.

On June 19, 2017, Bloomberg reported that a consumer class action
complaint had been filed against CenturyLink based on the
whistleblower complaint alleging fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment and seeking damages up to $12 billion.
CenturyLink stock dropped another $0.36 on June 19, 2017.
CenturyLink's 7.6% Senior Notes dropped 6%.

In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred four federal securities actions to the Court for
inclusion in MDL No. 2795: Craig v. CenturyLink, Inc., Civil File
No. 18-296 (MJD/KMM); Scott v. CenturyLink Inc., Civil File No.
18-297 (MJD/KMM); Thummeti v. CenturyLink, Inc., Civil File No.
18-298 (MJD/KMM); and Inter-Marketing Group USA Inc. v.
CenturyLink, Inc., Civil File No. 18-299 (MJD/KMM).  At the time
of the transfer, there were several outstanding motions.

On June 21, 2017, the first securities class action lawsuit based
on revelation of the whistleblower's allegations, Thummeti, was
filed in the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink
securities between Feb. 27, 2014 and June 15, 2017.  Also on June
21, the Thummeti plaintiff published a notice of pendency on
Globe Newswire telling investors who purchased CenturyLink
securities that the deadline to seek appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff was Aug. 21, 2017.

On June 22, the Craig securities class action was filed against
CenturyLink in the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
CenturyLink common stock on the public market during the Class
Period.  The Class Period was March 1, 2013, to June 16, 2017.
On Aug. 8, based on the parties' stipulation, the Craig case was
transferred to the Western District of Louisiana.  On Aug. 16,
based on the parties' stipulation, the Thummeti case was also
transferred to the Western District of Louisiana.

On Aug. 15, the Scott case was filed in the Western District of
Louisiana against CenturyLink on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink
securities between March 1, 2013 and June 19, 2017.  On Aug. 15,
a notice of pendency of the Scott action was published in
Business Wire alerting investors who purchased CenturyLink shares
between March 1, 2013 and June 19, 2017 that the deadline to move
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff was Aug. 21, 2017.  At least 10
notices were published alerting investors in all CenturyLink
"securities" of the need to file a motion seeking Lead Plaintiff
appointment by Aug. 21, 2017.

On Aug. 21, 2017, Plaintiffs the State of Oregon ("Oregon"), KBC
Asset Management NV ("KBC"), and other groups of investors filed
motions seeking consolidation of the securities class actions
against CenturyLink and appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.  The
movants described the class as encompassing purchasers or
acquirers of "CenturyLink securities."  Oregon included its
trading in two CenturyLink bonds (the 5.625% Bonds and the 6.875%
Bonds) in the certification attached to its motion.   Another
movant, KBC, stated that the class in the Related Actions
consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
CenturyLink securities, including common stock and notes, during
the Class Period.

On Oct. 19, 2017, the District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana granted the four potential lead Plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate the Craig, Scott, and Thummeti cases.  On Oct. 20,
the court issued an Order appointing Oregon as the Lead Plaintiff
in the consolidated cases and denying the competing motions to be
appointed the Lead Plaintiff.

On Oct. 25, 2017, Plaintiff Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc.
("IMG") filed a class action securities complaint against
CenturyLink in the Southern District of New York.  The IMG
Complaint asserts securities claims on behalf of investors in a
single CenturyLink security, the CenturyLink 7.60% Senior Notes,
Series P, due 2039 ("7.60% Senior Notes"), that acquired or
purchased the notes during the period March 1, 2013, through June
19, 2017.  The IMG Complaint asserts the same misconduct against
the same Defendants (CenturyLink, Glen F. Post, III; R. Steward
Ewing, Jr.; and David D. Cole) during the same time period and
violating the same federal statutes as the previously
consolidated complaints.  IMG asserts that, when the truth about
CenturyLink's operations was disclosed in the June 16, 2017, and
June 19, 2017, Bloomberg articles, the price of CenturyLink's
7.6% Senior Notes dropped 6% from the last trading day to June
19, 2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, IMG issued a notice stating that the class
action was filed on behalf of purchasers of CenturyLink's 7.60%
Senior Notes, Series P, due 2039, and that the deadline to move
to be appointed Lead Plaintiff was Dec. 26, 2017.

On Dec. 12, 2017, Oregon filed a Motion to Intervene in the IMG
case in order to request that the court strike the Lead Plaintiff
deadline IMG purported to establish and to require publication of
a corrected notice explaining that the deadline to move for Lead
Plaintiff appointment had already expired.  Oregon has withdrawn
its motion to intervene as moot because IMG was the only investor
to file a motion seeking Lead Plaintiff appointment in IMG based
on the notice published by IMG's counsel.

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Defendants' motion to transfer was granted,
and the IMG case was transferred to the Western District of
Louisiana.

On Dec. 21, 2017, Oregon filed a Motion for Consolidation of
Related Action, seeking to consolidate the IMG case with the
consolidated actions.  On Dec. 26, 2017, IMG filed a Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel in the
IMG case.  On Feb. 8, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to
rebrief their motions under Eighth Circuit case law.

Judge Davis holds that consolidation is appropriate in the case.
The IMG case is virtually identical to the already consolidated
cases.  It asserts the same legal theories against the same
Defendants for the same class period based on the same fraud.

The Judge denies IMG's alternative request to appoint separate
bond and stock Lead Plaintiffs in a consolidated action.  He says
appointing two rival lead plaintiffs, particularly when one
(Oregon) suffered exponentially greater losses than the other
(IMG), would lead to undermining the goal of a cohesive
leadership and management group.  Oregon has already identified
an investor with standing to assert claims based on the 7.60%
Senior Notes, and it will include that investor as a named
Plaintiff in the consolidated complaint it intends to file.
Thus, the interests of the class are fully protected and there is
no need to appoint separate leadership to assert the claims that
Oregon has already been appointed to pursue.

Because the Judge has granted Oregon's motion to consolidate and
denied IMG's request for multiple lead plaintiffs within the
consolidated cases, IMG's own motion for appointment is moot.  He
further notes that Oregon clearly has the larger financial
interest, with claimed losses totaling more than $6 million,
while IMG suffered an exponentially smaller loss of approximately
$7,000.

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings,
Judge Davis granted the Motion of Lead Plaintiff Oregon for
Consolidation of Related Action, and denied the Motion of Inter-
Marketing Group USA, Inc. for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Lead Counsel.

Within three weeks of the date of the Order, the Judge directed
the Lead Plaintiff to meet and confer with the Defendant and to
submit a joint draft case management order, which will include a
proposed deadline for filing a consolidated complaint, for the
parties' Rule 26(f) conference, and any other pertinent
deadlines.  He also directed the Lead Plaintiff and the
Defendants to meet and confer with the leadership counsel for the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the CenturyLink sales cases to
propose a date for the next joint status conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Memorandum of Law
and Order is available at https://is.gd/uo3zj8 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Jared Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com -- GERAGOS &
GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
William A. McNab, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, PLLP, Daniel C.
Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Francois Michel Blaudeau, Southern Institute for Medical &Legal
Affairs LLC, Hart L. Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
-- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James McDonough, III --
JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, Lori
G. Feldman, Geragos & Geragos, pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos --
geragos@geragos.com -- GERAGOS & GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Mark M.
O'Mara, O'Mara Law Group, Michelle J. Looby --
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson  Gluek PLLC, Richard M.
Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson &
Roxanne Barton Conlin -- efile@roxanneconlinlaw.co -- Roxanne
Conlin & Associates, P.C.

Defendant's Primary Outside Counsel, Defendant, represented by
David M. Aafedt -- daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine,
PA, David A. Vogel -- dvogel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA & William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com --
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA.


MENARD INC: Court Stays "Griffith" FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Temporarily
Stay Case Proceedings in the case captioned DEBRA GRIFFITH, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-81 (S.D. Ohio), pending decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter against the
Defendant, alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and similar state statutes. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay its hourly,
non-exempt employees for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs assert that a stay in this case would severely
prejudice a certain sub-class of the Plaintiffs and Putative
Class Members. Specifically, the Plaintiffs posit that some
potential opt-in plaintiffs and Putative Class Members (Non-
Arbitration Plaintiffs) did not sign arbitration agreements
thereby mooting the applicability of any decision in Epic Systems
and that under the FLSA, the statute of limitations would
continue to run during any stay.

The Defendant asserts that a stay of these proceedings will
prevent confusion and unnecessary expense, arguing that the
outcome of Epic Systems will directly impact the Court's
determination of the Plaintiffs' class status for the purposes of
conditional certification. The Defendant explains that the
parties and the Court could engage in efforts that would need to
be undone if the Supreme Court holds the Agreements are
enforceable, thereby wasting resources and causing confusion
among both existing plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Initially, the Court notes that the Plaintiffs do not oppose a
stay of proceedings as related to claims by the Plaintiffs who
signed the Agreements containing both the individual arbitrations
clause and the class and collective actions waivers. Rather, the
Plaintiffs only oppose a stay of proceedings with respect to
potential opt-in plaintiffs and the Non-Arbitration Plaintiffs
who purportedly would not be bound by any decision in Epic
Systems.

The Court finds there is good cause for a stay of proceedings as
to all Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members in this case.
Accordingly, the Court does not reach the question of whether any
class or collective action waivers not containing arbitration
agreements would be bound by a decision in Epic Systems.

Acknowledging that the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems
is very likely to resolve an issue that is central to this case,
the Court is persuaded that a stay is warranted. The Court first
notes that this case cannot be properly disposed of, in its
entirety, without a decision in Epic Systems. The Supreme Court
is set to resolve the question of whether agreements such as
those at issue here are valid and enforceable. The enforceability
of the Agreements is central to this case, as it directly relates
to this Court's jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims.

Because this Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims
only if the Supreme Court finds such Agreements are invalid, to
take any action before the issue is resolved could require the
Court to undo significant efforts undertaken in the interim. In
addition, the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems would
preclude the parties from disputing the enforceability of the
Agreements, thereby simplifying the issues before this Court. The
Court therefore finds that the first and fourth factors weigh
heavily in favor of granting a stay.

Accordingly, the Court orders all proceedings in this case stayed
until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Lewis v. Epic
Systems, Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137
S.Ct. 809 (2017), or otherwise disposes of that case.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 23, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7sp45uw
from Leagle.com.

Debra Griffith, Plaintiff, represented by Robert E. DeRose, II -
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP, Austin Winters Anderson, ANDERSON2X, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Anderson2X, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Molly Kathleen Tefend -- mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com --
Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin Derose Wentz, LLP & William
Clifton Alexander, ANDERSON2X, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Menard, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Edward Davidson --
thyrza.skofield@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Daniel Culicover
-- daniel.culicover@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP & Paul L.
Bittner -- paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.


MENDEL MUFFINS: Underpays Factory Bakers, "Loja" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Loja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRANDON J. HILLMENDEL'S MUFFINS AND STUFF,
INC.;  BEST BITES DISTRIBUTIONS, INC., and GERSHON NEUSTADT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09248-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 15, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal, and rest
periods.

Mr. Loja was employed by the Defendants as factory baker from
April 2017 to December 2017.

Brandon j. Hillmendel's Muffins and Stuff, Inc. is a New Jersey
corporation engaged in the bakery and baked good distribution
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Schley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
          197 Route 18 South
          South Tower, Suite 3000
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (732) 325-0318
          E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Carillion Condo Owners Can't Sue as Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Hyman, Esq. -- mhyman@srhl-law.com -- of Siegfried,
Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La Torre, Mars & Sobel, in an article
for Law.com, wrote that condominium associations regularly
represent all of their unit owners as a consolidated class of
litigants in cases challenging their local county ad valorem
property tax appraisal assessments.  However, a vital segment of
the representation that associations provide their owners in such
actions may soon be coming to an end as a result of a recent
Florida appellate court ruling.

The ruling in March by the Third District Court of Appeal in
Central Carillon Beach Condominium Association v. Garcia
surprised many of the attorneys who focus on this highly
specialized area involving condominium and real estate tax law.
It found that unit owners cannot join together as a class to
respond to a county appraiser's appeal of an assessment reduction
because the law requires that the defendant in such appeals must
be the taxpayer.  The result could be deleterious for Florida
property owners and circuit courts, and it demands a legislative
fix during next year's session.

The case pitted two Miami Beach condominium associations against
the Miami-Dade County property appraiser and the county's legal
department.  It began in 2015 when the Central Carillon Beach
Condominium Association and the 2201 Collins Avenue Condominium
Association both filed a single joint petition with the Miami-
Dade County Value Adjustment Board challenging the county
appraiser's proposed assessments for all of the units in their
buildings.  The conditions for such joint petitions under the ad
valorem tax statutes, which include owner opt-out notices and a
determination by the appraiser that the units are substantially
similar, were satisfied, and the petition was heard and ruled
upon by the VAB.

The board's ruling awarded substantial reductions in assessed
values for the unit owners (approximately 20 percent for the
Central Carillon owners and 40 percent for 2201 Collins), and the
county appraiser subsequently appealed the VAB's determinations
to the circuit court.  However, each of the appraiser's suits
named individual unit owners as defendants, rather than suing the
associations on behalf of all of their unit owners.

The associations responded by moving to dismiss and seeking joint
representation for all of the owners as a defendants' class
action, and the appraiser countered by moving to default all of
the unit owners for failing to file individual responsive
pleadings.  In separate but nearly identical orders, the trial
court denied each association's motion to dismiss and also denied
their motions for certification of the unit owners as a defense
class.

In affirming the trial court's decision, the Third DCA panel
conceded that allowing an association to represent the interests
of its hundred-plus unit owners in a county appraiser's appeal of
a VAB reduction determination is ". . .  eminently logical. If a
joint petition can be pursued before the VAB, why shouldn't a
joint defense be allowed in the appraiser's appeal from the VAB's
determinations?"

The judges found the answer in the plain language of the statute
governing parties to tax suits stating that the "taxpayer" shall
be the party defendant in an action brought by the county
property appraiser to appeal a decision of the VAB.  The term
taxpayer is defined to mean "the person or other legal entity in
whose name property is assessed, including an agent of a
timeshare period titleholder," so the law dictates that the
individual unit owners must be the defendants and not the
associations, which do not pay the taxes in question.

The panel disagreed with the associations' argument that the
taxpayer defendant requirement is contrary to the specific rights
of collective representation given to them under the state's
condominium laws.  The law states that associations may
"institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in
its name on behalf of all unit owners concerning matters of
common interest to most or all unit owners  including . . .
protesting ad valorem taxes on commonly used facilities and on
units."  It found that the associations in this case had
protested the ad valorem taxes administratively on behalf of all
units as the law allows, but the lawsuits brought by the county
property appraiser against the individual unit owners are not
"protests" but rather judicial review proceedings in which the
unit owners are defendants.

The opinion concludes: "Although we appreciate the associations'
arguments that judicial efficiency would be better served by
allowing the associations to represent the 140 (Central Carillon)
or 180 (2201 Collins Avenue) unit owners as a defense class in
the lawsuits brought by the appraiser, those arguments must be
presented to the legislature rather than the courts if they are
to be effectual."

This appellate ruling, which appears to be the first on this
issue, could present a significant windfall for county property
appraisers and their collections efforts.  The appraisers
understand that it will present challenges for all of the unit
owners to respond to appeals of VAB decisions individually rather
than en masse through their associations.  They will adhere to
the new playbook established by this ruling of issuing these
suits against the individual unit owners rather than the
associations, and the state's other courts are likely to follow
the Third DCA's reasoning and place the onus on the owners rather
than the associations to defend their reduced property tax
assessments.

The looming prospect of hundreds of hearings featuring
practically identical pleadings by all of the unit owners in
these appeals of VAB decisions will clearly be a daunting one for
the state's courts, as the Third DCA panel understands all too
well given its statement that those arguments for judicial
efficiency must be presented to the state's lawmakers rather than
the judiciary.  Legislators should take note of this ruling and
simply ratify during next year's session an amendment to the
statute to allow associations to represent their taxpayer unit
owners as a defense class in such appeals by county property
appraisers. [GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Finds "Fatal" Flaw in Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Bass and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Microsoft Corp. women engineers seeking to pursue
gender-discrimination claims as a group were told by a judge
there may be a "fatal" flaw in their case.

A 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court requires plaintiffs to
point to a common corporate policy or action that affected the
women adversely, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart said on
June 11 at a hearing in Seattle about whether to let the case
proceed as a class action.  He seemed skeptical about the
Microsoft women's ability to find commonality.

According to the judge, one of the women's attorneys appeared to
argue that women at the tech giant were disadvantaged relative to
men because there was a lack of uniformity and management
oversight in performance evaluations.  Applying that contention
to the legal standard set by the Supreme Court is "fatal to your
class," Judge Robart said.

When plaintiff lawyer Kelly Dermody said there wasn't enough
uniform guidance for managers at Microsoft, Judge Robart
interjected: "Counselor, didn't you just drive a wooden stake
through the heart of your argument? You just told me there's no
commonality because there's no common criteria."

The complaint filed almost three years ago alleges that Microsoft
discriminated against women engineers in pay and promotions.  The
proposed class action would include more than 8,630 women in
those high-level positions from Sept 16, 2012, to the present.

Microsoft has denied any discrimination and has opposed class
certification.  Microsoft has made "significant progress" in
recent years in ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace, the
company said in an emailed statement before the hearing.  "But
even as we work on these broader issues, it is clear we don't
discriminate on pay and promotions." [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Brecher Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARA BRECHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03142-ERK-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans. The company was
founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sandoval Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGINA C. SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09396-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 17, 2018), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case was assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton and
referred to Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre.

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The
company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego,
California. Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Midland Portfolio Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies Class in "Wheeler" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN WHEELER, on behalf of himself and a putative
class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING
LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 15 C 11152 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia
M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Wheeler's Renewed Motion
for Class Certification with a modified class definition.

Sometime in 2015, Wheeler noticed that MCM was pulling his credit
report.  He called and MCM stated it was attempting to collect an
alleged credit card balance and offered Wheeler a 40% discount to
settle that debt.  Subsequently, on Oct. 4, 2015, Wheeler noticed
that MCM had pulled his credit report again.  So Wheeler again
contacted MCM and a representative directed him with an account
number to obtain information about his debt from MCM's website.

MCM's website indicated: (1) that Wheeler's last payment on the
debt was on Sept. 18, 2009; (2) that the original creditor had
given up on being repaid as of April 30, 2010; (3) a settlement
offer whereby the Plaintiff would save 40%; and (4) notice that
MCM was not obligated to renew its settlement offer.  The website
did not indicate that the statute of limitations on Wheeler's
debt had expired.

Because Illinois' statute of limitations on his credit card debt
had expired, Wheeler asserts that his debt could not be forcibly
collected and that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices ACT ("FDCPA") and related rules because they
failed to inform him of that fact.  He also alleged that the
Defendants regularly attempt to collect debts from other debtors
where the statute of limitations on the debt has expired.

