CAR_Public/180703.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, July 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 132



                            Headlines


1 PERSON AT A TIME: Wins Final OK of "White" Suit Settlement
ABC FINANCIAL: Massey Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Leonard Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AIR NEW ZEALAND: Sept. 14 Approval Hearing on $49MM Settlement
ALDI INC: Faces "Dieter" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

ALL-WAYS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Quezada Says
ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES: Martinez Moves to Certify Two FLSA Classes
APEX USA: Francis et al. Sue over Exploitable Labor
APPLE INC: Court Consolidates "Bartling", "Giraldi" Suits
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Coyle Suit in District of Nebraska

AXON ENTERPRISE: Faces "Richey" Suit in N.D. California
BALTIC TRADING: Dismissal of FAC in Stockholders' Suit Affirmed
BANK OF AMERICA: Culpepper Seeks to Certify Class of Specialists
BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Seeks Regular & Overtime Pay under FLSA
BEST BUY: Court Won't Certify Class in Battery Life Suit

BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Faces "Baptiste" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Matteo Says
BLOOMNATION INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Morris" Plaintiffs Can File New Class Cert Bid
BRAND ENERGY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Swoboda Says

BROWNIE BRITTLE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
BURGER KING: Gesten's Motion to Seal Granted; Cert. Bid Stricken
C & S OILFIELD: Court Conditionally Certifies "Olivas" Class
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
CHICAGO, IL: Certification of Class Sought in Chicagoans Suit

CINTAS CORPORATION: Cassingham's Bid to Certify Tossed as Moot
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
COREPOWER YOGA: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Barnard" Suit
CRUNCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Eacret & Merritt Say
CRYSTAL MORONEY: Faces "Ducreay" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

CSC HOLDINGS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
DISCOVER BANK: Faces "Therieau" Suit in M.D. Florida
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Faces "Arnaud" Suit in E.D. New York
DR. PEPPER: Ct. Denies Intervention in Canada Dry Ginger Ale Suit
DRILFORMANCE LLC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Kitagawa"

DUMBO PIZZA: Faces "Tepi" Suit in E.D. New York
EDEN CREAMERY: Underfills Ice Cream Pint, Kamal & Neely Claim
EDWARD D. JONES: PSLRA Service/Procedures in "Anderson" Entered
EMPIRE INT'L: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
EOS CCA: Faces "Troyanovsky" Suit in E.D. New York

EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Against "Bowen" Affirmed
EXL PETROLEUM: McCoy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
FAMILY FIRST: Ledger Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
FARMERS INSURANCE: Certification UM Purchasers Class Affirmed
FAYETTE COUNTY: Faces "Arison" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

FINANCIAL ENGINES: Scarantino Balks at Hellman & Friedman Merger
FLOWERS FOODS: Watson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
FLYING LOCKSMITHS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Awarded $74K Costs of Bill in "Daniel"
FORD MOTOR: Goodroad et al. Sue over Defeat Devices in Trucks

GAINESVILLE LODGE: Faces "Quarterman" Suit in N.D. Florida
GEO GROUP: Court Won't Dismiss "Chen" Minimum Wage Suit
GLOBAL CREDIT: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "Williams" Suit
GOLDEN TOUCH: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
GREEN ISLAND: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York

GREENBROOK SPORTS: Rivero Sues over Robocalls
HERITAGE ONE: Faces "Solorzano" Suit in California Superior Court
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: "Arguelles" Suit Moved to E.D. California
IDAHO, USA: Wolf Moves for Certification of IDOC Prisoners Class
INTEL CORPORATION: Alvira Sues over Share Price Drop

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Dismissal Ruling in "Foster" Affirmed
IT COSMETICS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
JACK BLACK LLC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Prado Moves to Certify Class of Detainees
KEITH D. WEINER: Faces "Clark" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin

KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Dean's Claims v. Apple in "Opperman" Dismissed
KRISHNA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Honeywell" Suit in N.D. Florida
KSW OILFIELD: White & Shaw Seek Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
LANDRY'S RESTAURANT: Sustaining Demurrer on Class Claims Reversed
LEIKIN INGBER: "Sebestyen" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction

LOGITECH INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Chernus" Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Maisano Balks at Trading of Consumer Debt
MASSAGE ENVY: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2672: Ct. Denies Class Member's Bid to Opt Out of Settlement
MED-SPEC TRANSPORT: Washington's Bid to Certify Cont'd to July 12

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Pilosova" Suit in E.D. New York
MURATA MANUFACTURING: Court Consolidates Antitrust Suits
MY FL 4051: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida
N.J. 52 INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL GRID: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

NATIONAL RAILROAD: Bid to Certify Class of Black Workers Denied
NCH CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanese Says
NELNET INC: Olsen Sues over Servicing of Student Loans
NIC & ZOE: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
NORTH CAROLINA, USA: Buffkin Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners

OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Murdzia" Suit in W.D. Washington
OHIO EDUCATION: Faces "Lee" Suit in N.D. Ohio
OMEGA INSURANCE: Dismissal of "Ganzemuller" Affirmed
PATRICK K WILLIS: Faces "Jones" Suit in California Superior Court
PIER 1 IMPORTS: $3.5MM Settlement in "Mathein" Has Final Approval

PINOT'S PALETTE: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
PIPES & SHAW: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
PLANO, TX: Faces "Neil" Suit in Texas State Court
PLATINUM RESTAURANT: Green Moves to Certify Class of Servers
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Zazovskaya" Suit in E.D. New York

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Bid to Remand Chiropractors' Suit Denied
PROVIDENCE, RI: Ricci Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
QUALITY RECOVERY: Court Won't Dismiss "Higgins" FDCPA Suit
RENT-A-CENTER: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Doty Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class

ROBERT B. LOCKE: Cal. App. Affirms Striking of "Berry" Suit
SALON INC: Phillips Sues over Minimum & OT Pay, Tip Skimming
SAM ASH MUSIC: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in "Lane" Suit
SANFORD LP: Spacone's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
SAKS & COMPANY: Failed to Secure Customer Data, Rudolph Says

SARBANAND FARMS: Bid to Serve CSI in "Rosas" Granted
SCOTT JEWELERS: Faces "Harland" Suit in New York State Court
SEASONS HOSPICE: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
SERVPRO INDUSTRIES: Delta Dawgs Moves for Class Certification
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Craft"

STEINWAY TOWING: Tow Truck Drivers to Be Notified of "Singh" Suit
STONEHENGE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
SWISSPORT USA: Fails to Pay Wages, Vinasco Claims
TAHOE RESOURCES: "Sanders" Suit Moved to District of Nevada
TESLA INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Shareholder Suit Refused

THUMBS UP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Zhang Says
TOMORROW PCS: Blank's Bid to Proceed as Collective Action Denied
TRADEMARK CONSTRUCTION: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Meyrov" Suit in E.D. New York
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses "Rosenzweig" FDCPA Suit

TRI-STATE WINDOW: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED COLLECTION: Park Moves for Final Approval of Settlement
UNITED STATES: Marshall's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Denied
UNITED STATES: Class of LGUs Entitled to PILT Certified
UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies Seeks Class Certification

UPS SUPPLY: Class Certification in "Hughes" Wage Suit Vacated
USA: Faces "Tippins" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
USC TRUSTEES: O'Conner Sues over Sexual Assault
USAA GENERAL: Weber Sues over Motor Vehicle Insurance Coverage
VAN RU: Faces "Horowitz" Suit in E.D. New York

VAN RU CREDIT: Court Won't Dismiss "Al" FDCPA Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroof Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Attorneys' Fees Award in "Braun" Reversed
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Decertify Class of Cashiers Denied
WAL-MART STORES: Partly Sanctioned for Exclusion in "Brown" Suit

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: $6.5MM Deal in "Little" Has Final OK
WASTE PRO USA: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
WAUKEGAN, IL: Stewart Seeks to Certify Poe Manor Residents Class
WEBSTAURANT STORE: Certification of Class Sought in "Rogers" Suit
WINMARK CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

XINOS CONSTRUCTION: Leons Seek Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA





                            *********


1 PERSON AT A TIME: Wins Final OK of "White" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Nora Barry Fischer grants the motion for final
approval, attorneys' fees and incentive award filed by the
Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARK WHITE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1 PERSON AT A TIME,
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01047-NBF (W.D. Pa.).

Judge Fischer approves the settlement as a fair, reasonable, and
adequate compromise of a bona fide dispute over the application
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania wage-and-hour
law.

The Court orders that the settlement fund as set forth in the
settlement agreement shall be distributed as follows: $25,000 to
the class members; $7,500 to class counsel to cover attorneys'
fees; and $1,000 to the named Plaintiff Mark White, as an
incentive award.

The settlement class is defined as:

    "All current and former employees who have worked for
     Defendant as in-home healthcare workers from January 3, 2015
     through August 10, 2017."

The Court appoints Gary F. Lynch, Esq., Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.,
and Kevin Abramowicz, Esq., of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP as class counsel.  The Court approves the
attorneys' fees of $7,500.  The Court also approves the award of
$1,000 as an incentive award to named Plaintiff Mark White.

The case is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed
to close the case and enter judgment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0SckftCA


ABC FINANCIAL: Massey Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MASSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61355-BB (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct,
statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendants, under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is the nation's largest software and payment
processing provider for the health and fitness industry. This
case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly
requested not to receive Defendant's text messages. As a result,
Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either
never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who had
revoked any prior express consent. The Defendant caused Plaintiff
and Class Members injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Leonard Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Accounts Receivable and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22417-KMW (S.D.
Fla., June 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to September 5, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Credit Innovations. The
Credit Innovations obligation arose out of transactions for
credit repair services which involved the transaction of money,
property, insurance or services. These credit repair services
were incurred primarily for personal purposes. The alleged Credit
Innovations obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5).

Creditor Credit Innovations contracted with the Defendant
Accounts Receivable to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant
Accounts Receivable collects and attempts to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet.

On or around September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff received a
collection letter from Defendant. The Letter states "Arrangements
must be made immediately to avoid credit bureau reporting to the
three major credit reporting agencies for up to seven years."
This statement is deceptive since the debt can only be reported
on a Plaintiff's credit report for seven years from the date of
default. The Plaintiff's account was in default well before
September 5, 2017, thus it is impossible that Plaintiff's account
would be reported for seven years from that date.

Defendant's letter is a deceptive tactic to coerce a payment from
Plaintiff on the debt by threating her with harm to her credit
report for significantly longer than allowable by law. The
Plaintiff incurred an informational injury as Defendant falsely
advised that her debt could be reported to the credit bureaus for
seven years when this was knowingly false information.
Consequently, Plaintiff incurred anxiety and emotional turmoil
regarding this false threat of damage to her credit. As a result
of Defendant's deceptive and misleading statement Plaintiff has
been harmed.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Chelsea Leonard:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217 3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272 7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

AIR NEW ZEALAND: Sept. 14 Approval Hearing on $49MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought an Airline Ticket between the U.S. and Asia,
Australia, New Zealand, or the Pacific Islands, You Could Receive
Benefits from Class Action Settlements

Settlements have been reached with four airlines in class action
lawsuits involving the price of airline tickets.  The Settling
Defendants are: Air New Zealand, China Airlines (Taiwan), EVA
Airways, and Philippine Airlines. Settlements were previously
reached with 8 Defendants.  The lawsuit continues against the
remaining Non-Settling Defendant airline: All Nippon Airways
("ANA").

What is the case about?
The lawsuits claim that the Defendants agreed to fix prices on
tickets for transpacific air travel.  As a result, ticket
purchasers may have paid more than was necessary.  The Settling
Defendants deny the allegations and deny that they have any
liability.  The Defendant airlines also deny liability, although
ANA has pled guilty to fixing the prices of certain discounted
tickets.

Am I included?
You are included if: (1) you bought a ticket for air travel from
one of 26 airlines; (2) the ticket included at least one flight
segment originating in the U.S. to Asia or Oceania; and (3) your
purchase was made between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2016.
A more complete description of eligibility requirements is
available at the website or by calling the tollfree number.

What do the Settlements provide?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay $49,900,000 (the
"Settlement Fund"), plus an additional $750,000 to help pay a
portion of the cost of notice and administration of these
Settlements.  Money will not be distributed yet, and will be
distributed pursuant to a Plan of Allocation approved by the
Court.  However, based on the claims that have already been
filed, it is estimated that the average payment could be in the
range of $8.50 per eligible ticket claimed.  This does not
include amounts that will be paid on any future settlement or
judgment involving ANA.  Claims from the earlier round of
settlements have not yet been audited.  As a result, the number
of claimed tickets that are determined to be eligible may be
reduced, and the corresponding amount of compensation to be
allocated among the remaining eligible claims will increase.
Additional information is available on the website below. Class
Counsel will pursue the lawsuit against the Non-Settling
Defendant.  Class Counsel have not requested attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs at this time but will do so in connection
with the final approval hearing.  For the current Settlements,
Class Counsel will request up to one-third of the Settlement Fund
plus up to $7,500 for one additional class representative.

How can I get benefits?
You must submit a Claim Form online or by mail.  The deadline to
submit a Claim Form is December 31, 2018.

What are my rights?
If you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions and
will get no money.  As described above, if you want to get money
from the Settlements, you must file a claim.  If you want to keep
your right to sue the Settling Defendants and get no money, you
must exclude yourself from the classes by August 30, 2018.  If
you stay in the classes, you may object to the Settlements by
August 30, 2018.  The detailed notice describes how to exclude
yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing on
September 14, 2018 to consider whether to approve the
Settlements.  You or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing at
your own expense, but you do not have to attend.

For more information: 1-800-439-1781 www.AirlineSettlement.com


ALDI INC: Faces "Dieter" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldi, Inc. The case
is styled as Richard Dieter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00846-JFC (W.D. Pa., June 26, 2018).

ALDI Inc. operates grocery stores in the United States. It offers
fresh meats, fresh produce items, wines and beers, and home
goods. The company was incorporated in 1975 and is based in
Batavia, Illinois. ALDI Inc. operates as a subsidiary of ALDI
Einkauf GmbH & Co. oHG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


ALL-WAYS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Quezada Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN C. QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALL-WAYS, INC., a business entity
form unknown; ALL-WAYS PACIFIC LLC, a California limited
liability company; PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; OPPORTUNITY STAFFING, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC708546 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in
the State of California in violation of California state wage and
hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, not
paying overtime wages when working more than 8 hours in a workday
and/or working more than 40 hours in a workweek and unevenly
rounding time worked which in the aggregate deprived employees of
earned wages.[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


ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES: Martinez Moves to Certify Two FLSA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ, et
al. v. ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-
cv-00628-FL (E.D.N.C.), moves for "conditional certification" of
their claims as two representative Fair Labor Standards Act
classes.

The Classes are defined as:

   (1) Overtime Collective Action:

       all similarly situated individuals employed by Defendant
       East Carolina Commercial Services individually or jointly
       with one or more of the other Defendants in the
       construction of IS46 who were required to work in excess
       of forty hours per week for a flat hourly rate and who
       timely file (or have already filed) a written consent to
       be a party to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
       Section 216(b); and

   (2) PPE Collective Action:

       all similarly situated individuals employed by Defendant
       East Carolina Commercial Services individually or jointly
       with one or more of the other Defendants in the
       construction of IS46 who were required to purchase and
       provide their own hard hats, vests, boots, safety glasses
       and/or gloves and who timely file (or have already filed)
       a written consent to be a party to this action pursuant to
       29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Rodriguez Martinez, et al., also move the Court to exercise its
discretion to implement FLSA by facilitating and approving their
distribution of the proposed notice and consent to sue forms to
all putative statutory class members included in the class
definitions.  They further move the Court to approve distribution
of that notice and consent to sue form by U.S. mail, e-mail, and
through Facebook.

The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order requiring the
Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs within 14 days of the
Court's Order on this Motion, the full names, date(s) of
employment, job title(s), last known addresses, e-mail addresses,
telephone numbers, and dates of birth of all putative collective
action members to allow the Plaintiffs to distribute the approved
notice to those putative members of the statutory classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Em8sVCsY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
          Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
          North Carolina Justice Center
          PO Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 856-2154
          Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
          E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
                  carol@ncjustice.org

               - and -

          Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
          BLUE LLP
          205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 833-1931
          E-mail: dab@bluellp.com


APEX USA: Francis et al. Sue over Exploitable Labor
---------------------------------------------------
DORRET FRANCIS, ANTHONY KENNEDY, and CHRISTINE PEARCE
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. APEX USA, INC.; HOTELMACHER, LLC, dba HOLIDAY INN
EXPRESS; SONTAG, INC. dba HAMPTON INN CLINTON; STEAKMACHER, LLC,
dba MONTANA MIKE'S STEAKHOUSE; SCHUMACHER INVESTMENTS, LLC, dba
WATER ZOO INDOOR WATER PARK; WALTER SCHUMACHER; and CAROLYN
SCHUMACHER, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00583-HE (W.D.
Okla., June 15, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

This is an action brought by survivors of human trafficking.
Defendants Walter and Carolyn Schumacher own and operate
hospitality businesses in Clinton, Oklahoma, including two
hotels, a large restaurant, and a waterpark. To obtain cheap and
easily exploitable labor for these businesses, Defendants engaged
directly in a recruitment scheme overseas whereby they induced
foreign nationals to pay hefty fees to work under the J-1 work-
and study-based exchange visitor visa program through APEX USA,
Inc., the J-1 sponsor agency they controlled and operated.
Plaintiffs and putative class members were promised full time
work with good pay, affordable housing, food, transportation, and
the possibility of obtaining additional jobs from other employers
in the area. Allegedly, these promises were never fulfilled:
instead, Plaintiffs were forced to work under conditions that
bore little resemblance to those to which they had agreed.[BN]

Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Brady Henderson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          P.O. Box 1626
          Oklahoma City, OK 73101
          Telephone: (405) 525 3831
          Facsimile: (405) 524 2296
          E-mail: bhenderson@acluok.org

               - and -

          Carole Vigne, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864 8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593 0096
          E-mail: cvigne@legalaidatwork.org

               - and -

          Eben Colby, Esq.
          Catherine Fisher, Esq.
          Isaac Saidel-Goley, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573 4855
          Facsimile: (617) 305 4855
          E-mail: Eben.Colby@probonolaw.com
                  Catherine.Fisher@probonolaw.com
                  Isaac.Saidel-Goley@probonolaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Willett, Esq.
          Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
          Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          510 Congress Ave., Ste. 206
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (512) 474 0007
          Facsimile: (512) 474 0008
          Emails: cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org
                  cboehne@equaljusticecenter.org
                  reisenbray@equaljusticecenter.org


APPLE INC: Court Consolidates "Bartling", "Giraldi" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ANTHONY BARTLING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE
INC., Defendant. ROBERT GIRALDI, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 5:18-cv-00147-EJD, 5:18-cv-00271-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
motion to consolidate the cases and to appoint interim class
counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed separate actions on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated against the Defendant for alleging
violations of various consumer protection laws and tort claims
arising out of security vulnerabilities in Apple products.

Presently before the Court is a joint motion by the Plaintiffs to
consolidate the two actions and appoint the three law firms that
represent them as the interim lead counsel for the purported
class.  The Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.

Upon review of the complaints in each of the actions presented,
Judge Davila finds that each case presents substantially similar
factual and legal issues.  The Plaintiffs in each action allege
that they were harmed because they purchased Apple products which
contained security vulnerabilities, such as "Meltdown" and
"Spectre."  Each action includes claims of breach of express and
implied warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations
of New York General Business Law Section 349.  The actions are in
the same procedural stage as the Defendants have not yet filed an
answer or responsive motion.  In addition, since the claims for
each case arise from a similar nucleus of events, discovery
issues relating to each action will be parallel.  Further, there
appears to be no basis to find that consolidation would cause
inconvenience, delay or expense, especially since the parties
appear to agree with the consolidation request.  As such, the
Judge finds the consolidation appropriate.

The Plaintiffs move to appoint their attorneys, Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C., Berman Tabacco, and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, as the interim class counsel.  Each of these firms are
experienced in class action litigation.  These firms have
conducted a detailed investigation and analysis of the design,
manufacture, and operation of the Apple CPUs at issue, including
engaging experts or attorneys with technical backgrounds.  They
appear to have cooperated with one another in the process, and
appear to be able and willing to work well together.

Having reviewed the papers filed for the motion in the context of
Rule 23, the Judge finds that Lowey Dannenberg, Berman Tabacco,
and Wolf Haldenstein are qualified to represent the putative
class as the co-lead interim class counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Davila granted the motion to consolidate
the cases and to appoint interim class counsel.  He directed the
Clerk of the Court to consolidate case numbers 5:18-cv-00147-EJD
and 5:18-cv-00271-EJD into one case such that the earliest-filed
action, 5:18-cv-00147-EJD, is the lead case.  All future filings
will be in 5:18-cv-00147-EJD and will bear the caption: "In re
Apple Processor Litigation."  All future related cases will be
automatically consolidated and administratively closed after a
judicial determination that such cases are related.  Since the
later actions are now subsumed by the first-filed action, the
Clerk will administratively close case number 5:18-cv-00271-EJD.

The Judge appointed Lowey Dannenberg, Berman Tabacco, and Wolf
Haldenstein as the interim Co-Lead Counsel for the putative
class.  The Co-Lead Counsel will have sole authority to
communicate with the Defendant's counsel and the Court on behalf
of any Plaintiff unless that authority is expressly delegated to
other counsel.  The Defendant's counsel may rely on all
agreements made with Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements will be
binding on all other Plaintiffs' counsel.

Within 21 days of the date the order is filed, the Plaintiffs in
In re Apple Processor Litigation will file a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ilqGsv from Leagle.com.

Anthony Bartling & Jacqueline N. Olson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Gregory Nespole -- gmn@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, Janine Lee Pollack -- pollack@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C.
Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, Randall Scott Newman -- newman@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Robert Giraldi, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler
-- cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Christian Levis,
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Lee Lefkowitz, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.,
Matthew Acocella, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Matthew David-Craig
Pearson -- mpearson@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Sarah
Khorasanee McGrath -- skmcgrath@bermantabacco.com -- Berman
Tabacco, Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. & Todd Anthony
Seaver -- tseaver@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson --
matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kathleen P. Lally
-- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael H. Rubin -- michael.rubin@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP & Reuben J. Stob -- reuben.stob@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins LLP.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Coyle Suit in District of Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applied
Underwriters, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Coyle Trucking,
Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Applied
Underwriters, Inc.; Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance
Company, Inc.; Continental Indemnity Company; Applied Risk
Services, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00258-JMG-CRZ
(D. Neb., June 8, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
John M. Gerrard.

Coyle Trucking is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Aaron L. Peskin, Esq.
          FERRARA LAW FIRM
          224 West State Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 571 3738
          Facsimile: (609) 571 7440
          E-mail: aaron@ferraralawgp.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 3633
          E-mail: awf@chimicles.com
                  bfj@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Brian T. McKernan, Esq.
          MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM
          1601 Dodge Street
          Suite 3700, First National Tower
          Omaha, NE 68102-1627
          Telephone: (402) 341 3070
          Facsimile: (402) 341 0216
          E-mail: bmckernan@mcgrathnorth.com

               - and -

          Ralph P. Ferrara, Esq.
          FERRARA LAW FIRM
          224 West State Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 571 3738
          Facsimile: (609) 571 7440
          E-mail: ralph@ferraralawgp.com

               - and -

          Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
          CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 3633
          E-mail: zpb@chimicles.com


AXON ENTERPRISE: Faces "Richey" Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Axon Enterprise,
Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Richey, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Axon Enterprise,
Inc. formerly d/b/a Taser International, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-03751-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2018).

Axon is a Scottsdale, Arizona-based company which develops
technology and weapons products for law enforcement and
civilians. Its flagship product and former namesake is Taser, a
line of electroshock weapons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
   Andrus Anderson LLP
   155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 986-1400
   Fax: (415) 986-1474
   Email: lori@andrusanderson.com


BALTIC TRADING: Dismissal of FAC in Stockholders' Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the judgment of Supreme Court, New York
County, granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned IN RE BALTIC
TRADING STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, JUSTIN WILSON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BALTIC TRADING, LTD. ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents, 6398, 651241/15 (N.Y. App. Div.).

The Plaintiffs allege that defendant Genco Shipping & Trading
Ltd., the controlling shareholder of defendant Baltic Trading
Ltd., acquired the minority interest in Baltic (the merger) for
inadequate consideration. They assert breach of fiduciary duty
against Genco and the Baltic Special Committee formed to consider
the merger.

The Plaintiffs contend that this merger between a controlling
stockholder and its corporate subsidiary should be evaluated
under the heightened entire fairness standard rather than the
business judgment rule, because the defendants cannot satisfy the
requirements laid down in Kahn v M & F Worldwide Corp. (88 A.3d
635, 644-645 [Del 2014])(MFW) for the business judgment rule to
apply. One of these requirements is that the controller
conditions the procession of the transaction on the approval of
both a Special Committee and a majority of the minority
stockholders.

The second MFW requirement for business judgment review is that
the Special Committee is independent. The Plaintiffs' allegation
that Special Committee member Edward Terino was not independent
due to his business deal with defendant Peter C. Georgiopoulos,
the chairman of both Genco and Baltic, seven years before the
merger at issue is insufficient.

The third MFW requirement for business judgment review is that
the Special Committee is empowered to freely select its own
advisors and say no definitively. Baltic's Special Committee
satisfied this condition.

The fourth MFW requirement is that the Special Committee meets
its duty of care in negotiating a fair price. To establish that
the committee did not meet this duty, the complaint must allege
facts from which it can reasonably be inferred that the directors
were grossly negligent.

The sixth MFW requirement is that there is no coercion of the
minority. Plaintiffs contend that the minority (Baltic
shareholders other than Genco) was coerced because it included
large Baltic shareholders that were also among the largest Genco
shareholders, and one of those shareholders had agreed to vote
for the merger. This argument is unavailing, voting agreement
locking up 27% of the vote in favor of the proposed merger, did
not appear impermissibly coercive.

Since the MFW requirements have been satisfied, and the
plaintiffs have not pleaded a claim of waste the court correctly
dismissed the first and second causes of action (breach of
fiduciary duty against the Baltic Special Committee and Genco,
respectively). The third cause of action (aiding and abetting the
Special Committee's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty) was
correctly dismissed due to the lack of a breach of fiduciary
duty.

A full-text copy of the N.Y. App. Div.'s April 26, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yamqjbay from Leagle.com.

Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, New York (Kent A. Bronson -
- kbronson@milberg.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (Aaron Rubinstein --
aaron.rubinstein@arnoldporter.com -- of counsel), for Baltic
Trading Ltd., Basil G. Mavroleon, Harry A. Perrin, Edward Terino
and George Wood, respondents.