As a result, Wheeler's now seeks to certify and represent a class
of individuals who received similar treatment allegedly in
violation of the FDCPA.  The Defendants oppose certification as
improper arguing Wheeler lacks standing to assert his FDCPA
claims and has failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

Judge Kendall finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  The Judge also finds that
Wheeler's class definition is based on objective criteria: the
identified group are those that accessed the MCM website whose
last payment on debt was over five years old; the time-frame is
includes persons who accessed the website on or after a date one
year prior to Dec. 11, 2014 and up to Dec. 6, 2015; the
particular location is any person who is an Illinois resident who
accessed the MCM website; and the particular way is similarly
access to the website.

Accordingly, she says Wheeler satisfies all of the standards
enunciated under Rule 23 and the class definition will be
defined, with minor adjustments by the Court, as all individuals
with Illinois addresses (b) who accessed the MCM web site (c) and
were offered a settlement or discount (d) on a credit card debt
on which the last payment had been made more than five-years
prior to the accessing (e) where the date of access was on or
after a date one year prior to the filing of the action and on or
before Dec. 6, 2015.

For the reasons mentioned, Judge Kendall granted Wheeler's
Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/k2jGSj from Leagle.com.

Kevin Wheeler, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
described herein, Plaintiff, represented by represented by Daniel
A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Cassandra P. Miller --
cmiller@edcombs.com -- Michelle A. Alyea -- malyea@edcombs.com --
at Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. & Encore
Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Heather L. Kramer
-- hkramer@dykema.com -- Theodore Wilson Seitz --
tseitz@dykema.com -- Todd A. Gale -- tgale@dykema.com -- at
Dykema Gossett PLLC.


MIDTOWN CATCH CORP: Underpays Delivery Worker, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
IME DIAZ-CABALLERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDTOWN CATCH CORP. (D/B/A
MIDTOWN CATCH), MICHAEL CIOFFI and JOSEPH POLIZZI, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04672 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Diaz-Caballero was employed by the Defendants as
delivery worker in New York, from August 2016 to July 2017.

Midtown Catch Corp. d/b/a Midtown Catch, is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company
owns, operates, or controls a seafood market, located at 405 East
57th Street, New York NY 10022. [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


MINNESOTA: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Foster" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge James B. Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Sheila Foster, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 17-1177 (8th Cir.).

In 1998, the State of Minnesota, through its Attorney General,
entered into a court-approved Settlement Agreement in which the
State released and forever discharged tobacco companies from
claims that they violated Minnesota consumer protection statutes
in exchange for substantial periodic settlement payments.

In 2001, Gregory Curtis filed a class action alleging that one of
the companies had violated several Minnesota consumer protection
statutes by marketing "light" cigarettes as a safer alternative
to regular cigarettes.  The Supreme Court of Minnesota eventually
dismissed the complaint, concluding (i) that the Attorney General
was authorized to sue the tobacco companies under Minn. Stat.
Section 8.31, subd. 3a, and to settle consumer protection claims
asserted by the State, acting as representative of Minnesota
citizens; and (ii) that the 1998 Settlement Agreement's "broad
and comprehensive" release expressly released and barred the
class members' consumer protection claims.

In 2014, Kristen Harne and Foster filed a class action in
Minnesota district court against the State of Minnesota, the
Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Management and Budget
(acting in their official capacities).  Count I alleged that the
Defendants' failure to pay class members a portion of the
proceeds of the 1998 Settlement Agreement constituted an "inverse
condemnation" in violation of Article I, Section 13, of the
Minnesota Constitution.  Count II alleged that the same conduct
constituted a taking of private property  without just
compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.  Both Counts sought just compensation
relief.

The Minnesota trial court dismissed the action, concluding that
both claims were time-barred under the applicable Minnesota six-
year statute of limitations, and that no taking had occurred.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding both claims
were time-barred by Section 541.05.  The Supreme Court of
Minnesota denied review.

In 2016, Foster filed the federal class action complaint against
the Harne Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, asserting that
the State's failure to share annual payments under the Settlement
Agreement constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.  The district court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, concluding that Foster's Fifth Amendment claim is barred
by res judicata because the same claim was raised and rejected in
Harne.  Alternatively, the court ruled that this federal claim is
time-barred under Minnesota law.  Foster appeals.

Reviewing the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo, Judge
Loken agrees with the district court that the Fifth Amendment
claim is barred by res judicata and therefore affirmed. See Laase
v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of
review).2

He explains that in Minnesota, res judicata bars a subsequent
claim when: (1) the earlier claim involved the same claim for
relief; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their
privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4)
the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the matter.

Here, he says all four elements are satisfied.  First, Foster's
takings claim in federal court is identical to the federal
takings claim asserted in Harne -- that the State by entering
into a Settlement Agreement in which it released Foster's claims
under Minnesota consumer protection statutes while refusing to
share the monetary proceeds of that settlement violated the Fifth
Amendment by taking private property without just compensation.
Second, Harne involved the same parties defendant.  Third, under
Minnesota law, the dismissal of the claims in Harne as time-
barred was a final judgment on the merits.  Fourth, Foster and
Harne actually litigated their federal claims in Harne.

Foster argues that applying res judicata to bar her federal claim
based on the prior Harne litigation violates the rule that claims
are not considered the same cause of action if the right to
assert the second claim did not arise at the same time as the
right to assert the first claim.  The Judge disagrees saying the
state law inverse condemnation claim arose at that time, and
Williamson County did not preclude Foster from also challenging
the constitutionality of that taking under the Fifth Amendment in
state court.

Foster further argues that she lacked full and fair opportunity
to litigate her federal takings claim because the Minnesota Court
of Appeals dismissed the claim as untimely under what Foster
argues was an inapplicable state statute-of-limitations. The
Judge finds that there can be no doubt that Foster's Fifth
Amendment claim was subject to the same six-year statute of
limitations as her inverse condemnation claim under the Minnesota
Constitution.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals expressly dismissed
both claims on the merits as time-barred.  Foster cites no
significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding that
denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the federal
takings claim she asserted.

Finally, invoking the principle that res judicata is a flexible
doctrine that should not be applied to "work an injustice,"
Foster argues that applying claim preclusion here works an
injustice because it would "effectively strip federal courts of
jurisdiction over claims involving the U.S. Constitution's
Takings Clause."  Judge Loken rejects the contention that
litigating a federal takings claim that is based on state
government action in state court works an injustice.

For these reasons, Judge Loken affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cD4qls from Leagle.com.

Douglas Micko -- micko@teskemicko.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Goldberg -- jg@fbdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Vildan Aksoz Teske -- teske@teskemicko.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark A. Wendorf -- m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Michael R. Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Oliver J. Larson -- oliver.larson@ag.state.mn.us -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com --
for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffery Thompson -- jeffery.thompson@ag.state.mn.us -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Patrick W. Michenfelder -- pat@throndsetlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles J. Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Alethea Marie Huyser -- alethea.huyser@ag.state.mn.us -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Erin Burns -- eburns@nastlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Frank T. Davis -- ftd@fbdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marisa Katz -- katz@teskemicko.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.


MONSTER INC: Settles Class Action Over HDMI Cable Bandwidth
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Thomas Zimmerman of the Chicago-based Zimmerman Law
Offices reached a nationwide settlement in a class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of Monster HDMI cables with an advertised
bandwidth exceeding 10.2 Gigabits per second ("Gbps") between
August 25, 2011 and March 6, 2018.

The class action lawsuit against Monster, Inc., Best Buy Stores,
L.P., and BestBuy.com, LLC challenged representations that were
made on the packaging of certain Monster high speed HDMI cables.
The lawsuit alleges that representations on the packaging induced
consumers to purchase higher bandwidth, and thus more expensive,
HDMI cables than they needed to make their televisions work.
According to the complaint, although an HDMI cable with a
bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps is sufficient to make 1080p and 4k
televisions work, Monster represented on certain of its cable
packaging that these products "require" more expensive higher
bandwidth cables.

The settlement provides class members with the choice of three
benefit options: Option A (monetary payment), Option B (monetary
payment and replacement cable), and Option C (Monster online
store credit).  The monetary benefits range in value from $10 to
$35 in cash or credit, depending on which Monster HDMI cable was
purchased.

A website has been set up at www.HDMIcablesettlement.com, where
class members can obtain information about the settlement, and
submit a claim online.  Mail-in claim forms can also be
downloaded from the website.  Claims must be submitted online or
postmarked by July 23, 2018.

Relevant court documents, including the settlement agreement, are
available at the settlement website, and a claim form can be
submitted at https://hdmicablesettlementclaim.com/

Contacts:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
          Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
          www.attorneyzim.com [GN]


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Responds to Wastewater Violations Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WBOC16 reports that Mountaire Farms is firing back against
lawyers who have filed a class-action lawsuit stemming from
wastewater violations at its Millsboro processing plant.

In a statement, the company said it had not seen the complaint
filed on June 13.  But Mountaire is taking aim at what it calls a
media blitz by the plaintiffs' attorneys, Baird Mandalas
Brockstedt and its out of state partner, Schochor, Federico &
Staton, who held a noon press conference announcing the filing.

Mountaire called a press conference "a publicity stunt by a group
of opportunistic lawyers hoping to cash in on a problem that has
already been solved through a consent decree with the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control."

The company says lawyers are hoping to cash in on a problem that
has already been solved through a consent decree with Delaware
environmental officials.

Mountaire also says elevated levels of nitrates in groundwater is
a common condition in Sussex County that predates the arrival of
the processing facility in 2000.

The company said it expects to be served a copy of the lawsuit
soon and will "and will vigorously defend the allegations in
court as well as thoroughly question the alleged experts."

Mountaire said it will have further comment once it has the
opportunity to read the complaint in full. [GN]


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Baird Mandalas, Schochor File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Metzner, writing for WRDE, reports that the Delaware law
firm of Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC in association with the
Maryland firm of Schochor & Staton, P.A. filed a class action
lawsuit listing multiple counts against Mountaire Farms this
morning.  Mountaire is being accused of including negligence,
recklessness, trespassing, and unjust enrichment.

Chase Brockstedt opened up the press conference by stating, "The
filing this morning was the result of countless hours of
investigation and research over the last six months to understand
the scope and the severity of the contamination caused by
Mountaire's wrongful discharge of its wastewater and sludge and
its air emissions."

Mountaire disposes of waste from its 9 million gallon septic
tanks on four croplands and 1 forest by irrigating more than 900
acres of croplands.  Sludge disposal is applied across 300 acres
of forests and croplands in the Millsboro area.  These septic
tanks are kept uncovered and were emptying into a lagoon before
being sprayed out into the fields.

The two law firms allege that the disposal of billions of gallons
of highly contaminated wastewater and liquified sludge has caused
nitrates and other contaminants to spread for miles throughout
the Millsboro area.  While this case is directed at the Millsboro
plant, the Selbyville plant is indirectly affected just by
sending its waste to Millsboro.

A class action brings everyone together for judicial economy.
Instead of having 700 individual cases, all of the residents
affected by contaminated drinking water, health concerns, and air
pollution are coming together to demand Mountaire stop polluting
the Millsboro area and compensate those who are affected.

According to the press release by Baird Mandalas Brockstedt on
June 13th, 2018, The lawsuit intends to require Mountaire to:
stop polluting the Millsboro area, overhaul its wastewater
treatment plant and discharge processes, provide clean and safe
drinking water to affected residents, remediate the groundwater
and clean up its mess, compensate affected residents for their
loss of property values, and compensate those suffering
sicknesses caused by the exposure to elevated nitrates, hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia, and other contaminants.

Mountaire's response to the press conference is that it was a
publicity stunt by a group of lawyers hoping to cash in on a
problem that has already been solved by a consent decree with
DNREC.  Mountaire says, "as we have stated many times previously,
elevated levels of nitrates in Sussex County is a very common,
widespread environmental condition that has existed for many
decades, way before the arrival of Mountaire and certainly did
not occur just in the past seventeen years."

What has been contaminated can't be undone, but Mountaire can
start meeting the limits for nitrate levels moving forward.  This
class action lawsuit is ordering a $150 million remediation
process.  Compensating residents could cost well into the hundred
millions.

DNREC says once Mountaire's wastewater treatment plant upgrades
are complete, its shallow production wells will be relocated and
a net reduction of nitrates in the ground water will eventually
be reached.  Mountaire expects to be served a copy of this
lawsuit soon and will vigorously defend the allegations in court
as well as thoroughly question the alleged experts.  A further
comment can be expected once they've reviewed the entire
complaint. [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Removes "Fischer" Suit to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case captioned as, ANDREW FISCHER,
individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3;
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE FUNDING, LLC; TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC.;
VANTAGE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; and RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of
Kings County, New York (Case No. 524868/2017) to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 14,
2018.  The removed case is now assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02857-
PKC-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822-4938
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          Facsimile: (908) 237-1663
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NATIONAL CREDIT: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Aleksanian" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOLITA ALEKSANIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS,
L.L.C., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04481
(C.D. Cal., May 24, 2018) alleges that Defendant has made
unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she received numerous
telemarketing/solicitation calls from the Defendant using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice, without her prior express consent.

National Credit Adjusters, LLC engages in the procurement of
delinquent account receivables and helps creditors liquidate
these receivables through extensive training, innovation,
automation and analytics. The company was founded in 2001 and is
based in Hutchinson, Kansas. National Credit Adjusters, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Fourth Avenue Holding, LLC. [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 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
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


NEW YORK: EMS Union Sues Fire Dept. over Promotional Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
individually and on behalf of its members, Renae Mascol, and Luis
Rodriguez, similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, and DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, John and Jane Does 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04476 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018) to secure
monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of the
Civil Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' actions in their use
of a subjective promotional process for applicants in the
Emergency Medical Service Bureau of the New York City Fire
Department, where more objective processes exist, has resulted in
disparate and discriminatory promotional practices. These
practices have adversely affected the employment and promotional
opportunities of members who belong to the protected classes
despite having the requisite skills, training, and expertise.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include
skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling
Central Park. Broadway theatre is staged in neon-lit Times
Square. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yetta G. Kurland, Esq.
          THE KURLAND GROUP
          160 Broadway, East Building, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 253-6911
          Facsimile: (212) 614-2532
          E-mail: Kurland@kurlandgroup.com


NEW YORK, NY: Arrestees Claim their Arrest Info Illegally Used
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.C., J.J., and A.G., suing under pseudonyms, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
City of New York and James P. O'Neill, New York City Police
Department Commissioner, in his official capacity, Defendants,
Case No. 153739/2018, (N.Y. Sup., April 24, 2018), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Criminal
Procedure Law.

Plaintiffs have arrests that have been terminated in their favor.
The complaint says records of those arrests are subject to
sealing, and photographs and fingerprints taken in connection
with those arrests are subject to return or destruction by the
NYPD under Criminal Procedure Law. However, they continue to use
and disclose said arrest information for law enforcement purposes
without first obtaining a court order, argue the Plaintiffs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, Esq.
      Johanna B. Steinberg, Esq.
      Niji Jain, Esq.
      Shakeer Rahman, Esq.
      Annette Lee, Esq.
      THE BRONX DEFENDERS
      360 East 161st Street
      Bronx, NY 10451
      Tel: (718)838-7881

             - and -

      Jonathan S. Kolodner, Esq.
      Sharon L. Barbour, Esq.
      Martine B. Forneret, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Theobald, Esq.
      Eric Boettcher, Esq.
      Pekham Pal, Esq.
      Michael Cinnamon, Esq.
      CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
      One Liberty Plaza
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 225-2000


NEW YORK, NY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Nnebe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Elizabeth Bonina, City of New York, Matthew Daus,
Joseph Eckstein, Charles Fraser and New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission filed an appeal from the District Court's
amended opinion order and judgment dated April 26, 2018, in the
lawsuit styled Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al., Case No. 06-cv-
4991, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

Matthew Daus was the chairperson of the NYC Taxi and Limousine
Commission.

The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al.,
Case No. 18-1254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 8,
2018, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the District Court's
amended opinion, order, and judgment entered on March 27,
2018.  That appellate case is captioned as Nnebe, et al. v. Daus,
et al., Case No. 18-866.

The lawsuit alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission's policy of suspending taxi drivers upon notification
of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York
state law, and New York City municipal law.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jonathan Nnebe, New York Taxi Workers
Alliance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Kharirul Amin and Eduardo Avenaut are represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ACKMAN
          222 Broadway
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          Facsimile: (888) 290-3481
          E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Matthew Daus, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth
Bonina, The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City
of New York and Charles Fraser are represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NORMANDY SCHOOLS: Age Discrimination Case Removed to Federal Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that Normandy
Schools Collaborative recently removed a proposed class action
alleging age discrimination and 14th Amendment violations filed
in St. Louis County Circuit Court to federal court.

Plaintiffs in the case claim age discrimination in violation of
the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), disparate impact and
pattern and practice discrimination in violation of the MHRA and
impairment of contract under state law.  Their federal claims
include civil conspiracy and violations of the 14th Amendment.

The litigation brought by lead plaintiffs Phyllis Hope, Benita
Mercer, Byron Fry, Vonzella Jackson, Geannette Walls,
Judith Bronaugh, Laura Johnson, Alice Bell, Barbara Sharp, Hope
Lewis, Betty Chism, Marilyn McElroy, Robert Nelson Wanda Weaver,
Felecia Hickman, Deblin Thomas, Preston Thomas, Shelia Bumpers,
Brenda Glaze, Michael Jackson and Allen Grant asserts seven
counts of damages in a second amended complaint.

The defendant, represented by Dorothy White-Coleman and Susie
McFarlind of White Coleman & Associates in St. Louis and Melanie
Gurley Keeney and Mandi D. Moutray of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper,
Mohan & Jackstadt of St. Louis, argues that U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, has
jurisdiction because of alleged violations of federal law.

Normandy Schools also states in its May 25 removal notice that
federal court has supplemental jurisdiction because plaintiffs'
state law allegations "are so related" to federal claims "as to
form part of the same case or controversy."

"Additionally, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 (c) provides that whenever a
separate and independent claim or cause of action within the
jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 is joined with one
or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the
entire case may be removed and the district court may determine
all issues therein," the notice states.  "Supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims is also proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c) because (i) the state claims
do not raise a novel or complex issue of state law; (ii) the
state claims do not substantially predominate over the claims
over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (iii)
the district court has not dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction; and (iv) there are no exceptional
circumstances or other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction." [GN]


NRG RESIDENTIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Griffoul" Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN GRIFFOUL and ANANIS GRIFFOUL, Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. NRG RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a NRG
HOME SOLAR and NRG ENERGY, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
A-5535-16T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the July 14, 2017 order,
which denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiffs, residents of Elmwood Park and class
representatives Brian and Ananis Griffoul, and NRG Residential
entered into solar power system leases.  The lease agreements
required NRG Residential to install solar systems on the
Plaintiffs' respective properties, which would provide
electricity to their homes, and also be interconnected with the
utility's electrical transmission grid.  In consideration, the
Plaintiffs each made a down payment of $51.55 followed by 239
monthly lease payments for a total of $16,453.96.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the
Defendants alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act ("CFA"), and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and
Notice Act ("TCCWNA").  They allege the lease agreement contained
six provisions that violated consumer rights: Access Rights;
Remedies; Indemnity; No Consequential Damages; Limitation of
Liability; Statute of Limitations.  They also alleged the
Defendants made specific and direct representations that
customers could expect decreased monthly energy bills and would
obtain certain benefits by way of their receipt of solar
renewable energy credits.

The Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a
provision in the parties' lease agreement.  NRG Energy also moved
to dismiss count one of the complaint without prejudice for
failure to plead a CFA claim with particularity as required by
Rule 4:5-8(a).  NRG Energy moved to dismiss count two of the
complaint with prejudice arguing a TCCWNA claim could not be
asserted against it because it was not a party to the lease
agreement.

The motion judge denied the Defendants' motions.  The judge found
the arbitration clause in the lease agreement invalid, and denied
the motion to compel arbitration.  The judge ruled the
arbitration clause failed to state the Plaintiff's statutory
claims were subject to arbitration.  The judge found the class
action waiver unclear and contradicted the arbitration clause.
The judge also denied NRG Energy's motion to dismiss, and its
subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion
to dismiss.

The appeal followed.  The Defendants argue the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempted the motion judge's invalidation
of the arbitration clause and required the arbitration agreement
to be enforced according to its terms.  They argue there is no
requirement for an agreement to reference a specific statute in
order to encompass statutory claims.  They argue the arbitration
agreement is enforceable pursuant to Atalese and Martindale v.
Sandvik, Inc.  They assert both cases required the court to
consider the parties' intent in interpreting an arbitration
agreement, which the motion judge failed to do here.  The
Defendants also argue NRG Energy should have been dismissed
because it is not a party to the contract, and the motion judge
should have stayed the proceedings pending appeal.

The Appellate Court finds that the arbitration clause of the
lease agreement clearly and unambiguously waived the Plaintiff's
right to a proceeding in court.  Having done so, the clause then
defined the capacity in which claims could be brought in
arbitration and clearly limited those claims to individual
claims, thereby barring a class action in arbitration.

Furthermore, the arbitration clause's usage of the word
"purported" preceding the class action waiver did not signal an
invitation to assert only meritorious class action claims in
arbitration.  Indeed, the purport of an instrument means the
substance of it as it appears on the face of the instrument.
Therefore, the Judge, finds that the arbitration clause
identified "purported" class actions as having been waived was
not a qualitative assessment of the merits of the class action
claim, but rather language crafted broadly enough to exclude from
arbitration those claims that appeared to be class action based.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the arbitration clause
provisions of the lease agreement.  It reversed the motion
judge's order denying the motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/OnYsSH from Leagle.com.

Thomas J. O'Leary -- toleary@connellfoley.com -- argued the cause
for appellants (Connell Foley, LLP, attorneys; Thomas J. O'Leary,
of counsel and on the briefs; Patricia A. Lee --
plee@connellfoley.com -- on the briefs).

Arthur M. Owens -- AOwens@lumlaw.com -- argued the cause for
respondents (Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, attorneys; Arthur M.
Owens, on the brief).


NUEVA SAN SALVADOR: Doesn't Pay OT to Server, "Amaya" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUEVA SAN SALVADOR RESTAURANT #4, CORP.
d/b/a NUEVA SAN SALVADOR RESTAURANT #1, CORP. d/b/a NUEVA SAN
SALVADOR RESTAURANT #2, CORP.; NUEVA SAN SALVADOR RESTAURANT #3,
CORP.; CARLOS PORTILLO; and GLORIA PORTILLO, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-22127-UU (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Amaya was employed by the Defendants as server

Nueva San Salvador Restaurant #4, Corp. d/b/a Nueva San Salvador
Restaurant #1, corp. d/b/a Nueva San Salvador Restaurant #2,
Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Florida. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503.5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270.5549
          Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ONE INC: Warciak Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WARCIAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2018-CH-06254 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., May 15, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making unwanted and unsolicited text
message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide
and to obtain redress for all persons injured.

One, Inc. develops Web/cloud-based software products that help
property and casualty insurers. It offers InsureOne, a software
suite that offers a policy management system, payment processing
system, enterprise efficiency management, agency management,
customer relationship management, business intelligence and
reporting, and marketing representative's management software
solution. The company serves agencies, carriers, MGAs, and others
working in data-dependent business scenarios. The company was
founded in 2005 and is based in Rancho Cordova, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Tel: (415) 212-9300
          Fax: (415) 373-9435


ORION MARINE: Kelly Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORION MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. d/b/a
ORION MARINE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 72148603 (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., May 15, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect debt.

Orion Marine Construction, Inc. d/b/a Orion Marine Group is a
Florida for-profit corporation and operates a construction
company in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813)229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 twells@wfclaw.com
                 mfenton@wfclaw.com


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on June 11 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of Ormat Technologies, Inc. ("Ormat"
or the "Company") (NYSE:ORA) between August 8, 2017 and May 15,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover Ormat shareholders' investment losses.

To join the Ormat class action, and/or if you have information
relating to this matter, please visit our ORMAT SHAREHOLDER PAGE
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants'
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there were errors in the income tax provision primarily
relating to Ormat's valuation allowance based on its ability to
utilize foreign tax credits in the U.S. prior to their
expiration; (2) Ormat netted certain deferred income tax assets
and deferred income tax liabilities across different tax
jurisdictions that are not permitted to be netted pursuant to
United States generally accepted accounting principles; (3)
Ormat's internal controls over financial reporting were
ineffective during the Class Period; (4) due to the foregoing,
Ormat would need to restate its second, third and fourth quarter
2017 financial statements and its full-year 2017 financial
statements; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all
relevant times.

On May 11, 2018, Ormat disclosed that its delaying the filing of
its Quarterly Report for the period ended March 31, 2018 with the
SEC because "management has identified an error in the Company's
financial statement presentation of deferred income tax assets
and deferred income tax liabilities that affects the Company's
balance sheets in previous reporting periods."  Ormat further
disclosed that "[t]he Company is evaluating the impact of this
error on its consolidated financial statements and the extent to
which the Company's annual and quarterly consolidated financial
statements filed in previous periods require revision or
amendment."

On this news, Ormat's stock fell $3.58 per share, or over 6%,
over two consecutive trading days to close at $52.77 per share on
May 14, 2018, damaging investors.

Then, on May 16, 2018, Ormat revealed that "it will restate its
second, third and fourth quarter 2017 financial statements and
its full-year 2017 financial statements," and therefore,
"investors should no longer rely upon the Company's previously
issued financial statements for the periods set forth above,
earnings releases for these periods, and other communications
relating to these financial statements."

On this news, Ormat's stock fell $0.67 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $52.35 per share on May 16,
2018, damaging investors.

The class action is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, under docket number 3:18-cv-00271.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 10, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff.  If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients.  In addition to representing individual
investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest
public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their
assets and pursue litigation on their behalf.  As a result of its
success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the
Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs'
Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten
consecutive years.

Contact Information:

          Daniel Sadeh
          Bernstein Liebhard LLP
          Telephone: (877) 779-1414
          E-mail: dsadeh@bernlieb.com
          Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com[GN]


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Investor Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for Law360, reports that investors in Osiris
Therapeutics Inc. told a Maryland federal judge on June 12 that
they had reached an $18.5 million settlement with the biotech
research company over allegations it artificially inflated
reported revenues and misled shareholders about its revenue
growth.

Lead plaintiff Raffy Mirzayan said the settlement was reached
after five months of mediation and negotiation that ended in
March.  He asked the judge for preliminary approval of the
settlement, along with certification of the investor class.

The case is Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03562.  The case is assigned to Judge Paula Xinis.
The case was filed November 23, 2015. [GN]


PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a
BEDROSIANS, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
18CECG01701 (Cal. Super., May 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-
paid, non-exempt employee, from September 2016 to June 2017.

Paragon Industries, Inc. manufactures steel tubular and line pipe
products. It serves oil industry in the United States, Canada,
and South America. The company was founded in 1970 and is based
in Sapulpa, Oklahoma with a coil processing facility in Muskogee,
Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


PEOPLES UNITED BANK: Faces "Pryzgoda" in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against People's United
Bank, N.A. The case is captioned as Lisa A. Pryzgoda,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. People's United Bank, N.A., and People's United
Financial, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04299-JSR
(S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Jed S.
Rakoff.

People's United Bank, N.A. provides retail and business banking
services, as well as wealth management services. The company was
founded in 1842 and is based in Bridgeport, Connecticut with a
network of branches in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
York, New Hampshire, and Maine.  People's United Bank, N.A.
operates as a subsidiary of People's United Financial, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Tina Wolfson, Esq.
           AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
           1016 Palm Avenue
           West Hollywood, CA 90069
           Telephone: (310) 474-9111
           Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
           E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.coma


PG&E CORP: Aug. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E Corporation
(NYSE:PCG) securities between April 29, 2015 and June 8, 2018
(the "Class Period").  Investors have until August 13, 2018 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) PG&E had
failed to maintain electricity transmission and distribution
networks in compliance with safety requirements and regulations
promulgated under state law; (2) consequently, PG&E was in
violation of state law regulation; (3) PG&E's electricity
networks would cause numerous wildfires in California; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 9, 2018, Bloomberg published an article entitled "PG&E
May Face Criminal Charges After Probe of Deadly Wildfires." The
article reported that an investigation into the causes of
California wildfires in October 2017 by California's fire agency
"found evidence of alleged violations of law by PG&E in
connection with" the fires.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E Corporation
securities during the Class Period or continue to hold shares
purchased during the Class Period, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and
securities litigation. [GN]


PETEZA PROSE: "Kile" Stayed Pending Ruling in 3 Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Daniel Breen of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, stayed the case, MORGEN
KILE, Plaintiff, v. PETER D'ANDREA, JOHANAS ROBERSON, PETEZA
PROSE, LLC, and 5 STAR PIZZA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01225-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn.).

The Parties' filed their Joint Motion to Stay in the matter
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of three consolidated
cases pertaining to the lawfulness of class action waivers in
pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration agreements.  For good cause
shown, the Judge granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/P2fp7b from Leagle.com.

Morgen Kile, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon E. Jackson --
gjackson@jsyc.com -- JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT, Paula
Rachelle Jackson, JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT, Robert Emmett
Turner, IV, JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT & Joseph Russ Bryant --
rbryant@jsyc.com -- JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT.

Peter D'Andrea, an Individual, Johanas Roberson, an Individual,
Peteza Prose, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company & 5 Star
Pizza, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Courtney Leyes -- cleyes@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS,
LLP & Edward N. Boehm, Jr. -- tboehm@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER
& PHILLIPS LLP.


PRODUCTION MGMT: Magistrate Recommends Approval of "Daniels" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAPATRICK DANIELS, v. PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-02567 (W.D. La.),
Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division,
recommended that the Proposed Settlement be approved, and the
Joint Motion to Reassert the Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement be granted.

The parties reached a settlement in the case which has been
conditionally certified a collective action under Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  As a result, the counsel filed a Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, which was subsequently
denied without prejudice to the parties' right to reassert the
motion after addressing the Court's concerns.

The Counsel then filed a Joint Motion to Reassert the Motion to
Approve Settlement Agreement.  The Counsel has also provided a
copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  Under the Proposed
Settlement Agreement, 73 collective action members will receive
backpay and an equal amount of liquidated damages under the FLSA,
no collective action member's payment will be reduced by
attorney's fees and expenses, the action will be dismissed with
prejudice, and each party will bear its own attorney's fees and
costs except as provided in the proposed settlement agreement.

Magistrate Judge Hanna finds that the proposed settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable, and accordingly, recommends that
the proposed settlement be approved.  There is no evidence of any
fraud or collusion behind the settlement.  With regard to the
inquiries set forth in the second factor, the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation, he says the case
presented multiple complex legal issues which have been zealously
litigated by experienced counsel at significant expense.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the stage of the proceedings
and the amount of discovery completed, likewise supports a
finding that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and
should be approved.  The probability of the Plaintiff's success
on the merits, also supports a finding that the settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable.  The range of possible recovery,
weighs in favor of a finding that the settlement is fair,
adequate and reasonable.  Finally, he finds that the opinions of
the class counsel, the class representatives, and the absent
class members, also mandate a finding that the settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable.

As part of the fairness determination, the Magistrate Judge also
assesses the reasonableness of any proposed award of attorney's
fees and expenses sought by the Plaintiff's counsel.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel seeks approval of an award of $400,000 in
attorneys' fees and $6,050 in costs and expenses.  He finds that
all parties have agreed the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to a
total of 40% of the gross settlement amount for attorney's fees,
costs and expenses.  The degree of success in the case is high in
that the Defendant vigorously contested Plaintiffs' claims, and
the Plaintiffs had to litigate the case for over two years before
it could be resolved.  For all of the foregoing reasons, the
Magistrate Judge finds that the proposed award in the case is
fair and reasonable.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Hanna recommended that
the proposed settlement be approved, and that the Court grants
the Joint Motion to Reassert Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth in the Motion and
the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that the collective action be dismissed with
prejudice.

Because the parties have agreed on the payment of the settlement
funds and attorneys' fees and there has been no objections to the
settlement filed in the record, he shortened the time period for
objections set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. Section 636(b)(1)(c).  The
parties have five days to serve and file written objections to
the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal
conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual
findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this
Report and Recommendation within five days following the date of
its service, will bar an aggrieved party from attacking either
the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court, except upon grounds of plain error.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Report and
recommendation is available at https://is.gd/kF6h26 from
Leagle.com.

LaPatrick Daniels, Kirt Favors, Clyde Castle, Thomas L David,
Shawn Faulkner, Gejuan Georgia, Anthony Grogan, Derrick C
Jackson, Cornelius Johnson, Mitchell Johnson, Roger Johnson,
Deion Lanthier, Ray Pack, Terrance Perkins, Bobby Porter, David
Ricard, Christain Singleton, Trilon Taylor, Herbert Thompson,
Bradley D Wells, Shaiza Williams, Trent Bryant, Cedric N Burton,
Brian K Francis, Ramon Montes, Randolph K Richard, Ryan Bickham,
Jeremy Holder, Ahmad Sandifer, Gregory Brown, Steven L
Fortenberry, Brian K Johnson, Cedric Shannon, Willie Dawson, II,
Daniel Lockett, Ralph Messam, Charlie Martin, All Plaintiffs, in
6:15-cv-2567, Shawn C Travis, Demario Wright, Aha Keen Allen,
Ja'Darriah Banks, Quovodis M Bickham, erroneously named as
Quovadis Abickham, Junius Boyd, Gregory DuJuan Brown, Ronnie
Hendrix, Christopher Jackson, Willie McDyess, Cornelius
Stansbury, David Allen Turner, Cory Washington, Charles Kirksey,
Jarrell L Campbell, Adrian Jones, Kristopher L Hunt, Robert
Smith, Cory Bowser, Jeremy K Buckner, DeAngelo M Terrell, Shannon
Tassin, Jeremiah Burton, Kebe Ennis, Marcus Fontenot, Henry T
Jefferson, III, Miguel A Garcia Ramirez, Ceasar D Bell, Elvin R
Ivory, II, Phillip Gooden, Chauncey Johnson, Steve Sivilay &
Patrick J Green, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth W. DeJean,
Law Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean, Andrew Dunlap, Josephson Dunlap
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Matthew Scott Parmet, Bruckner Burch,
Michael A. Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson
Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice & Richard J. Burch, Bruckner Burch,
pro hac vice.

Kendrick Green, Stephen Iverson & Kendrick Magee, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kenneth W. DeJean, Law Offices of Kenneth W.
DeJean, Andrew Dunlap, Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Michael A. Josephson, Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice &
Richard J. Burch, Bruckner Burch, pro hac vice.

Ronald Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth W. DeJean, Law
Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean, Andrew Dunlap, Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Michael A. Josephson, Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Richard J. Burch, Bruckner Burch, pro hac
vice.

Production Management Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by
Andrew P. Burnside -- drew.burnside@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins et al & Jennifer Lynn Englander --
jennifer.englander@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al.


QUALCOMM INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller")  on June 11
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of QUALCOMM Incorporated ("Qualcomm") (NASDAQ: QCOM)
securities during the period between January 31, 2018 and March
12, 2018 (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in the
Southern District of California and is captioned Camp v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated, et al., No. 3:18-cv-1208.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from June 8, 2018.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class,
you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/qualcomm/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Qualcomm and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Qualcomm
develops and commercializes foundational technologies and
products used in mobile devices and other wireless products.
Broadcom Limited ("Broadcom") is a designer, developer and global
supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices.  Beginning in
November 2017, Broadcom announced a series of unsolicited
proposals to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Qualcomm
common stock.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose to investors that Qualcomm had secretly filed
a unilateral notice with the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States ("CFIUS") to frustrate Broadcom's attempt to
acquire the Company and in order to allow the officers of
Qualcomm to entrench themselves in their executive leadership
positions at the Company. As a result of defendants' false
statements and/or omission of this material information, Qualcomm
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

On March 5, 2018, Broadcom disclosed that "Qualcomm secretly
filed a voluntary request with CFIUS to initiate an
investigation, resulting in a delay of Qualcomm's Annual Meeting
48 hours before it was to take place.  This was a blatant,
desperate act by Qualcomm to entrench its incumbent board of
directors and prevent its own stockholders from voting for
Broadcom's independent director nominees."

Then on March 12, 2018, Qualcomm filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
attaching a letter from CFIUS regarding its investigation into
the proposed acquisition, which stated that the "investigation
has so far confirmed [a] national security concern" and requested
that Broadcom provide responsive information.  The letter also
stated that, "[i]n the absence of information that changes
CFIUS's assessment of the national security risks posed by this
transaction, CFIUS would consider taking further action,
including but not limited to referring the transaction to the
President for decision."  Later the same day, President Donald J.
Trump issued an order blocking Broadcom from taking further
action regarding its proposed acquisition of Qualcomm.  Following
these developments, the price of the Company's common stock
declined substantially.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Qualcomm securities during the Class Period (the "Class").

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
representing investors in securities litigation.  With 200
lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. [GN]


PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a
BEDROSIANS, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
18CECG01701 (Cal. Super., May 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-
paid, non-exempt employee, from September 2016 to June 2017.

Paragon Industries, Inc. manufactures steel tubular and line pipe
products. It serves oil industry in the United States, Canada,
and South America. The company was founded in 1970 and is based
in Sapulpa, Oklahoma with a coil processing facility in Muskogee,
Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


PEOPLES UNITED BANK: Faces "Pryzgoda" in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against People's United
Bank, N.A. The case is captioned as Lisa A. Pryzgoda,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. People's United Bank, N.A., and People's United
Financial, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04299-JSR
(S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Jed S.
Rakoff.

People's United Bank, N.A. provides retail and business banking
services, as well as wealth management services. The company was
founded in 1842 and is based in Bridgeport, Connecticut with a
network of branches in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
York, New Hampshire, and Maine.  People's United Bank, N.A.
operates as a subsidiary of People's United Financial, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Tina Wolfson, Esq.
           AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
           1016 Palm Avenue
           West Hollywood, CA 90069
           Telephone: (310) 474-9111
           Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
           E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.coma


RAY KLEIN: "Anderson" Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
Colette Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ray Klein, Inc. (d/b/a Professional
Credit Service), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-11389, (E.D. Mich.,
May 2, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Ray Klein, Inc. is a debt collection agency assigned to collect
an unpaid cellphone bill. They sent a letter that failed to
meaningfully convey the name of the current creditor to whom the
alleged debt is owed, says the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Panvini, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8875
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: jpanvini@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Doesn't Pay OT to Dancers, "Godwin" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH GODWIN and KRISHNA BUOY; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NICOLAI ORCUTT; JOHN
DELEON; MARI HERNANDEZ; ERIC LANGAN; RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS,
INC., RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., JAI DINING SERVICES
(LUBBOCK), INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00133-C (N.D. Tex.,
May 25, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers in
Lubbock, Texas, since May 25, 2015.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a corporation with principal
place of business in Houston, Texas. The Company is engaged in a
restaurant and bar business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          221 N. Kansas Street, Suite 700
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Telephone: (915) 585-8008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com


RCI LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Andrews" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RCI, LLC; RED ROCK TRAVEL, LLC d/b/a
TRIPPS TRAVEL NETWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01175 (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made unauthorized text messages
and calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class without their prior express written consent.

RCI, LLC is a corporation engaged as a telemarketer selling
timeshare and other travel services. [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


RECRO PHARMA: Faces "Alberici" Suit over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALBERICI, individually and on behalf  of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECRO PHARMA, INC.; GERALDINE A.
HENWOOD; RYAN D.LAKE; and MICHAEL CELANO, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02279-MMB (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2018) seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding their
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) IV Meloxicam, a long-acting preferential COX-2
inhibitor o be used for the management of moderate to severe
pain, lacked supporting clinical data to show sufficient clinical
benefits to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval;
and (ii) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 24, 2018, the Defendants announced that the FDA had
declined to approve their New Drug Application for IV Meloxicam.
The FDA stated that the drug's analgesic effects did not meet FDA
expectations and raised questions related to chemistry,
manufacturing and controls data. On this news, the Defendants'
share price fell $6.79, or 54.67%, to close at $5.63 on May 24,
2018. Thus, the Plaintiff and the class have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Recro Pharma, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. The Company's securities
trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "REPH." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 258- 1585
          Facsimile: (484) 258-1585
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.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
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Seay" Suit over Waste Disposal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Seay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and CONSOLIDATED
DISPOSAL SERVICE, LLC, Defendants, Case No, BC705963 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants seeking award for restitution, disgorgement, and other
equitable relief, including attorney's fees and expenses.

The Defendants hold long-term exclusive solid waste collection
contracts with 40 municipalities in Los Angeles, Orange, and San
Bernardino counties.  The Plaintiff alleges that despite being a
"residential account," the Defendants made an improper
"commercial designation," which resulted in a situation for the
Defendants to overcharge the Plaintiff, not only for basic
service, but for other fees as well in the Defendants' solid
waste management.

Republic Services Inc. of California provides waste management
services.  The Company offers landfill, recycling, solid, and
bulk waste disposal. Republic Services supplies dumpster on
rental basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, California 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com


RESIDENTIAL FENCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Miuzzo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Miuzzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Residential Fences Corp., and Laser
Industries Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02901-JFB-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime and prevailing wages.

Mr. Miuzzo was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

Residential Fences Corp. was founded in 1995. The company's line
of business includes providing special trade contracting
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100


RIPPLE LABS: Removes "Coffey" Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case captioned as, RYAN COFFEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RIPPLE LABS INC.; XRP II, LLC; BRADLEY GARLINGHOUSE;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-18-566271) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 1,
2018.  The lawsuit is now assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-03286-PJH
(N.D. Cal., June 1, 2018).

Ripple Labs Inc., develops and distributes an open source
payments protocol. The Company offers an open source payments
system and a math-based virtual currency that power the world's
distributed currency exchange.  Ripple can be used for a wide
range of applications, including merchant payments, money
transfers, or remittances. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          Virginia F. Milstead, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com
                  virginia.milstead@skadden.com

                 - and -

          John Neukom, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
          E-mail: john.neukom@skadden.com

                 - and -

          Mary Jo White, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ceresney, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 909-6836
          E-mail: mjwhite@debevoise.com
                  aceresney@debevoise.com


ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Underpays Drivers, "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY PACHAY-RODRIGUEZ and RAMON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. ROOSEVELT
HOTEL REALTY LLC d/b/a WESTERN PLUS LAGUARDIA AIRPORT HOTEL;
RAJESH PATEL, and PAUL PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02858-
RRM-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers from
July 2015 to September 28, 2017.

ROOSEVELT HOTEL REALTY LLC d/b/a BEST WESTERN PLUS LAGUARDIA
AIRPORT HOTEL is a domestic limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York with an address for
service of process located at 560 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley,
NY 10502 and a principal place of business located at 112-26
Roosevelt Avenue, Corona, NY 11368. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


RWLS LLC: Court Denies Dismissal of "Gandy" NMMWA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Individual and
Class Claims in the case captioned RICK GANDY, Plaintiff, v.
RWLS, LLC, d/b/a/ RENEGADE SERVICES, and MATTHEW GRAY,
Individually, Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00558 JCH-CG (D.N.M)

Plaintiff Rick Gandy worked for Defendants RWLS, LLC, and its
president, Matthew Grey (Defendants), as an operator and rigger
in New Mexico.  According to the complaint, the Defendants
regularly scheduled the Class Members to work for a minimum of
twelve (12) hours per day and a minimum of eighty-four (84) hours
per week. Despite the NM Class Members routinely working over 40
hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay the NM Class Members
any overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek during the time period the NM Class Members received
compensation on a salary or salary-plus-bonus basis.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), by misclassifying him and the other NM
Class Members as exempt from overtime and by failing to pay him
and other NM Class Members overtime compensation at a rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in an
individual workweek.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) on two grounds: (i) failure
to plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that
the Plaintiff received less than the overtime pay due; and (ii)
the case cannot proceed as a matter of law as a Rule 23 class
action, but must be pursued as a collective action.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges he worked as a Field Employee
as a Rigger/Operator in New Mexico from approximately November
2014 to June 2015. He asserts the Defendants regularly scheduled
Plaintiff to work for a minimum of twelve (12) hours per day and
a minimum of eighty-four (84) hours per week during his
employment and that despite routinely working over 80 hours per
week, the Defendants failed to pay him any overtime premium for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek during the time
period the Plaintiff received compensation on a salary or salary
plus non-discretionary bonus basis.

As to the frequency of unpaid work, the Plaintiff uses the terms
routinely or regularly, which is some detail beyond merely
repeating the language of the statute. The Plaintiff alleges the
general length of hours worked in a week was over 84 hours, well
above the 40-hour threshold.

Accepting these allegations as true, the Plaintiff has given the
Defendants sufficient factual context to nudge his claim from
conceivable to plausible to state a claim for relief for failure
to pay overtime as required by the NMMWA.

Collective Versus Class Action

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class action
procedures in federal court. Under the notice provisions for any
class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court will exclude from
the class any member who requests exclusion. The FLSA permits an
action by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself
or themselves and other employees similarly situated.

In contrast to Rule 23, the FLSA contains an opt in requirement:
No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless
he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such
consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.

The NMMWA permits a collective action by employees on behalf of
'themselves and other employees similarly situated. Armijo, 2007-
NMCA-120 (quoting N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 50-4-26(B)(2)).

Is Rule 23 in direct conflict with the NMMWA collective action
provision?

The Plaintiff argues that the NMMWA contains no express opt-in
requirement similar to the FLSA and the Armijo case does not
mention an opt-in requirement. The Plaintiff contends that there
is no inherent conflict between applying the ad hoc two-step
process and also using an opt-out standard.

The Defendants nonetheless contend that New Mexico state trial
courts have construed Armijo to mean that NMMWA collective
actions must proceed as opt-in collective actions, like their
FLSA counterparts.

The Court need not decide whether the New Mexico appellate courts
would interpret the NMMWA as requiring an opt-in procedure
because, even assuming a judicially created opt-in requirement
exists under the NMMWA, the Court concludes infra that the opt-in
collective action rule is procedural in nature.

Does the opt-in collective action requirement function to define
the scope of the state-created right?

The Defendants argue that the opt-in collective action
requirement is part of New Mexico's framework for substantive
rights or remedies because it substantively confers rights on
employees to have their claims litigated only if they have
affirmed their intent to be bound, and for employers the
collective action provision affords the right not to be sued in
representative actions by any employee who has not affirmatively
chosen to sue.

The ad hoc two-step process for conditional certification and the
opt-in requirement are the processes by which a similarly
situated person joins in a collective action. Whether a similarly
situated person must affirmatively act to join a suit or is
automatically in the suit unless he opts out does not determine
the substantive rights and remedies potentially available to that
person. As such, an opt-in provision functions very differently
from a state law provision restricting class actions, which more
directly defines the scope of the state-created right.

The Court finds that the Defendants have not satisfied the high
bar for finding a Rules Enabling Act problem. The Court therefore
concludes that Rule 23 and its opt-out notice provision apply to
Plaintiff's NMMWA claim brought on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Individual and Class Claims is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y98ylgeu from Leagle.com.

Rick Gandy, Plaintiff, represented by J. Derek Braziel --
jdbraziel@l-b-law.com -- Lee & Braziel LLP & Jack L. Siegel --
jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC.

RWLS, LLC, doing business as Renegade Services, Defendant,
represented by Ellen S. Casey, Hinkle Shanor LLP, Jaclyn M.
McLean, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin LLP, Brian S. Walsh, Law
Offices of Brian S. Walsh, pro hac vice, Christian Antkowiak --
christian.antkowiak@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC,
pro hac vice & Curtis Schaffner -- curtis.schaffner@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac vice.

Matthew Gray, Individually, Defendant, represented by Ellen S.
Casey, Hinkle Shanor LLP, Jaclyn M. McLean, Hinkle, Hensley,
Shanor & Martin LLP & Curtis Schaffner, Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC, pro hac vice.


S.C. STATE: Class Action Over Faulty Stucco Installation Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wade Livingston, writing for The Island Packet, reports that an
attorney representing an embattled contractor accused of faulty
stucco installation that affected thousands of homes in a
Lowcountry gated community says a years-long, class-action
lawsuit has been "resolved."

"The actual terms (of the settlement) are being put on paper,"
Charleston lawyer Mike Ethridge said on June 11, adding that
those terms still had to be presented to and approved by a judge.

Mr. Ethridge represents S.C. State Plastering, LLC (SCSP), the
company more than 4,000 residents of Sun City Hilton Head blame
for shoddy stucco work -- which they say caused mold problems and
varying degrees of structural damage, including some homes that
needed new walls.

News of the resolution comes days after Sun City residents
forwarded to The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette an email
stating "a tentative settlement has been reached" in the suit,
Anthony Grazia vs. S.C. State Plastering.  The case became a
class-action affair in 2012 but was first filed in 2007.

The case was originally supposed to go to trial on June 11, but
it was continued and a motion hearing was scheduled in its place.
That hearing, though, was canceled, according to a representative
of the Beaufort County Clerk of Court's office, who said on
June 11 the case had been "settled."

Del Webb Communities Inc. (Sun City is a Del Webb property ),
Pulte Homes Inc. and Kephart Architects Inc. are third-party
defendants in the suit, since SCSP alleged it installed the
stucco under the direction and design of those companies.

"As a result of an extended period of mediation, both parties
have reached a tentative settlement which now must be reviewed
and approved by the court," PulteGroup, Inc., spokesperson Macey
Kessler wrote in an email on June 11.  "At this time, we are
unable to make specific comments while the settlement is pending.
We are glad to see a resolution for our homeowners."

Pulte Homes and Del Webb are brands of PulteGroup, the Atlanta-
based company that reported home-sale revenues totaling $1.9
billion for the first quarter of 2018.

Mr. Ethridge said he did not know details about forthcoming
settlement terms or when they will be presented to judge. He said
the plaintiffs' lawyers might have more information.

A representative from attorney Michael Seekings' Charleston firm,
Leath, Bouch & Seekings, LLP -- which is representing the
homeowners -- said on June 11 that he and his colleagues would
not comment on the case.

Court documents show that 187 people opted out of the class-
action suit and took individual settlements from SCSP ranging
from $1,500 to $50,000.  The combined payout totaled more than
$2.6 million.

According to court documents, defense attorneys said, as of
August 2017, their clients had spent "approximately $23 million .
. . to date in attempted corrections as part of the Right to Cure
Process."

The S.C. Right to Cure Act requires a homeowner to give 90 days
notice of the intent to file a lawsuit over construction and lays
out a timeline for a contractor or subcontractor to assess the
situation and offer repairs, money or some another solution.

However, plaintiffs in the Grazia suit "allege that the only
appropriate repair of the damaged homes is to de-clad and then
re-clad the houses with an appropriate stucco system, at a cost
of approximately $75,000.00 per structure," according to court
documents.

"The case has been resolved," Mr. Ethridge said on June 11.
"This case has been going on for a long time," he continued.
"And I think everyone is ready to resolve it." [GN]


SABON WEB LLC: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabon Web, LLC. The
case is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sabon Web, LLC; Sabon
American Dream, LLC; and Sabon RF, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04462-RWS (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Sabon American Dream, LLC is domestic limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com


SAKS & CO: Faces Data Breach Class Action Following Hacking
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Saks & Co. got
slapped with a proposed class action in California federal court
on June 8 that accuses the retailer of failing to protect its
customers' credit and debit card numbers from a data breach
engineered by a "notorious hacking group" that allegedly attacked
nearly all of Saks' point-of-sale systems in March.

Los Angeles-based consumer Alexandria Rudolph led the action
against the alleging the retailer.

The case is Rudolph v. Saks & Company LLC d/b/a Saks OFF 5TH,
Case No. 2:18-cv-05107 (C.D. Cal.).  The case was filed June 8,
2018. [GN]


SAMANTHA SANSON: Underpays Exotic Dancers, "King" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEELA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMANTHA SANSON, and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. BC705975 (Cal. Super., May 17, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages earned
for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, provide meal
and paid rest periods.

Ms. King was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer from the
year 2009 to January 2018.

Samantha Sanson is an individual, a citizen of California, owner,
director, or managing agent of exotic dance clubs doing business
in Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sarah A. Scott, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  sarah@spivaklaw.com


SAMUEL I WHITE: Davis Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ronnie Davis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Ronnie Davis v. Samuel I. White, P.C., Case No.
4:16-cv-00018-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Newport News.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronnie Davis v. Samuel I.
White, P.C., Case No. 18-1467, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Lawrence R. Leonard granted the Defendant's Renewed Motion
to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.

The matter concerns real property formerly owned by the
Plaintiff, located at 5614 Fairfield Lane, in Hayes, Gloucester
County, Virginia.  On Nov. 25, 1998, the Plaintiff as honorably
discharged from the United States Army.  His military service
allowed him to obtain refinancing for his residential mortgage on
the Property through the Veterans Administration.

On April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
on May 12, 2015.  In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on June 5, 2015.

The Defendant filed a Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim or to Strike First Amended Complaint on June 18,
2015.  Ultimately, the Maryland Action was disposed of by the
Hon. Richard D. Bennett's March 24, 2016 Memorandum Order and
Opinion.

On March 24, 2016, the case was officially transferred to the
Newport News division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, pursuant to Judge Bennett's Memorandum
Order and Opinion.  The parties consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RONNIE DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Harlan S. Miller, III
          MILLER LEGAL, P.C.
          646 Vineville Avenue
          Macon, GA 31204
          Telephone: (404) 931-6490
          E-mail: hmiller@millerlegalpc.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Pershing, Esq.
          1416 E Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 642-1431
          E-mail: steve@pershinglaw.us

Defendant-Appellee SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., is represented by:

          Lisa Hudson Kim, Esq.
          SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC
          5040 Corporate Woods Drive
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 457-4234

               - and -

          John Curtis Lynch, Esq.
          Andrew Brian Pittman, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
                  andrew.pittman@troutmansanders.com


SC JOHNSON: Mosquito Repellant Ineffective, "Bourbia" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bourbia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03944 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018), seeks
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms
of equitable monetary relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and costs of suit resulting from unjust enrichment,
breach of implied and express warranty, fraud and violation of
New York General Business Laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

S.C. Johnson manufactures "Off! Clean Feel" insect repellent.
Bourbia claims that Off! Clean Feel was ineffective in repelling
Aedes mosquitoes and Culex mosquitoes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
              ykopel@bursor.com
              aleslie@bursor.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Court Sets Conference in "Martinez"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Initial Scheduling Order in the case captioned SAUL
MARTINEZ, JR., on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-00945-JCH-KRS (D.N.M.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bkkfts from Leagle.com.

Saul Martinez, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M.
Faber, Law Office of Daniel Faber, Don Foty --
DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP, pro hac vice &
William Hogg, Kennedy Hodges, LLP.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Heather D. Hearne -- hdh@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm,
P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Lowry  jllowry@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason,
Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Martin J. Regimbal --
mjr@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, PLC, Robert Lombardi --
rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice & Samuel
Zurik -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, P.L.C., pro hac
vice.


SCI DIRECT: Doyle Sues over Wrongful Employment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
James Doyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCI Direct, Inc., and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC705666 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 18, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to reimburse business expenses under the California
Labor Code. It is also an action against the Defendants' unfair
business practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to indemnify or
in any manner reimburse the Plaintiff for the costs associated
with his travel, including fuel, maintenance, vehicle
depreciation, the cost of maintaining a personal cell phone,
computer with internet connection, business cards, and other
things necessary for the conduct of the Defendants' business.

Mr. Doyle was employed by the Defendants as sales representative
in Los Angeles, California.

SCI Direct, Inc. provides cremation services for families in the
United States. SCI Direct, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of SCI
Capital Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, 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
                  twheeler@ toddflaw.com


SCOTT HOTEL: Court Discharges Show Cause Order in "Kratzer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL KRATZER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HOTEL GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00212-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, New Albany Division, discharged the
Plaintiff's obligation to show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On April 4, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause,
directing the Plaintiff to answer why the Court should not
dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  It
noted that it appeared from the Plaintiff's Complaint,
Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement, and second Supplemental
Jurisdictional Statement that it likely did not have subject
matter jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The Defendant filed a motion for attorney fees, arguing that
there was no basis to initiate the action because there is no
subject matter jurisdiction.  On the basis of the perceived lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court signed the Defendant's
proposed order, granting the motion for attorney fees.  The next
day, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause.

In response to the Order to Show Cause, the Plaintiff has made an
initial showing of subject matter jurisdiction for his proposed
class action under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  He
points out that there is no dispute that the putative class
exceeds 100 members.  Furthermore, he points out that minimal
diversity exists because he is an individual Kentucky citizen and
the Defendant LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Indiana.
Regarding the amount in controversy requirement, the Plaintiff
explains that his claims exceed the $5 million threshold.

Judge Pratt explains that Indiana law provides that the
Defendant's violations of the Indiana Consumer Protection Act may
be assessed at $1,000 per violation, and therefore, assuming full
capacity of 79 guests for the 116 days the Defendant has been in
operation (not including the damages that have accrued since the
filing of the lawsuit), the Plaintiff's damages for its
violations of the Indiana Consumer Protection Act alone totals
$9,164,000 (116 x 79 x $1,000).  Accordingly, subject matter
jurisdiction is proper in the Court.

The Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiff's show cause
filing, disputing the figures used by the Plaintiff in an effort
to undermine subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.  The Judge
notes the futility of the Defendant's argument as the figures
used by the Plaintiff are the very numbers that the Defendant
proposed in its motion for attorney fees and in its proposed case
management plan.

Because the Plaintiff has made an initial showing of subject
matter jurisdiction under CAFA, the Judge determines that the
action may proceed at the stage of the litigation.  She
discharged the Plaintiff's obligation to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Because the Order awarding the Defendant its
attorney fees was based on a preliminary finding that subject
matter jurisdiction did not exist, she vacated the Order granting
the Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vyQhhL from Leagle.com.

PAUL KRATZER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jasper D. Ward, IV --
jasper@jonesward.com -- JONES WARD PLC.

SCOTT HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick A.
Shoulders -- PShoulders@zsws.com -- ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL &
SHOULDERS & Robert L. Burkart -- RBurkart@zsws.com -- ZIEMER
STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS.


SI MARKET FRESH: "Alario" Suit Seek For Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK ALARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SI MARKET FRESH CORP. d/b/a Mignosi's
Supermarket; SAM KAKAR; and RUBY KAKAR, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02988-FB-SMG (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as cashier on September
29, 2015 to March 12, 2018.

SI Market Fresh Corp. d/b/a Mignosi's Supermarket is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com


SILVERADO STAGES: Doesn't Pay OT to Drivers, Razani Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RAZANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERADO STAGES, INC., and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. BC706905 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., May  18, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages, overtime compensation, provide meal
periods, provide rest periods, and provide accurate itemized
wages statements, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Silverado Stages, Inc. was employed by the Defendants as a driver
from July 26, 2012 to June 30, 2017.

Silverado Stages, Inc., a private motorcoach operator, provides
charter bus services in California and the Western States.
Silverado Stages, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based in San
Luis Obispo, California. It operates terminals in San Luis
Obispo, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Long Beach, Pomona, and Santa
Ana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintiloneii, Esq.
          George A. Aloupas, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: REO@QUINTLAW.COM
                  GAA@QUINTLAW.COM


SIRIUS XM RADIO: Bettison Sues over Radio Subscription Sales
------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL BETTISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant,
Case No. 18CV19963 (Ore. Cir., Multnomah Cty., May 17, 2018)
alleges that the Defendant's conduct amounts to a breach of
express and implied contracts, fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and a violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offered and sold
lifetime subscriptions to consumers in Oregon. The Defendant
systematically advertised and sold its lifetime subscriptions to
consumers by leading consumers to believe that such lifetime
subscriptions were for the lifetime of the consumer. However,
when consumers have tried to transfer their lifetime
subscriptions from one receiver to another or from one automobile
to another, the Defendant has taken the position that the
"lifetime" referred to is not the lifetime of the purchasing
consumer, but the lifetime of the receiver or automobile.

Sirius XM Radio Inc. provides radio broadcasting services in the
United States and Canada. The company was incorporated in 1990
and is based in New York, New York. Sirius XM Radio Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Sirius XM Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com


SPRINT CORP: Settles Sales Employees' Class Action for $3.65MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elise Reuter, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that Sprint Corp. reached a $3.65 million settlement of a class-
action lawsuit with thousands of sales employees.  The June 4
settlement concludes a nine-year lawsuit that was disputed in the
U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan.

In May 2008, a class of 3,919 Sprint business channel sales
employees filed suit against Sprint (NYSE: S), claiming the
company failed to pay them commissions they were owed after its
merger with Nextel Communications Inc.  The class includes
employees that worked with Sprint from the beginning of 2006 to
the end of 2009.

The plaintiffs alleged that Sprint's systems were unable to track
and calculate commissions and pay data for several years.

"We continue to deny the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs,
and contend that each class member was compensated appropriately
and in accordance with their commission contracts," Sprint stated
in an email.

The highly technical case required an appointed special master,
and involved more than 10 million pages of discovery.

According to court documents, the class will receive $1.929
million, with a pro-rata payout of at least $25 based on how long
each employee worked for Sprint.  The settlement also includes
$839,600 in attorneys fees and up to $850,000 in litigation
costs.

"This was a long and hard fought case with extremely complex data
and issues," Michele Fisher, Esq. -- fisher@nka.com -- a partner
at Minneapolis-based Nichols Kaster PLLP, representing the
plaintiffs, said in a release.  "We are fortunate to have had
such dedicated and talented experts, and class representatives
who never gave up.  We believe the result is a fair and
reasonable resolution to this litigation."

The plaintiffs were represented George Hanson, Esq. --
hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and by
Fisher, Paul Lukas and Alex Baggio, Esq. -- abaggio@nka.com -- of
Nichols Kaster PLLP.  They also are serving as counsel to more
than 34,000 retail employees in a related case.

Sprint was represented by a team of five law firms, including
local attorneys Adam Pankratz of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC; Michael Blumenthal of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris
LLC; and Brian Baggott, Wade Carr and Gregory Wolf of Dentons US
LLP. [GN]


STATE FARM: Court Certifies Class in "Vogt"
-------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL VOGT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Central Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

In 1999, Vogt purchased policy form 94030, a flexible premium
adjustable whole life insurance policy, from State Farm.  The
Policy was a universal life insurance policy, a type of
"permanent" life insurance that, unlike standard term insurance,
is supposed to provide lifetime death benefit protection.  Policy
owners paid premiums that were deposited into their "Account
Value," which accumulated interest at or above a minimum rate
that the Policy guarantees.

Each month, State Farm was permitted to make a deduction from the
Policy that included (1) the cost of insurance, (2) the monthly
charges for any riders, and (3) the monthly expense charge.  The
Policy remained in force so long as there was sufficient money in
the Account Value to cover these monthly deductions.

The cost of insurance ("COI") charge was calculated using a
monthly cost of insurance rate.  The Policy provides that COI
rates for each policy year are based on the Insured's age on the
policy anniversary, sex, and applicable rate class, and can be
adjusted for projected changes in mortality.  These factors are
commonly used to determine mortality expectations for an insured
or group of insureds.  However, the Plaintiff contends that State
Farm in fact uses other, unauthorized factors, having nothing to
do with mortality expectations, in determining the Policy's COI
rates, and that State Farm thereby deducts COI charges from
Account Values in amounts exceeding those authorized by the
Policy.

The Policy sets the monthly expense charge at $5.  However, Vogt
contends that, by including unauthorized expenses in the Policy's
COI rates, State Farm deducts more than $5 in expense charges,
breaching the expense charge provision.

State Farm does not deny that it did not disclose to policy
owners the assumptions underlying the current COI rates.  There
is no dispute that a policyholder without knowledge, experience,
or training likely would not be able to understand, without
assistance, how State Farm determined whether to set COI rates
below the maximum rates identified in the Policy, and how much
such rates should be.

The Policy is a fully integrated contract, and its language is
materially the same for all members of the putative class.
Neither State Farm's nor the Policy-holder's obligations can be
obviated by informal consent or waiver because only an officer
has the right to change the Policy, and no agent has the
authority to change the Policy or to waive any of its terms.  The
allegedly unauthorized charges result from the uniform
application of the Policy's terms.  All policy owners are subject
to the same set of COI rates, and all COI rates are calculated
using the same undisclosed factors.

Vogt brings four claims: two claims for breach of contract,
specifically with regard to the COI charges (Count I) and the
expense charges (Count II), a claim for conversion with respect
to the Account Value (Count III), and a claim for declaratory
relief relating to the alleged breaches of the Policy provisions
concerning COI and expense charges (Count IV).

The class Vogt seeks to certify consists, with the exception of
the Excluded Persons, of all persons who own or owned a universal
life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the
State of Missouri.

The Court previously denied State Farm's motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Laughrey finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  She granted Vogt's motion
for class certification.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Judge certified a class of the
Plaintiffs consisting of all persons who own or owned a universal
life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the
State of Missouri for all counts, except that the Excluded
Persons are excluded from the class.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), she certified a class of the
Plaintiffs consisting of all persons who own or owned a universal
life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the
State of Missouri for Count IV alone, except that the Excluded
Persons are excluded from the class.  She says a class may not be
certified for a claim for individualized monetary relief that is
not merely incidental to the declaratory relief sought.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jyV26t from Leagle.com.

Michael G. Vogt, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Eli Siegel --
siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Ethan M.
Lange -- lange@stueveseigel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP,
John J. Schirger -- jschirger@millerschirger.com -- Miller
Schirger, LLC, Joseph M. Feierabend --
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com -- Miller Schirger, LLC, Lindsay
Todd Perkins -- perkins@stueveseigel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson,
LLP, Matthew W. Lytle -- mlytle@millerschirger.com -- Miller
Schirger, LLC & Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com --
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP.

State Farm Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jeremy A. Root -- jeremy.root@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street LLP -- Todd A. Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com --
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice & William L. Greene --
william.greene@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac
vice.


STORCK USA: Judge Dismisses Werther's Underfilling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on June 8 dismissed a proposed class action alleging the
maker of Werther's Original sugar-free chew caramels purposefully
underfills the packages of candies, saying the parties had
reached an undisclosed settlement.

U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti said Jeffrey Kpakpoe-
Awei and Chicago-based Storck USA LP reached an agreement to end
allegations that the company fills the 2.75-ounce bags of
caramels with unnecessary empty space that misrepresents the
amount of chews that are actually in the container.

The case is Kpakpoe-Awei v. Storck USA, L.P., Case No.
7:18-cv-01086 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Vincent
L. Briccetti.  The case was filed February 7, 2018. [GN]


STRATEGIC LEGACY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Remball" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLEE REMBALL, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC LEGACY INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.;
SLIG PRIME INDUSTRIES, LLC; KELLY'S COFFEE FASHION PARTNERS, LLC;
DOWNTOWN EXECUTIVE MULTIPLEX, LLC; PEDRAM MEHRIAN; EMANUEL SABET;
DANIEL SABET; HAJIME TSUHA; SHAHROKH STEVE JAVIDZAD and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC706904 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., May 18, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Remball was employed by the Defendants but misclassified as an
independent contractor.

Strategic Legacy Investment Group, Inc. is a private equity
investment firm focused mainly in acquisitions of commercial real
estate projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn M. Bell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, California 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


SUDLER & CO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Horist" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gentleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
separate motions of Sudler and HomeWise to dismiss the case,
KEITH HORIST, JOSHUA EYMAN and LORI EYMAN, Plaintiff, v. SUDLER
AND COMPANY, d/b/a SUDLER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, HOMEWISE SERVICE
CORP., INC., and NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17 C 8113 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Horist, and Joshua and Lori Eyman, brought a five
count putative class action complaint against teh Defendants,
alleging: (1) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act ("ICFA") (Count I); (2) violations of the
Illinois Condominium Property Act ("Condo Act") (Count II); (3)
adding and abetting/inducement to breach fiduciary duty (Count
III); (4) common law conspiracy (Count IV); and (5) unjust
enrichment (Count V).  HomeWise removed the case to the Court
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff Horist owned a condominium unit at 400 East Ohio
Street, Chicago, Illinois and was a member of the 400 East Ohio
Association.  Plaintiffs Joshua and Lori Eyman owned a
condominium unit at 1515 S. Prairie Avenue, Chicago Illinois and
were members of the (808) Prairie House at Central Stations
Association.

Defendant Sudler is a property management company that was
engaged by both the 404 East Ohio Association and the Prairie
House Association to manage their operations.  According to the
complaint, HomeWise contracts with property managers to provide,
via the internet, electronic copies of documents that sellers of
condominium units are required by Section 22.1 of the Condo Act
to provide to prospective purchasers.  The complaint alleges that
Sudler's website has a drop-down menu for its associations'
homeowners who need `selling information, and regardless of the
association selected, Sudler's site forwards the person seeking
selling information directly to the HomeWise internet site.

During 2017, both Horist and the Eymans contracted to sell their
units.  Claiming they had no other option, each had to obtain
their selling information from HomeWise.  Horist paid $240,
consisting of $155 for a paid assessment letter, $80 for a
Section 22.1 resale certificate and a $5 convenience fee.  The
Eymans paid $365, consisting of $150 for a paid assessment
letter, $205 for a Section 22.1 resale disclosure package with
Assoc. docs. and a $5 convenience fee.

According to the Plaintiffs, HomeWise retained what they describe
as a minimal "click-fee" and then "kicked back" the rest of its
fee to Sudler.  The Plaintiffs claim that the Associations
indirectly benefit from this practice because it helps reduce
Sudler's management fee.

Sudler and HomeWise have filed separate motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Gentleman concludes that the Plaintiffs are not among the
class of persons the Condo Act is designed to protect.  Nor would
implying a cause of action in favor of the Plaintiff be
consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute, which is
to protect prospective purchasers, and any injury that the
Plaintiffs might have incurred is not one the statute was
designed to prevent.  And, implying a private right of action for
them to recover damages against defendants is simply not
necessary to effectuate the statute's purpose of protecting
prospective purchasers.  Consequently, the Judge concludes that
the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Condo Act.

As to ICFA, first, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' scheme
offends public policy because it violates the policy the
legislature set out in the Condo Act to protect sellers from
excessive charges.  As concluded, however, the act is designed to
protect purchasers and the association, not sellers.   Second,
although the Plaintiffs allege generally that the Defendants'
conduct is oppressive because the Plaintiffs have no reasonable
alternative than to use HomeWise, that argument is based entirely
on their missing allegation that the Defendants have somehow
caused the association to stop providing the disclosure documents
when properly asked.  The complaint does not contain even that
general allegation, let alone any facts to support such a
conclusion.  Consequently, the Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege an unfair practice or a
violation of the ICFA.

Finally, in Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
have aided or induced the associations to violate their fiduciary
duties owed to the Plaintiffs by allowing the defendants to
overcharge them.  In Count IV, they allege that the Defendants
conspired to overcharge them.  Count V is a claim for unjust
enrichment.  The Judge finds that all these three counts are
predicated on the Plaintiffs' alleging either a violation of the
Condo Act or the ICFA.  Because he has concluded that they have
failed to allege those violations, he dismisses Counts III, IV,
and V.

For the reasons he described, Judge Gentleman granted Defendant
HomeWise's motion to dismiss and Defendant Sudler's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/IzBdJ4 from Leagle.com.

Keith Horist, Joshua Eyman & Lori Eyman, Plaintiffs, represented
by David J. Fish, The Fish Law Firm, P.C., Charles Robert Watkins
-- charlesw@gseattorneys.com -- Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC, John C.
Kunze, The Fish Law Firm, John R. Wylie --
johnwylie@barrettwylie.com -- BarrettWylie, LLC, Kimberly A.
Hilton, The Fish Law Firm, P.C. & Stephen T. Sotelo, The Law
Office of Thomas J. Homer, P.C.

Sudler and Company, doing business as Sudler Property Management,
Defendant, represented by Edward P. Gibbons --
egibbons@wwmlawyers.com -- Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, Arthur
Joseph McColgan, II -- amccolgan@wwmlawyers.com -- Walker Wilcox
Matousek LLP & Scott Taylor Stirling -- sstirling@wwmlawyers.com
-- Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP.

HomeWise Service Corp., Inc., Defendant, represented by Philip M.
Oliss -- philip.oliss@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP.

NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Eleanor Hagan -- eleanor.hagan@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs, pro hac vice, Philip M. Oliss, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP & Clair Christine Pena, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac
vice.


SWEPI LP: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Walney" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS J. WALNEY and RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SWEPI LP and SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-102 Erie (W.D. Pa.), Judge Joy
Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denied the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The class action is being prosecuted by Walney and Bedow on
behalf of certain Pennsylvania landowners who executed gas and
oil leases for the benefit of SWEPI.  In the action, the
Plaintiffs allege that SWEPI and its general partner, Shell
Energy, failed to pay bonus monies that were owed to the various
class members under the terms of their respective leases.

SWEPI is a limited partnership engaged in the business of oil and
gas exploration and production.  Beginning in 2011, it sought to
acquire mineral leases in certain parts of Pennsylvania with the
help of independent contractors, including Southeast Land
Services, LLC, who acted as SWEPI's agents.  Ultimately,
Southeast helped SWEPI obtain more than 2,800 oil and gas leases.

Plaintiffs Walney and Bedow are among those landowners who signed
lease agreements and memorandum of leases ("MOLs") in favor of
SWEPI but were never paid.  Walney alleges that, in January 2012,
he signed a lease agreement covering 42.18 acres of land in
exchange for a promised bonus of $137,085.  Bedow signed multiple
lease agreements in 2011 and early 2012, which he claims covered
215.897 acres of land.  Bedow maintains that he was promised
bonuses totaling $701,666.88.

In March 2013, Walney commenced the civil class action in the
Venango County Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims for breach
of contract, fraud, disparagement of title, and promissory
estoppel.  The case was subsequently removed to the Court and,
following various pretrial proceedings, Walney filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint, which added Bedow as a co-
Plaintiff and asserted additional claims for breach of implied
contract and unjust enrichment.

On Sept. 14, 2015, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and
order certifying a class action relative to the breach of
contract claims in Counts I and I(A) of the Second Amended
Complaint, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).  Having engaged in
extensive discovery, the parties now seek a summary judgment
ruling relative to the breach of contract claims.  To that end,
the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment and
extensive related filings.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Leases, MOLs and Drafts
("Transactional Documents") constituted enforceable contracts as
of the time that the documents were signed and exchanged between
the various class members and SWEPI's representatives.  They
theorize that these contracts provided for an unconditional
payment of a sum certain deferred to a date certain.  According
to them, SWEPI breached its contracts when it failed to pay the
bonuses. Consequently, plaintiffs consider the full amounts of
the bonuses to be the correct measure of damages in each
instance.

SWEPI contests each element of the Plaintiffs' claims and also
asserts various affirmative defenses.  Fundamentally, it denies
that enforceable contracts ever came into existence.  Assuming
that enforceable contracts did exist, SWEPI denies that it
breached the contracts.  It theorizes that good title was a
condition of payment in every case and no evidence exists to show
that all class members had good title to the lease rights they
purported to convey.  On the contrary, it argues that many class
members indisputably lacked good title to the gas and oil
interests at issue in their leases and, with respect to certain
other class members, SWEPI was unable to verify the landowner's
title through no fault of its own.

Judge Conti concludes, as a matter of law, that enforceable
contracts existed between SWEPI and the various class members,
inasmuch as the Transactional Documents: (i) demonstrate the
parties' mutual intent to be contractually bound, (ii) set forth
sufficiently definite terms, and (iii) establish the existence of
legally sufficient consideration.  She notes SWEPI's motion for
summary judgment is predicated solely on its assertion that the
Lease Agreements are not legally enforceable.  Because she has
concluded otherwise, SWEPI's motion will be denied.

Turning to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the payment
condition set forth in the Draft is irrelevant as a matter of
law.  SWEPI, meanwhile, produced evidence indicating that title
defects of varying degrees were pervasive among the Drafts at
issue in this litigation.  Thus, SWEPI may have a potentially
viable defense relative to a substantial number of the Drafts
held by the class members, the merits of which the Court cannot
presently adjudicate.  For this reason as well, she will deny the
Plaintiffs' request for a class-wide judgment.