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Alan R. Friedman -
- afriedman@kramerlevin.com -- of counsel), for Peter C.
Georgiopoulos, respondent.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York (Alan J. Stone --
astone@milbank.com -- of counsel), for Genco Shipping & Trading
Ltd. and Poseidon Merger Sub Ltd., respondents.


BANK OF AMERICA: Culpepper Seeks to Certify Class of Specialists
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled AILEEN CULPEPPER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
3:17-cv-00264-VAB (D. Conn.), seek preliminary certification of a
collective action and permission to issue notice to:

     all Inbound Specialists in Connecticut who have worked for
     Bank of America, N.A. from July 3, 2014 until the date of
     final judgment in this case.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize them to send their
Proposed Notice and Summary Notice to all individuals who have
worked for Defendant as Inbound Specialists during the period
from July 3, 2014, to the present ("Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs").  They further seek an order directing the Defendant
to produce the Social Security number of any Inbound Specialist
if the Plaintiffs' mailings to them are returned to sender as
undeliverable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bJ2VsnBl

Plaintiffs, Aileen Culpepper, Sarena Salmeri, and Michael Weed,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main St., Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Seeks Regular & Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. RIVOTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03843 (N.D. Ill.,
June 1, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons of all earned regular and
overtime pay for all time worked pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manages, controls and
operates customer service call centers within this judicial
district and manages and controls the telephone-based workers who
are the putative class members in this lawsuit. The Defendant
knowingly required and/or permitted Plaintiff, who worked as a
telephone-dedicated employee, and other similarly situated
telephone-dedicated employees, to perform unpaid work before and
after the start and end times of their shifts, including but not
limited to booting up computers, initializing several software
programs, reading company issued emails and instructions, and
completing customer service calls.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726 3400
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com


BEST BUY: Court Won't Certify Class in Battery Life Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned CHAD HERRON, individually, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. BEST BUY STORES, LP, a Virginia limited partnership,
Defendant, No. 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff went to a Best Buy retail store in Folsom,
California, to select and purchase a new laptop computer for his
personal, household, or family use. Each laptop on display
contained a fact tag which represented, among other features, the
battery life for each laptop as being up to a specific number of
hours or fraction thereof. The Plaintiff looked at each fact tag
and decided to purchase the Toshiba Satellite L505 based
substantially on his reliance on the representation that the
battery life for that model was up to 3.32 hours.

The Defendant argues, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's damage
model is not tied to his theory of liability, since it does not
properly assess the price premium due to the allegedly misleading
battery-life statements. The Defendant explains that the
Plaintiff's expert did not use any data for laptops that were
sold without battery life representations in calculating his
price premium  and thus has not studied much less calculated any
relationship between the price of MM07 battery life and the price
of battery life in the but-for world under another unidentified
standard.  In response, the Plaintiff argues that restitution
should be based on measuring the difference between what
consumers were promised and what they actually received, and thus
he used the correct but-for scenario.

Here, the Plaintiff and class members seek restitution based
solely on the overstated battery life. Therefore, the Plaintiff
must provide evidence of a damages model that can determine the
price premium attributable to the Defendant's use of the
allegedly misleading battery-life representations on laptop fact
tags.

Here, the Plaintiff's damage model is fundamentally flawed
because it conflates battery life and battery life
representations. The Plaintiff's model assumes that the
difference in price between two different laptops with two
different battery lives and two different MM07 representations is
the same as the difference in price between the same exact
laptop, in one instance labeled with an MM07 representation and
in another instance labeled according to a more realistic
standard.

For example, in the Plaintiff's view, the price difference
between a four hour laptop and six hour laptop both measured
under the MM07 standard is the same as the price difference
between the same laptop, which is labeled at four hours under the
MM07 standard in one instance and labeled at six hours under a
completely different standard in another instance.

This is a meaningless comparison, the Court says.  The relative
price change between different deceptively labeled laptops does
not infer an absolute market price drop of all MM07-labeled
laptops merely because they are all re-labeled according to a
different battery-life standard. Thus, the Plaintiff's proposed
damage model provides the Court no insight into whether there are
damages because of the representations themselves, and how these
damages would be calculated on a classwide basis.

As the Defendant correctly points out, the proper way to assess
restitution damages is to consider what the economic situation
would have been absent the wrongdoing. To determine this, the
Plaintiff would need to determine what the price premium would be
(if any) as a result of the allegedly deceptive statements
themselves. The Plaintiff would need to demonstrate that a change
in the Defendant's labeling scheme would cause a uniform decrease
in market price for all MM07-labeled laptops. How can the
Plaintiff determine this if he has only compared laptops with the
exact same deceptive statements? Put simply, he cannot.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff has provided no restitution model
that demonstrates that a change in the Defendant's laptop
labeling scheme would cause a change in market price for MM07-
labeled laptops, he has shown no way to determine whether the
true market price of the class's laptops was any different from
the purchase price.

The Plaintiff has failed to present a damages model that is tied
to his theory of liability, as required under. Accordingly,
individualized issues predominate since the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a class-wide basis for calculating damages.
Therefore, the Court declines the Plaintiff's motion to certify a
damages class under Rule 23(b)(3).

Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification with prejudice. The Defendant's Motion to Exclude
or Strike is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9m2swas from Leagle.com.

Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Crystal Lee Matter --
cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law APC, Gene Joseph
Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger
Law, Anne Marie Murphy -- amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre
& McCarthy, LLP, Elaine Wing Ling Yan -- eyan@stonebargerlaw.com
-- Stonebarger Law, APC, Niall P. McCarthy --
nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP &
Richard David Lambert -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com --
Stonebarger Law.

Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman
-- JCasselman@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Michael
Aaron Geibelson -- MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan
LLP.


BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Faces "Baptiste" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bethlehem Landfill
Company. The case is styled as Robin Baptiste and Dexter
Baptiste, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Bethlehem Landfill Company doing business
as: IESI Pa Bethlehem Landfill, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
02691-JFL (E.D. Pa., June 26, 2018).

Bethlehem Landfill Company provides waste management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   KEVIN S. RIECHELSON, Esq.
   KAMENSKY, COHEN & RIECHELSON
   194 SOUTH BROAD STREET
   TRENTON, NJ 07726
   Tel: (609) 394-8585
   Email: kriechelson@kcrlawfirm.com


BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Matteo Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN MATTEO, an individual, for herself and all members of the
putative class, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD RIDES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC709628 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Bird has willfully misclassified
chargers as independent contractors to minimize costs and unduly
maximize profits at the expense of their primary workforce.
Chargers are under the control and direction of Bird in
connection with the performance of their work, perform work that
is part of the usual course of Bird's business, and are not
customarily engaged in an independently established trade,
occupation for business in the same nature of the work performed
for Bird.

Through its unlawful misclassification scheme, Bird avoids the
costs of providing workers compensation to its chargers, denying
them much needed protection in the event of work-related injuries
or illnesses. Bird also unlawfully passes on its operation costs,
in the form of scooter collection, charging, and drop-off costs
to its chargers.

Bird is a dockless electric scooter rental company. To rent a
scooter, users download BIRD'S smartphone app and open the map to
locate a nearby GPS enabled scooter. The user can then unlock the
scooter and ride it.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


BLOOMNATION INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomnation, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Bloomnation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03661
(E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

BloomNation is an American online floral marketplace with about
2,000 florists delivering to nearly 3,000 cities across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Morris" Plaintiffs Can File New Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned Tina Norris, Wendy Loepp, Sally
File Michalak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Blair, LLC, and
Does 1-10, Defendants, No. 16-cv-03954 (SRN/TNL)(D. Minn.), filed
this class and collective action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly-situated current and/or former Telephone Sales
Agents, Customer Service Agents, or other call center employees
(Call Center Agents or CCAs) who perform similar job duties for
Defendants.  As the basis of their claims, the Plaintiffs allege
that they were regularly required to work a substantial amount of
time off-the-clock as part of their jobs as CCAs and were never
compensated for this time. The Plaintiffs seek to recover
allegedly unpaid overtime compensation and other wages.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking certification of the
following class:

     All current and former Telephone Sales Agents, Customer
Service Agents, or other job titles performing similar job duties
employed by Bluestem Brands, Inc. and/or Blair, LLC (Defendants),
at Defendants' call centers in Pennsylvania, at any time in the
last three years, who were not paid for off-the clock work during
their preliminary boot-up time and postliminary call completion
time.

On January 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Tony Leung granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion, finding that
conditional certification was warranted, but only of a more
limited class than the one the Plaintiffs proposed. The
magistrate judge found that for purposes of conditional
certification, the Plaintiffs had shown only that: (1) employees
at the Erie call center but not at the Franklin or Warren call
centers were similarly situated; and (b) that these employees
were subject to a common injury from a common policy with respect
to pre-shift but not post shift work.

With respect to post-shift work, the magistrate judge found that
the Plaintiffs had not shown that the Erie call center employees
shared a common injury related