SWEPI has also adduced sufficient evidence to establish the
existence of a genuinely disputed issue relative to its liability
on the claims asserted by the 17 class members in question.
There are also genuine issues of fact exist about whether these
disputed Drafts were cancelled or whether the payees' failure to
present them was otherwise excused.

SWEPI also asserts that certain of the transactions listed in the
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11, designated "Class Claims Analysis,"
involve payees who were paid bonuses through replacement drafts.
More specifically, it represents that the following transactions
should be removed from the list of class claims: Count Nos. 93
(Duffola), 119 (Grentz), 188 (McGinnis) and 210 (Peirish).   The
Plaintiffs do not appear to disagree with this point and, to that
end, the class counsel has removed the aforementioned
transactions from the most recent iteration of the Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 11.  Accordingly, the Judge will moot and deny the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment insofar as it relates to
those claims.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment requests an
award of damages in the aggregate amount of $34,737,550.84 along
with prejudgment interest.  This figure is predicated on their
assumption that each of the class claimants should recover the
full amount of his or her Lease bonuses without regard to issues
of damage mitigation.  Given the various factual issues that
exist relative to the enforceability of the Lease Agreements and
SWEPI's liability thereunder, the Judge cannot say that the
Plaintiffs are entitled, as a matter of law, to the aggregate
damages award they are seeking.

For these reasons, Judge Conto denied SWEPI's motion for summary
judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment.  She granted it insofar as she has
concluded, as a matter of law, that enforceable contracts existed
between SWEPI and the various class members.  She otherwise
denied the Plaintiffs' motion.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/J26y0g from Leagle.com.

THOMAS J. WALNEY & RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Joseph E. Altomare, The Law Office of Joseph Altomare.

SWEPI LP & SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Jeremy A. Mercer -- jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Daniel M. McClure --
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP.

SOUTHEAST LAND SERVICES LLC, Movant, represented by Jeremy A.
Mercer, Blank Rome LLP.


SWITCH INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Switch, Inc. (NYSE:SWCH) Class A common stock
pursuant to and/or traceable to Switch's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") commenced on or around October 6, 2017.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Switch investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Switch class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1351.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Switch's Grand
Rapids and Atlanta facilities would never be as profitable as its
Las Vegas facility, diminishing the yield on Switch's recent
capital expenditures acquiring and building out those facilities
will bear; (2) Switch's high capital expenditures to create high
redundancy levels at its facilities were not as profitable as
they once had been in the past; (3) Switch had already spent an
additional more than $64 million on unbudgeted capital
expenditures during the third quarter of 2017 that was not
disclosed to investors until after the IPO; (4) Switch recognized
$9.4 million in revenues during FY17 that it would not provide
colocation services for until FY18, meaning its reported FY17
revenue growth and its FY18 revenue prospects were both
overstated; (5) eBay, Switch's largest colocation customer, would
not be taking possession of colocation space it had reserved at
Switch's Tahoe/Reno facility in early 2018; and (6) as a result
of the foregoing, at the time of the IPO, Switch's business and
financial prospects were not what defendants had led the market
to believe they were in the Registration Statement. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 10, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1351.htmlto join the class
action.  You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. [GN]


SYSCO CORP: Class, Subclasses in "Martin" FLSA Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION and SYSCO
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00990-DAD-
SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members are non-exempt,
hourly truck drivers employed by defendants in California.  The
Plaintiff alleges a number of claims against the Defendants,
including that they: (1) required class members to work for more
than five hours without a meal period; (2) failed to provide a
second meal period to class members whose shifts lasted more than
10 hours; (3) required class members to work more than four hours
without a rest period; and (4) failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements.

The class claims pursued by the Plaintiff in the matter follow
two distinct theories.  First, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendants' policies facially violate California law.  Second, he
asserts that the class members were given a daily, preset route
which dictated the order of the deliveries they were to make and,
more importantly, set the number of stops that each driver needed
to complete prior to taking a meal or rest break.  Under this
theory, the Plaintiff argues that class members were required to
abide by the schedule and could not take breaks prior to the
completion of a certain number of deliveries.  Because the length
of time required to complete these deliveries varied, the class
members were frequently unable to take meal and rest breaks as
required by California law.

On Dec. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff seeks certification of one main
class and four subclasses in order to pursue claims related to
the alleged rest break and meal period violations under state
labor law:

     a. Main Class: All hourly drivers who are or were employed
by Sysco at any time from June 7, 2012, to the date the Court
issues an order granting class certification.

     b. Rest Break Subclass: All hourly drivers who are or were
employed by Sysco and worked a shift over 10 hours at any time
from June 7, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order granting
class certification.

     c. First Meal Period Subclass: All hourly drivers who are or
were employed by Sysco who worked a shift over five ours at any
time from June 7, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order
granting class certification, where the corresponding e-time
records show no 30-minute meal period or show a 30-minute meal
period after the 5th hour.

     d. Second Meal Period Subclass: All hourly drivers who are
or were employed by Sysco who worked a shift over 10 hours at any
time from June 7, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order
granting class certification, where the corresponding e-time
records show a second 30-minute meal period after the tenth hour,
if at all.

     e. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All hourly drivers who
ended their employment with Sysco at any time from June 7, 2013,
to the date the Court issues an order granting class
certification.

The Defendants opposed the motion on Jan. 15, 2018 and the
Plaintiff filed a reply on Jan. 29, 2018.  The Court heard oral
argument on the matter on Feb. 6, 2018.

Judge Drozd granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  He certified these classes for the purpose of
pursuing claims premised on the facial invalidity of the
Defendants' rest and meal break policies:

     a. Main Class: All hourly drivers who are or were employed
by Sysco at any time from June 7, 2012 to the date of the order.

     b. Rest Break Subclass: All hourly drivers who are or were
employed by defendants in California and worked a shift over 10
hours at any time from June 7, 2012 to the date of the order.

     c. First Meal Period Subclass: All hourly drivers who are or
were employed by the Defendants in California who worked a shift
over five hours at any time from June 7, 2012 to the date of the
order, where the corresponding e-time records show no 30-minute
meal period or show a 30-minute meal period after the fifth hour.

     d. Second Meal Period Subclass: All hourly drivers who are
or were employed by defendants in California who worked a shift
over 10 hours at any time from June 7, 2012 to the date of the
order, where the corresponding e-time records show a second 30-
minute meal period after the tenth hour, if at all.

     e. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All hourly drivers who
ended their employment with Sysco at any time from June 7, 2013
to the date of the order.

The Judge denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to the extent the Plaintiff seeks certification of
the certified classes for the purpose of pursuing claims under
the theory that the route manifests set forth a required schedule
to which class members were required to adhere.

He directed the parties to meet and confer promptly upon service
of this order concerning the submission of a joint stipulated
class notice and distribution plan, based on the subclasses as
certified in the Order.  The parties will file either a
stipulated class notice and distribution plan or a notice that no
stipulation can be reached within 21 days of service of the
Order.  If the parties cannot agree to a class notice or
distribution plan, the Plaintiff will submit a proposed class
notice and distribution plan within 35 days of service of the
Order.  The Defendants will have 14 days following the
Plaintiffs' submission of a proposed class notice and
distribution plan to file any objections thereto.  The Plaintiff
will have seven days thereafter to submit a reply.

The Judge referred back the matter to the assigned magistrate
judge for further scheduling and other proceedings consistent
with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ehoCIn from Leagle.com.

John Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public,, Plaintiff,
represented by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com --
The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, Jessica Renee Corrales, Turley
Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie Vecchi, Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC,
Matthew Evan Crawford, The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, William
Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley & Mara Law
Firm, APLC & Gwendolyne Nicole Ousdahl --
nousdahl@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley and Mara Law Firm.

Sysco Corporation & SYSCO Central California, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Diamond M. Hicks, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Margaret
Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP,
Nicholas D. Poper -- npoper@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP
& Sabrina Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and
Hostetler LLP.


SZECHAUN TOKYO OF SEA: Underpays Cooks, "Bolanos" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO BOLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SZECHAUN TOKYO OF SEA GIRT CORP.
d/b/a SZECHUAN TOKYO, and PETER ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-09773 (D.N.J., May 29, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt employees at the
statutory overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked
over 40 hours per workweek.

Mr. Bolanos was employed by the Defendants as cook from January
2017 to June 2017. The Defendants rehired Mr. Bolanos from
September 2017 to March 2018.

Mr. Bolanos alleged in the complaint that he was paid a monthly
rate of $3,000 per month, which equates to $750 per week straight
time for all hours worked, and worked 76 hours per week (for a
regular rate of pay of $9.87 per hour). Work performed above 40
hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and
one-half as required by state and federal law.

Szechaun Tokyo is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a principal place of
business located at 2204 Highway 35, Suite 4, Sea Girt, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAPIOCA EXPRESS: EEOC Files Sexual Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Avitabile and Omari Fleming, writing for NBC 7, report
that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced
on June 13 it filed a class-action sexual harassment lawsuit
against the owner of two Tapioca Express franchises in the South
Bay.

The lawsuit alleges the owner, Eduardo Rivera, created a hostile
work environment for young female employees at his franchises in
Chula Vista and National City with unwanted touching, sexual
comments and comments about their bodies, and inappropriate
jokes.

According to the EEOC, Mr. Rivera would wait for moments his wife
was away or when he couldn't be seen on camera and touch his
female employees from behind and even push up against them from
behind.

The alleged harassment dates back as far as 2013 when Mr. Rivera
was in his 50s.

The suit says some employees felt compelled to quit their jobs
because of the alleged harassment.  The claim states the EEOC
sent communications to Mr. Rivera and the parent company about
"sexual harassment and constructive discharge."

The EEOC issued a statement that read in part: "Sex harassment
remains a persistent problem which requires all employers to
ensure accountability, training and leadership to promote a
workplace free of harassment."

Mr. Rivera's son and daughter also named in the suit because
they're owners and had the power to "prevent and correct the
unlawful employment actions."

The EEOC said it filed the suit after first attempting to reach a
pre-litigation settlement.

Mr. Rivera said he was shocked when he learned of the allegations
and said they were untrue.

NBC 7 reached out to Tapioca Express for comment and has not
heard back.

Help Sought Replacing Community Center's Food Delivery Truck
Tapioca Express is a popular milk tea franchise with more than 20
locations in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. [GN]


TENNESSEE: Court Grants Protective Order in "Abriq"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted Plaintiffs' Request for
Protective Order in the case captioned ABDULLAH ABRIQ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. METROPLITAN
GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, No. 3:17-0690 (M.D.
Tenn.).

The Plaintiff alleges that ICE officials took custody of him,
pending civil removal proceedings.  Of the claims originally made
by the Plaintiff, only his Fourth Amendment claim remains, all
other claims having been dismissed upon Metro's motion.

Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County has filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff to answer
interrogatories and provide documentation about his immigration
status, the status of his immigration proceedings, and the
information that ICE possessed to support its arrest of the
Plaintiff.

The Court finds that Metro has not carried that burden here. The
only relevance that the Plaintiff's immigration status might have
to the remaining Fourth Amendment claim is whether that
information informed or supported the DCSO's decision to take
custody of Plaintiff. Metro knows what information it had and
relied upon at that time in making that decision. Any other
information of the Plaintiff's actual immigration status that
might now be provided is immaterial, because it has nothing to do
with what Metro knew at the time it took custody of the
Plaintiff.
Put another way, while information about the Plaintiff's
immigration status known to Metro at the time the Plaintiff was
placed in the custody of the DCSO may be relevant and
discoverable, discovery provided by the Plaintiff or third-
parties regarding his immigration status or related information
is not probative of the facts Metro knew at the time of the
Plaintiff's custody and is therefore irrelevant to the
Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims.

If the Plaintiff's immigration status is a matter of public
record or if there is a public record of the Plaintiff's
immigration proceeding, which Metro asserts and the Plaintiff
disputes, but which neither party has satisfactorily demonstrated
to the Court, then Metro may obtain those records because the
concerns about the Plaintiff divulging information are
substantially minimized. To the extent that the public records
referenced by Metro exist, proportionality considerations support
the Court's determination that the Plaintiff need not produce the
information because the very nature of public records allows for
accessibility by Metro.

The Court clarifies that, other than the specific probable cause
for ICE's arrest of the Plaintiff on April 6, 2017, Metro may not
seek the Plaintiff's immigration records or information about
past or pending immigration or removal proceedings by deposition
testimony (including of third-party witnesses), subpoena or other
compulsion, Metro may only obtain information that is a matter of
public record, that is, information that is otherwise available
to the general public.

Accordingly, Metro's motion for an order compelling discovery is
denied except as provided herein, and the Plaintiff's request for
a protective order is granted as provided herein.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 23, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84nlwfs
from Leagle.com.

Abdullah Abriq, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony A. Orlandi --
anthonyo@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC,
Harry Elliott Ozment, Ozment Law, James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC & Tricia Herzfeld,
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, 1214 Murfreesboro Pike.

Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County,
Defendant, represented by Allison L. Bussell --
allison.bussell@kleinbussell.com -- Klein Bussell, PLLC, Kevin C.
Klein -- kevin.klein@kleinbussell.com -- Klein Bussell, PLLC &
Tracy M. Lujan -- tracy.lujan@kleinbussell.com-  Klein Bussell,
PLLC.

Immigration Reform Law Institute, Amicus, represented by John I.
Harris, III -jharris@slblawfirm.com -- Schulman, LeRoy & Bennett.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Objector, represented by
Mark H. Wildasin, U.S. Attorney's Office (Nashville Office) &
Michael L. Roden, Office of the United States Attorney.


TETRA TECH: Bayview Residents File Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Bayview Hunters Point Residents, Danielle Carpenter, Catherine
Muhammad, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., Lennar,
Inc. and Five Point Holdings, LLC and Does 1-100 Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-566188 (Cal. Super., May 1, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages resulting from
fraud, negligence per se, bad faith breach of third party
contract, unfair and fraudulent business practices, false and
misleading statements.

Tetra Tech allegedly falsified soil samples from the Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard, a toxic waste site, of which they were paid
$1.1B to clean up the said site. The predominantly African-
American neighborhoods in Bayview Hunters Point claim to be
suffering from cancer, asthma and other diseases caused on
account of toxic dumping.

Hunters Point Naval Ship Yard housed the Naval Radiological
Defense Laboratory from 1948 to 1969 whose activities included
radiological decontamination of ships exposed to atomic weapons
testing, experimentation and research. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
     A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. BONNER
     475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212
     Sausalito, CA 94965
     Tel: (415) 331-3070
     Fax: (415) 331-2738
     Email: cbonner799@aol.com
            cabral@bonnerlaw.com


TIMBERWORKS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Zaragoza" Suit in Sacramento
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timberworks
Construction, Inc. The case is captioned as Victor F. Lua
Zaragoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Timberworks Construction, Inc., and Does 1
thru 50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00233435-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., May 21, 2018). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Eric B Kingsley, Esq.


TLC RESORTS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Augustine" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TLC RESORTS VACATION CLUB, LLC,
and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01120-H-JMA (S.D.
Cal., June 1, 2018) is an action against the Defendants resulting
from their illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

TLC Resorts Vacation Club, LLC is a limited liability company
incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com


TOTAL CARD: "Young" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------
Sally Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Total Card, Inc., Cavalry SPV I, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 18-cv-00198, (E.D. Tex., May 1, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Cavalry is a debt collection agency assigned to collect a credit
card obligation that was allegedly incurred to HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. and/or Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. by Young. They sent a
letter that states that Cavalry will not sue the consumer without
clearly stating that the consumer could no longer be sued by any
party and failed to disclose that the previously-lapsed statute
of limitations to file a lawsuit to collect the debt will
recommence upon payment. Said letter was sent on or after a year
prior to the filing of this action, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


TRACKER MARINE: Court Upholds Damages in Document Fees Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBJ reports that in the case of Robert and Janet McKeage, a $75
charge by Tracker Marine Boat Center cost the Springfield company
more than $21.7 million.

The McKeages, of St. Clair, won a class-action suit against
Tracker Marine, a subsidiary of Bass Pro Shops, seeking damages
for unlawful charges in the form of "document fees" slapped on to
boat, trailer and recreational vehicle purchases, according to
The Missourian.  The McKeages were charged $75 in 2008, but the
document fees applied range from $25 to $150.

According to the suit, document fees are an "unauthorized
practice of law in Missouri since the 1950s" when created by
someone not licensed to practice law.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the damages on Tracker Marine sales
dating back to 2004. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Burke" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04698 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully placed calls
using an artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiff's cellular
phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally. The company has strategic alliances with
athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, LeonardoMD, MDeverywhere,
QuickBooks, Sikka Software Corporation, and TotalMD. Transworld
Systems Inc. was founded in 1970 and is based in Horsham,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          1333 Stradella Road
          Los Angeles, CA 90077
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com


TULARE, CA: Court Approves $270K "Seguin" FLSA Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Joint Motion for Approval of the Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned HENRY SEGUIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF
TULARE, Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01262-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff commenced this action alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), based on the defendant's use of
an illegal compensation computation method, which under-
calculated the plaintiff's regular rate of pay and resulted in
underpayment with respect to overtime hours. In his complaint,
the plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members were
denied proper compensation in violation of the FLSA when the
defendant failed to include all statutorily required forms of
compensation in the regular rate of pay used to calculate the
plaintiffs' overtime compensation.

Here, the parties dispute whether the FLSA violation at issue in
this case was willful. All of these issues impact the extent of
defendant's FLSA liability in this case. Based on the aspects of
the action discussed above, the court is satisfied that there are
bona fide disputes at issue here.

Plaintiffs' Range of Possible Recovery

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the defendant will
pay the plaintiff and the putative class members a total sum of
$191,579.81, which represents approximately 63% of the maximum
value of the claims if the plaintiff and the putative class
members were to prevail on every disputed issue.  According to
the declaration of the plaintiffs' attorney David E. Mastagni,
Esq., the plaintiffs tendered a settlement demand of $384,586.63,
of which $303,586.63 would go to the plaintiffs and the remainder
would be allocated for attorneys' fees and costs.  The Defendants
provided a counteroffer of $110,024.84, of which $60,024.84 would
go to the plaintiffs and the remainder would be allocated for
attorneys' fees and costs.

After evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the parties'
positions during the court supervised settlement conference,
Magistrate Judge Seng proposed a global settlement of $270,000,
which the parties accepted.

In light of the complexity of this case and the difficulty the
parties face in estimating the likely value of the plaintiffs'
claim without conducting an exact calculation, the court finds
the rationale underlying the agreement and the recovery obtained
as a result to be reasonable.

The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery
Completed

Here, the parties have sufficient information to make an informed
decision regarding settlement. The Defendant also produced
thousands of records related to hours worked and compensation
paid, as well as policies, memoranda of understanding, and other
local authorities governing compensation for the plaintiff and
the putative class members.

Under these circumstances, the court finds that the parties had
sufficient information to reach an appropriate settlement.

The Seriousness of the Litigation Risks Faced by the Parties

Here, the named plaintiff believes his claims are meritorious but
concedes that if this case were to proceed to trial, he would
face uncertainties about how to calculate damages due to the bona
fide disputes between the parties. The Plaintiff also may not
recover at trial based upon the defendant's alleged willful
violation of the law and a finding in the defendant's favor on
that issue would reduce the claimed damages by 50%.

Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of
approval of the parties' FLSA settlement.

The Scope of Any Release Provision in the Settlement Agreement

Here, the release provision is limited to claims known or
unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, arising out of the matters
raised in the Complaint or related thereto as of and including
the Effective Date of this Agreement, as well as any further
claims under the FLSA for any alleged FLSA violation that has
occurred up to and including the Effective Date of this
Agreement. The parties explain that this latter provision,
releasing all FLSA claims whether or not they are related to the
matters raised in this case, is necessary in order to account for
the potential claims related to HIL compensation.

Under these circumstances, the court is satisfied with the
parties' explanations as to the scope of the release provision.

The Experience and Views of Counsel and the Opinion of
Participating Plaintiffs

In determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, the
opinions of counsel should be given considerable weight both
because of counsel's familiarity with the litigation and previous
experience with cases.

Here, the plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Mastagni, has considerable
experience in litigating and settling cases asserting liability
pursuant to the Floresdecision and has represented to the court
that this settlement is fair, adequate, and in the best interests
of the class members.  Accordingly, consideration of this factor
weighs in favor of approval of the FLSA settlement.

The Possibility of Fraud or Collusion

The likelihood of fraud or collusion is low when the Settlement
was reached through arm's-length negotiations, facilitated by an
impartial mediator.

Here, the court finds that there is a low probability of fraud or
collusion because the settlement negotiations were presided over
and facilitated by a magistrate judge of this court. There is
nothing on the face of the record to suggest the plaintiff's
counsel allowed the pursuit of their own self-interests and that
of certain class members to infect the negotiation.

Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, the court
finds that the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable
resolution of the parties' bona fide disputes.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd9g433j from Leagle.com.

Henry Seguin, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio Mastagni --
davidm@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Ian Barclay
Sangster -- isangster@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Ace
Thomas Tate -- atate@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC &
Isaac Sean Stevens -- istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt,
APC.

County of Tulare, Defendant, represented by Jesse Jeremy Maddox -
-
jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore &Michael David
Youril -- myouril@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.


U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces "Nielsen" Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary of Homeland Security. The case is captioned as D A;
S K; and L M, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland
Security; THOMAS D HOMAN, Deputy Director and Senior Official
Performing the duties of the Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MATTHEW ALBENCE, Executive Associate
Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; JOHN TSOUKARIS, Newark Field Office
Director for Enforcement and Removal, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, Attorney General of
the United States and JAMES MCHENRY, Director, Executive Office
of Immigration Review, all in their official capacities,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09214-ES-CLW (D.N.J., May 14, 2018).

On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class action
lawsuit. The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas and referred
to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department
of the United States federal government with responsibilities in
public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home
ministries of other countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent E. Gentile, Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          105 College Road East, Suite 300
          Princeton, NJ 08542-0627
          Telephone: (609) 716-6500
          E-mail: vincent.gentile@dbr.com

               - and -

          Ingrid Dahlman Johnson, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          105 College Road East
          Princeton, NJ 08542
          Telephone: (609) 716-6549
          E-mail: ingrid.johnson@dbr.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Removes "Murray" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case captioned as, Rebecca Elizabeth Murray,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Under Armour Inc., DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
(Case No. BC700750) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 15, 2018, and assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-04032-FMO-E (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin and referred to Magistrate
Judge Charles F. Eick.

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ebby Shahrokh Bakhtiar, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON BAKHTIAR
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1669
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 632-1550
          Fax: (213) 632-3100
          E-mail: ec@livingstonbakhtiar.com

               - and -

          Keith David Griffin, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Tel: (213) 977-0211
          Fax: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq.
          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: kimj@huntonAK.com
                  amortimer@huntonAK.com


UNITED STATES: Judgment on Pleadings in Suit vs. FEMA Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEOPLE'S WORKSHOP, INC. ET AL., v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ET AL, CV. No. 17-107-JWD-RLB (M.D. La.),
Judge John W. DeGravelles of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana granted the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 12(c) filed on behalf of  The Town of Clinton; the Board
of Aldermen for the Town of Clinton; Lori Ann Bell; and Russ
Hicks ("Town Defendants").

In August 2016, Louisiana experienced historic flooding, causing
the President to declare a state of emergency.  The Plaintiffs
allege that, upon the declaration of emergency, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") was required to provide
people whose homes were rendered uninhabitable or inaccessible
with various forms of disaster assistance on a non-discriminatory
basis.

The Complaint generally claims that FEMA and its representatives,
both federal and local, have failed to provide adequate flood
relief to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege four causes of
action.  The first is for failure to provide temporary housing
assistance in violation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act.  The second is for failing to
provide temporary housing assistance in violation of the
Plaintiffs' due process rights.  The third is for denials and
delays of temporary housing assistance in violation of the
nondiscrimination provisions of the Stafford Act.  The final
cause of action is for violating the Plaintiffs' due process
rights and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Plaintiffs' prayer for relief requests the following:

     1. FEMA will ensure that all eligible applicants for
Temporary Housing Assistance who have applied for such assistance
receive it within a reasonable period of time.

     2. For a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction restraining
the Defendants to provide to persons who submitted applications
for Temporary Housing Assistance but have been subsequently
denied, Temporary Housing Assistance.

     3. For a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction restraining
Defendants from having a trailer group site outside of the Town
of Clinton.

     4. For a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction restraining
the East Feliciana Police Jury from forming a Private Task
Recovery Committee with public funds which does not include a
representative from local agencies and residents of the community
which represent a fair and adequate depiction of the Town of
Clinton.

     5. For a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction prohibiting
the East Feliciana Chamber of Commerce from receiving and
overseeing FEMA funds (resources) because they are agencies that
do not meet the requirements associated with the Stafford Act.

     6. Further pray that FEMA will set up trailer sites in the
Town of Clinton and utilize the property available and provided
by Feliciana Housing Authority as a FEMA property groupsite.

     7. For Declaratory Relief

     8. For an order allowing the case to proceed as a class
action;

     9. For costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees; and

     10. For such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Judge DeGravelles finds that the Motion is well founded: as the
Town Defendants correctly observe, the Plaintiffs have provided
virtually no statutory, regulatory, or jurisprudential support
for their claims against the Town Defendants or to establish the
Town Defendants' ability or duty to provide relief.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the Town Defendants, and especially Bell,
are not free to frustrate the purposes of the Stafford Act by
feeding false information to another government official,
asserting that the Town Defendants have not cited authority
stating that they may do so.  However, this argument, according
to the Judge, misstates the relevant burdens.

As he sets forth in discussing the principles applicable to
motions under Rule 12(c) and 12(b)(6), the Judge says the
Complaint must set forth enough information to give rise to a
plausible claim for relief.  Absent such an initial showing,
neither the Court nor the Town Defendants are required to pore
over the Constitution and United States Code to ascertain whether
a law exists that might support or bar the Plaintiffs' claims.

With respect to the few authorities actually relied upon in the
Complaint, i.e., the Stafford Act and the Due Process Clause of
the Constitution,1 in previous orders, the Judge has ruled that
no private right of action is available under the Stafford Act,
the Stafford Act also bars liability for the exercise of
discretionary functions, the Stafford Act and its associated
regulations alone do not give rise to a property interest for due
process purposes, and the Plaintiffs have not alleged policies or
practices that would support a plausible due process claim.

The Judge has also previously disapproved of the Complaint's
failure to precisely delineate the scope of the claims against
each Defendant.  Substantially the same reasoning applies to the
Plaintiffs' largely undifferentiated Stafford Act and due process
claims against the Town Defendants.  Therefore, as currently
pled, the Complaint fails to state a claim against the Town
Defendants.

He acknowledges the Town Defendants' position with respect to
granting leave to amend.  However, the Fifth Circuit has advised
courts to afford a plaintiff "every opportunity" to state a
viable claim, especially with respect to an initial complaint.
Following the Fifth Circuit's instruction and "wise judicial
practice," the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs one additional
opportunity to draft a viable complaint.

Accordingly, Judge DeGravelles granted the Motion, and dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claims against the Town Defendants.  The
dismissal is with leave to amend.  He will issue a separate order
concerning leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2018 Ruling and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gHuXt2 from Leagle.com.

People's Workshop, Inc./Department of Feliciana Housing
Authority, Through its Duly Authorized President George A.
Turner, Lula London, Dora O'Connor, Pamela R. Miller, Linda
Keller, Hazel Harrell, Sheila Flowers, Robert Flowers, Eugene
Matthews, Beulah Bennett & Walter E. Chapman, on behalf of
Themselves and All Those Similiarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carol D. Powell Lexing, Law Office of Carol D.
Powell Lexing.

Federal Emergency Management Agency & John F. Kelly, Secretary of
Department of Homeland Securety, Defendants, represented by John
Joseph Gaupp, United States Attorney's Office.

Jody Moreau, Director of Homeland Security East Feliciana
Emergency Operations Center, Jim Parker, Deputy Emergency Manager
East Feliciana Emergency Operations Center, East Feliciana Police
Jury, Glen Kent, Chris Hall, Keith Mills, Dwight Hill & Sean
Smith, Defendants, represented by Ben Louis Mayeaux --
bmayeaux@neunerpate.com --  NeunerPate, Carolyn Camilla Cole,
Neuner Pate, Jeffrey K. Coreil -- jcoreil@neunerpate.com --
NeunerPate & Morgan Ashley Druhan -- mdruhan@neunerpate.com --
NeunerPate.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Amended Complaint Filed in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on June 13 disclosed that dozens
of women have now filed suit against the former gynecologist at
the University of Southern California (USC), Dr. George Tyndall,
in a mounting class action naming the university, its board of
trustees and Dr. Tyndall responsible for decades of sexual
violation and molestation of female patients, according to Hagens
Berman.

The amended complaint, filed June 13, 2018, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California adds six plaintiffs,
totaling 27 women who have stepped forward to tell their stories
in the lawsuit seeking to hold Dr. Tyndall and USC accountable
for the decades-long systemic sexual violations that occurred on
USC's campus and the university's cover-up.

If you were in any way violated or treated inappropriately by
USC's Dr. Tyndall during a medical examination, find out more
about the lawsuit and your rights.

The complaint details the experiences of plaintiffs who endured
feeling "sexualized and objectified" by Dr. Tyndall for their
ethnic backgrounds, and "hopeless and humiliated" by his invasive
and inappropriate touching.  Plaintiffs reported that he made
them undress in the room with him present, and subjected his
patients to unnecessary digital penetration.  Tyndall also asked
deeply personal and invasive questions about patients' sexual
activity and sexuality, making them feel they were present "for
his entertainment and exploitation."

"Dr. Tyndall's actions and demeanor were vulgar, abusive and
completely unacceptable," said Elizabeth Fegan, partner at Hagens
Berman representing the proposed class of women against USC and
Dr. Tyndall.

The lawsuit also shows repeated behavior by Dr. Tyndall to
complicate visits, including his requesting unnecessary return
visits for simple prescription refills, repeated and unwarranted
pelvic exams, and actions that made the plaintiffs feel
distressed, violated, objectified and in many instances, avoid
seeking further gynecological care.

"The women who sought care from Dr. Tyndall trusted him and USC
to uphold basic promises to protect them and because they needed
medical care," Fegan added. "Dr. Tyndall chose to violate the
very people seeking his help, those who would be most vulnerable,
and what's worse, USC knew about it."

The lawsuit states Dr. Tyndall was expressly indecent with his
patients who were non-heterosexual, harassing them with specific
questions about their sex lives.

"Jane Doe C.L. found Dr. Tyndall's line of questioning
appalling," the suit states, adding, "She was highly disturbed by
his interest in details about her sex life and sexual
preferences.  It seemed to her as though Dr. Tyndall was asking
questions about her sexual orientation for his own amusement and
curiosity."

The lawsuit accuses USC of brazen negligence in failing to stop
his violation of female students.  Dr. Tyndall oversaw tens of
thousands of female patients during his time at USC, and the
university knew of his behavior since at least the 1990s but
failed to take action. According to the complaint, ultimately, in
2017, the university began termination proceedings.  However, USC
did not contact law enforcement, the attorney general or the
medical licensing board, nor did USC inform Tyndall's patients.

"On all accounts, USC failed to provide its female students with
safe, appropriate and professional healthcare," Fegan said.

Seek Help

Your protection is Hagens Berman's top priority.  We welcome any
information, and those who contact our firm may remain anonymous
in their potential case.  Hagens Berman will request that the
Court permit our clients to proceed anonymously as a Jane Doe.
Our attorneys have experience in protecting plaintiffs who wish
to remain anonymous, both as whistleblowers and as survivors of
sexual misconduct.

Attorneys at Hagens Berman achieved a nationwide sexual
harassment settlement on behalf of 16,000 women and also tried
the first ever sexual harassment case in Washington state in
1985.  The firm represents multiple women on behalf of a class of
all victims who were harassed or otherwise assaulted by Harvey
Weinstein, seeking to hold him and his co-conspirators
accountable for a years-long pattern of sexual harassment and
cover-ups.

Recent news headlines have brought these heinous acts to the
forefront, and many victims have bravely stepped forward to tell
their stories.  Hagens Berman continues this fight, working to
help achieve justice for those who have been victim to sexual
violation, and enforce systemic change. Tell us about your case.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with ten offices across
the country.  The firm has been named to the National Law
Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Class PRA Request Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOES 1-10, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. C16-1212JLR (W.D.
Wash.), Judge James L. Robert of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On Feb. 9, 2016, Defendant David Daleiden sent a written request
to Defendant UW under Washington State's Public Records Act
("PRA") to inspect or obtain copies of all documents that relate
to the purchase, transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues,
human fetal organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the [UW]
Birth Defects Research Laboratory from 2010 to present.  On Feb.
10, 2016, Defendant Zachary Freeman issued a similar PRA request
to UW.

Among other documents, these PRA requests sought communications
between UW or its Birth Defects Research Laboratory, on the one
hand, and Cedar River Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Greater
Washington and North Idaho, or certain individuals or employees
of Cedar River and Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and
North Idaho, on the other hand.  Mr. Daleiden's PRA request
specifically lists the names of eight such individuals.

On July 21, 2016, UW notified Doe Plaintiffs that absent a court
order issued by Aug. 4, 2016, UW would provide documents
responsive to Mr. Daleiden's PRA request without redaction at
12:00 p.m. on Aug. 5, 2016.  On July 26, 2016, UW issued a
similar notice to Doe Plaintiffs regarding Mr. Freeman's request
and indicated that, absent a court order, UW would provide
responsive documents without redaction on Aug. 10, 2016.

On Aug. 3, 2016, Doe Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
putative class seeking to enjoin UW from issuing unredacted
documents in response to the PRA requests.  They object to
disclosure of the requested documents in unredacted form because
the documents include personally identifying information such as
direct work phone numbers, work emails, personal cell phone
numbers, and other information.  On the same day that they filed
suit, Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking both a temporary
restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction against
disclosure of the requested documents.

In addition, Doe Plaintiffs filed the present motion for class
certification.  In their original motion, Doe Plaintiffs ask the
court to certify a class consisting of all individuals whose
names and/or personal identifying information (work addresses,
work or cell phone numbers, email addresses) are contained in
documents prepared, owned, used, or retained by UW that are
related to fetal tissue research or donations.

On Aug.3, 2016, the court granted Doe Plaintiffs' motion for a
TRO but set the TRO to expire on Aug. 17, 2016, at 11:59 p.m.  On
Aug. 17, 2016, the court extended the TRO until such time as the
court resolves Doe Plaintiffs' pending motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On Nov. 11, 2016, the court granted Doe Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.  After finding that the remaining factors
also favored preliminary injunctive relief, the court granted Doe
Plaintiffs' motion but narrowed the scope of the preliminary
injunctive relief as compared to the relief granted in the TRO.

In the preliminary injunction, the court did not prohibit the
release of the documents at issue but rather enjoined UW from
releasing the requested documents without first redacting all
personally identifying information or information for Doe
Plaintiffs from which a person's identity could be derived with
reasonable certainty.

On Dec. 15, 2016, Mr. Daleiden appealed the district court's
grant of a preliminary injunction.  On Jan. 4, 2017, the Court
stayed proceedings at the district court level, including Doe
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, pending the
resolution of Mr. Daleiden's appeal.  On Aug. 14, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit reversed and remanded the court's preliminary injunction
order but nevertheless left the preliminary injunction in place
for 120 days to allow the district court to enter the necessary
findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting injunctive
relief.

In its Aug. 14, 2017, order, the Ninth Circuit remanded the
proceeding to address how disclosure of specific information
would violate the constitutional or statutory rights of
particular individuals or groups.

Following the Ninth Circuit's remand, the court issued an order
directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing and other
materials responding to the Ninth Circuit's guidance on Doe
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.  After receiving
the parties' supplemental materials on Doe Plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction, and hearing the argument of the
counsel, the court reissued the preliminary injunction on Nov.
30, 2017.

In its Nov. 30, 2017, order reissuing the preliminary injunction,
the court largely adopted Doe Plaintiffs' proposed three sub-
groups for purposes of analyzing the First Amendment issues.

On Dec. 14, 2017, Doe Plaintiffs filed (1) a notice renoting
their motion for class certification, and (2) a motion seeking
leave to file a supplemental reply memorandum in support thereof.
The Defendants did not file a response to Doe Plaintiffs' motion,
and on Dec. 27, 2017, the court granted the motion.

On Dec. 28, 2017, Doe Plaintiffs filed their supplemental reply
memorandum in support of their motion for class certification.
In their supplemental reply, Doe Plaintiffs narrowed their class
definition to include all individuals whose names and/or personal
identifying information (e.g., work addresses, work or cell phone
numbers, email addresses) are contained in documents prepared,
owned, used, or retained by UW that relate to the purchase,
transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues, human fetal
organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the Lab from 2010 to
present.

Doe Plaintiffs, however, did not modify their motion to include
any subclasses.  On March 14, 2018, the court ordered Doe
Plaintiffs and Mr. Daleiden to provide supplemental briefing on
the issue of subclasses.  The parties filed their responses on
March 26, 2018.

In their response, Doe Plaintiffs argue that, despite their
earlier representation that they would identify subclasses to the
district court following remand, they now believe that "there is
no inherent or realistic danger of conflict, confusion, or
tension between the putative class members," and so "a single
class may be certified."  Nevertheless, they also alternatively
propose modifying their previous overarching class definition by
including subclasses for each group identified in their earlier
preliminary injunction briefing and the court's November 30,
2017, order reissuing the preliminary injunction.

Doe Plaintiffs' alternate proposal delineating subclasses is as
all individuals whose names and/or personal identifying
information (e.g., work addresses, work or cell phone numbers,
email addresses) are contained in documents prepared, owned,
used, or retained by the University of Washington that relate to
the purchase, transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues,
human fetal organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the
University of Washington Birth Defects Research Laboratory from
2010 to present, and who: (i) are associated with entities that
provide abortions and/or make available fetal tissue to the Birth
Defects Research Laboratory; (ii) are associated with the Birth
Defects Research Laboratory; or (iii) are associated with medical
researchers who use fetal tissue obtained from the Birth Defects
Research Laboratory.

Mr. Daleiden argues that creating subclasses in this instance
does not solve the underlying problems of class certification,
and he also argues that the parties should conduct discovery
prior to the creation of any subclasses.

Judge Robert concludes that Doe Plaintiffs have met their burden
of demonstrating that their amended proposed class and three
subclasses meet the Rule 23(a) prerequisites.  Furthermore, the
amended proposed class and subclasses seek injunctive and
declaratory relief that, if granted, would be appropriate
respecting the class and subclasses as a whole.  As such, the
Judge concludes that Doe Plaintiffs have also met their burden of
demonstrating the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).  Accordingly, he
granted Doe Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Judge certified the matter as a class action.  The class and
subclasses are defined as all individuals whose names and/or
personally identifying information (e.g., work addresses, work or
cell phone numbers, email addresses) are contained in documents
prepared, owned, used, or retained by the University of
Washington that relate to the purchase, transfer, or procurement
of human fetal tissues, human fetal organs, and/or human fetal
cell products at the University of Washington Birth Defects
Research Laboratory from 2010 to present, and who: (i) are
associated with entities that provide abortions and/or make
available fetal tissue to the Birth Defects Research Laboratory;
(ii) are associated with the Birth Defects Research Laboratory;
or (iii) are associated with medical researchers who use fetal
tissue obtained from the Birth Defects Research Laboratory.

Finally, the Judge appointed Doe Plaintiffs as the class
representatives, and further appointed (1) John Doe 1 and Jane
Does 3-7 as the representatives of subclass one; (2) Jane Doe 2
as the representative of subclass two; and (3) Jane Does 7 and 8
as the representatives of  subclass three.  He also appointed Doe
Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BHoEJL from Leagle.com.

Jane Does 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated & John Does 1-10, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David B. Edwards -
- dedwards@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER
FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jill Diane Bowman -- jill.bowman@stoel.com --
STOEL RIVES, Steven W. Fogg -- sfogg@corrcronin.com -- CORR
CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOO RE LLP, Vanessa Soriano
Power -- vanessa.power@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES, Mallory L. Satre
-- msatre@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER
FOGG & MOORE LLP & Sara Ainsworth, LEGAL VOICE.

University of Washington, a Washington public corporation & Perry
Tapper, Public Records Compliance Officer at the University of
Washington, in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by
Nancy S. Garland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

David Daleiden, an individual, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Michael Trissell, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND, pro hac
vice, Peter Breen, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, pro hac vice, Thomas
Brejcha, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, pro hac vice & William John
Crittenden -- wjcrittenden@groffmurphy.com.

David Daleiden, an individual, Cross Claimant, represented by
Jeffrey Michael Trissell, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND,
Peter Breen, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Thomas Brejcha, THOMAS MORE
SOCIETY & William John Crittenden .

University of Washington, a Washington public corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Nancy S. Garland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.

David Daleiden, an individual, Counter Claimant, represented by
Jeffrey Michael Trissell, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND,
Peter Breen, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Thomas Brejcha, THOMAS MORE
SOCIETY & William John Crittenden .

Jane Does 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated & John Does 1-10, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by David B.
Edwards, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jill
Diane Bowman, STOEL RIVES, Steven W. Fogg, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Vanessa Soriano Power, STOEL RIVES,
Mallory L. Satre, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP & Sara Ainsworth, LEGAL VOICE.


VALEANT PHARMA: "Hound" Securities Fraud Suit Moved to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' Feb. 2, 2018 motion
to transfer the case, HOUND PARTNERS OFFSHORE FUND, LP, HOUND
PARTNERS LONG MASTER LP, and HOUND PARTNERS CONCENTRATED MASTER
LP, Plaintiffs, v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
J. MICHAEL PEARSON, HOWARD B. SCHILLER, ROBERT S. ROSIELLO,
DEBORAH JORN, ARI S. KELLEN, TANYA CARRO, ROBERT A. INGRAM,
RONALD H. FARMER, COLLEEN GOGGINS, THEO MELAS-KYRIAZA, ANDERS
LĂ´NNER, ROBERT N. POWER, NORMA PROVENCIO, KATHERINE B. STEVENSON,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC. f/k/a
MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA) INC., DNB MARKETS INC., BARCLAYS
CAPITAL, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS,
LLC, and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
18cv76(DLC)(S.D. N.Y.), to the District of New Jersey.

After Valeant stock price declined by nearly 90% between August
2015 to June 2016, numerous lawsuits were brought against it and
related parties for, inter alia, securities fraud.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey has before it 27
such actions, consisting of a class action and 26 associated
"opt-out" actions.  The lawsuit is the 28th filed against
Valeant.

On Jan. 4, 2018, Hound Partners filed a complaint in this
district.  The complaint asserts federal securities law claims,
as well as state law claims under New Jersey common law and New
Jersey's Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act.

On Feb. 2, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer the
case pursuant to Section 1404 to the District of New Jersey.  On
March 6, the Defendants filed partial motions to dismiss certain
claims.  A March 9 Order stayed further briefing on the motions
to dismiss pending resolution of the motion to transfer.  The
motion to transfer became fully submitted on March 28.

In seeking to avoid transfer, the Hound Partners primarily argue
that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA")
precludes, or at the very least counsels against, transfer.  They
contend that because they have brought state law claims in
addition to their federal claims, and because SLUSA will likely
preclude consideration of these state law claims in the District
of New Jersey, that the District of New Jersey is not a place
where this action "might have been brought," as is required to
transfer an action under Section 1404.  In the alternative, they
contend that the efficiencies the Defendants seek to obtain from
transfer are illusory, because the action either will not be able
to be coordinated with the other actions pending against Valeant,
or the state law claims will need to be re-filed in state court.

Judge Cote holds that SLUSA does not preclude the transfer of the
action to the District of New Jersey.  Even if the state law
claims will almost certainly be dismissed after the case is
coordinated with the other New Jersey actions under SLUSA, at the
time of commencement of the lawsuit, there would have been
subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims in the
District of New Jersey if the lawsuit had originally been filed
there.  A transfer is therefore permitted by Section 1404.

In addition, the Defendants have carried their burden to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that transfer is
warranted. The District of New Jersey has invested years of work
in related litigation.  The suite of actions is based on the same
facts and involve similar claims.  The case will be easier to
manage if it is part of the coordinated group of cases, rather
than proceeding alone in this court. Most of the other factors
appear neutral or weakly in favor of transfer.  Nonetheless, the
presence of the 27 other actions in New Jersey and the efforts
that Judge Shipp has devoted to them are compelling reasons to
transfer the case.

Judge Cote granted the Defendants' motion to transfer.  The Clerk
of Court will transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/2zgIhM from Leagle.com.

HOUND PARTNERS OFFSHORE FUND, LP, HOUND PARTNERS CONCENTRATED
MASTER, LP & HOUND PARTNERS LONG MASTER, LP, Plaintiffs,
represented by ERIC TODD KANEFSKY, CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP,
MARTIN BENJAMIN GANDELMAN, CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP & SAMUEL S.
CORNISH, Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP.

HOWARD B. SCHILLER, Defendant, pro se.

DEBORAH JORN, Defendant, represented by CARA JOY DAVID --
cara.david@srz.com -- SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL.

Tanya Carro, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM J. SCHWARTZ --
wschwartz@cooley.com -- OFFICE OF CORPORATE COUNSEL FOR THE CITY
OF NEWARK LAW DEPARTMENT.

Ronald H Farmer, Defendant, represented by PAUL C. CURNIN --
pcurnin@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP.

BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD A. ROSEN
-- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON.


VEREIT: Settles Vanguard Suit, Shareholder Class-Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Wenik, writing for Citywire, reports that Vanguard has
settled a 'multi-billion dollar' lawsuit with Vereit, the
scandal-hit real estate investment trust (Reit) founded by
Nicholas Schorsch.

Vereit, which was formerly known as American Realty Capital
Properties (ARCP), is to pay Vanguard $90 million in a move that
will bring an end to a long-running legal battle between the two
firms.

The case dates back to October 2015, when Vanguard sued Vereit,
Schorsch and other company officials in an Arizona federal court,
claiming that it, along with other investors, had lost billions
of dollars due to an accounting scandal at the Reit, court
documents show.

Through a number of its funds, Vanguard owned a combined 13%
stake in Schorsch's company.

The lawsuit was filed after Schorsch stepped down from his
chairman role at ARCP in December 2014 and the company disclosed
a $23 million accounting misstatement, having misrepresented its
"adjusted funds from operations" (AFFO) in its financial
statements and restated seven quarters of financial results.

The scandal caused the company's stock to slide more than 36%.

"The company's stock price plummeted by over 36% in response to
the company's disclosure of the fraud and attempted cover-up,
causing plaintiffs and other investors to lose billions of
dollars," Vanguard said in its complaint.

In its lawsuit, Vanguard also claimed Schorsch and ARCP used the
misrepresented AFFO figures to justify an aggressive series of
acquisitions, which grew the Reit from $132 million in assets in
2011 to $21.3 billion in 2014.

"The true primary purpose in Schorsch's buying spree, however,
was to rob from shareholders and to give to himself and his
friends," Vanguard said in its 2015 complaint.  The claim also
alleged Schorsch siphoned out 'hundreds of millions of dollars'
from ARCP.

A Vanguard spokeswoman declined to comment on the settlement.

As part of the $90 million settlement, Vereit, Schorsch and the
other company officials have been released from the lawsuit,
without admitting liability or wrongdoing.

Double trouble
It is not the end of their legal battles, however, with a
shareholder class-action lawsuit against Vereit and Schorsch, led
by TIAA-CREF, potentially going to trial next year.

Vereit, which rebranded in July 2015 and now controls $14.5
billion, issued a statement in which it said that it had settled
with Vanguard in an effort to mitigate legal risk.

"In light of the fact that the Vanguard lawsuit was proceeding in
a different federal district court than the other related cases
pending against Veriet, Vereit believes that if the Vanguard
lawsuit continued, it could find itself facing successive trials
on similar factual and legal issues that could have subjected
Vereit to increased legal risk," the company said in the
statement.  "Based on these factors and others, we believe that
the settlement with Vanguard is in Vereit's best interest."

The ARCP accounting scandal also sparked a series of lawsuits
against the firm and resulted in ARCP's CFO, Brian Block,
receiving a lifetime ban from serving as a director and officer
from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The scandal also precipitated the downfall of Schorsch's wider
business empire.

He was forced to resign as the chairman of brokerage house RCS
Capital, which he had taken public in 2013.  RCS Capital had
purchased Cetera Financial Group for $1.15 billion in cash in
early 2014 as part of its own expansionary push before filing a
pre-arranged chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in January 2016.

The firm emerged from chapter 11 in May 2016 with Cetera as its
only operating entity.

In October of 2017, RCS Capital's bankruptcy estate paid
shareholders, led by the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and
Retirement System and the local government of Providence, RI, $31
million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging securities
fraud. [GN]


VITALE'S ITALIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Torres" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VITALE'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a
VITALE'S GRAND RAPIDS; SALVATORE VITALE; BELINDA PIERCE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00547 (W.D. Mich., May 15, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as a restaurant worker
from March 2017 to May 7, 2018.

Vitale's Italian Restaurant, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with
principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Agustin Henriquez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th St. SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Tel: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE: Underpays Clerical Employee, Buddie Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH BUDDIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICES;
and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01199 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Buddie was employed by the Defendants as a clerical employee.

Vocational Guidance Services is a non-profit corporation
incorporated in the State of Ohio with its principal place of
business located at Cleveland, OH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Emily White, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Dismissal of Tax Collection Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division,
reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned DESTIN McINTOSH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 1-17-0362 (Ill. App.).

Plaintiff Destin McIntosh filed a putative class-action complaint
seeking damages from defendant Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
for allegedly imposing and collecting the Chicago Bottled Water
Tax on retail sales of beverages that were exempt from the tax.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2016)), arguing that the
plaintiff's claim was barred by the voluntary payment doctrine.

The circuit court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed
the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for the reasons stated
in open court based on Lusinski v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.,
136 Ill.App.3d 640 [(1985).

The Plaintiff raises two related arguments on appeal. First, he
argues that the voluntary payment doctrine per se does not apply
to claims under the Consumer Fraud Act. He contends that the
Consumer Fraud Act codified public policy and that the voluntary
payment doctrine does not apply to causes of action based on
statutorily codified public policy. He relies primarily on our
decision in Nava v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2013 IL App (1st)
122063, in support of his argument.

Second, he argues that even if the voluntary payment doctrine
does apply to Consumer Fraud Act claims, his Consumer Fraud Act
claim satisfies the doctrine's fraud exception. He contends that
the circuit court's reliance on Lusinski was misplaced because
that case did not involve any allegation of fraud.

The Consumer Fraud Act is a regulatory and remedial statute
intended to protect consumers, borrowers and business persons
against fraud, unfair methods of competition, and other unfair
and deceptive business practices.

To state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act, a plaintiff must
allege (1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant; (2) the
defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception; and
(3) the occurrence of the deception during a course of conduct
involving trade or commerce.

The Plaintiff contends that his Consumer Fraud Act claim alleges
a deceptive practice or otherwise satisfies the fraud exception
to the voluntary payment doctrine. He asserts that, that the
defendant knew it was not supposed to charge or collect the
bottled water tax on the plaintiff's purchases, yet the defendant
deceptively represented that it could, and then in fact collected
the monies from the plaintiff.

The Defendant responds that the plaintiff's complaint failed to
allege sufficient facts to satisfy the fraud exception to the
voluntary payment doctrine and failed to state a claim under the
Consumer Fraud Act because he failed to allege sufficient facts
to show that the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff's
reliance on any misrepresentation.

In his reply brief, the plaintiff argues that the defendant
forfeited any argument regarding the sufficiency of his complaint
by failing to raise that argument in the circuit court. The
Plaintiff's forfeiture argument, however, is misplaced, the Court
says.  An appellee may raise any argument in support of the
circuit court's judgment, even if the argument was not raised in
the circuit court, as long as the argument has a sufficient
factual basis in the record.

Therefore, the Court will evaluate the plaintiff's complaint to
determine whether it contains sufficient factual allegations to
state a deceptive act or fraud claim under the Consumer Fraud
Act.

The Court find that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently
alleges a deceptive act and stated a claim under the Consumer
Fraud Act and, therefore, the voluntary payment doctrine does not
bar the plaintiff's claim. The Consumer Fraud Act prohibits "the
use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or
omission of any such material fact in the conduct of trade or
commerce."  The Court held that, if, as the plaintiff alleges,
the defendant charged a tax neither it nor the plaintiff was
bound to pay, it can be found to have engaged in a deceptive act
for the purposes of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Furthermore, the Court held that the defendant's intent that the
plaintiff rely on a deceptive act might be established by the
fact that the customer's payment of the tax was a natural and
predictable consequence of the defendant asking the plaintiff to
do so.

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant represented to
customers that the bottled beverages they purchased were subject
to the bottled water tax, when the purchased products were in
fact exempt from the tax, and represented to customers that the
purchase price of the beverages included the required tax. The
Plaintiff further alleged that defendant intended that its
customers rely on its representation that the products were
subject to the tax when the customers were in fact buying tax-
exempt products. Taking those allegations as true, the defendant
could be found to have engaged in a deceptive act, which
precludes the application of the voluntary payment doctrine as a
defense.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a
Consumer Fraud Act claim in the nature of fraud and, therefore,
the voluntary payment doctrine does not bar his claim. The Court
therefore reverses the circuit court's order dismissing the
plaintiff's complaint and remands for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Ill. App.'s April 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7c2lyyn from Leagle.com.


WALGREENS PHARMACY: Rodarte Sues over Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
Alice Rodarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walgreens Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC;
Cathleen Hanni; Hector Alanzo; and Does 1 through 50, Defendants,
Case No. BC 707054 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff due to his medical
conditions in violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants in March 2004 as Service Clerk/Cashier at the
Defendants' store in Torrance, California.  In October 2007, the
Plaintiff had a gallbladder surgery and was on a three-week leave
due to complications in her surgery.

In November 2015, Plaintiff during the course of her employment
was required to pull and lift heavy firewood, and severely
injured her back. The Defendants did not send the Plaintiff for
proper medical treatment.

In April 2016, the Plaintiff was ill and experienced stomach pain
where she went to the Emergency Room at Kaiser Hospital. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with three intestinal blockages. She
underwent surgery, and was in the hospital for 8 days.

On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with gout. She was
on medical leave from August 23 to 25, 2016. The Plaintiff then
returned back to work and face adverse employment events which
materially affect the terms and conditions of her employment.

In December 2016, when the Plaintiff entered the Defendants'
office, she was stopped and asked to come to the office. The
Defendants then terminated her without any warning or notice.

Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WATERBURY, CT: Class Action Over Dog Euthanization Plan Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Scinto, writing for Patch, reports that a Waterbury pitbull
that has been locked up in the pound for four years and is due to
be euthanized after an incident has drawn widespread attention.

Rose got free from her owner in April 2014 and bit two people as
they tried to catch her, according to Fox 61.

A federal lawsuit was filed earlier this year, but a judge
refused to give it class action status.  The city requested that
it be allowed to move forward with euthanization plans.

A rescue shelter has offered to take Rose. [GN]


WE CARE SENIOR: Doesn't Pay OT to Caregivers, "Gentry" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Gentry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. We Care Senior Home Care of Georgia, Inc.,
and Wilfred Anthony, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02132-CAP (N.D.
Ga., May 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees.

Ms. Gentry was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver from
August 2016 to October 2017.

We Care Senior Home Care of Georgia, Inc. is a domestic
corporation, doing business in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
          Erin J. Krinsky, Esq.
          PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
          1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
          Telephone: (770) 670-6250
          Facsimile: (770) 670-6249
          E-mail: LPankey@PankeyHorlock.com
                  EKrinsky@PankeyHorlock.com


WINDOWS USA LLC: Underpays Retail Service Managers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINDOWS USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-6051 (W.D. Ark., May 25, 2018) brought an action against
the Defendant for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Evans was employed by the Defendant as a retail service
manager.

Windows USA, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Arkansas.  The Company is engaged in the business of
selling and marketing windows designed for customer residences
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: chris@sandfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sandfordlawfirm.com


WPP: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Alex Ralph, writing for The Sunday Times, reports that an
American law firm is investigating claims on behalf of WPP
investors in the wake of the resignation of Sir Martin Sorrell
for alleged "personal misconduct".

Pomerantz has said that its investigation is into "whether WPP
and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices".

The potential class action comes after Pomerantz led a successful
case against Petrobas, the Brazilian oil company, which became
mired in a corruption scandal in 2014. A $3 billion settlement
with American investors was reached in January.

Pomerantz could not be reached for comment on June 11, but in a
circular it has urged investors to contact the firm. [GN]


* Class Action Industry in Australia Faces Backlash Over Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that the class action industry
is booming in Australia, thanks in no small part to litigation
funding partnerships.  Australia prohibits attorneys from working
on contingency; a situation that works out nicely for funders who
are needed to bankroll claims.  But the rapid growth of the
industry has led to a backlash against the (in some cases) hefty
percentage of fees collected by funders, leading some to suggest
that Australia follow the United States' model and allow class
action law firms to work on a contingency basis. [GN]






                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *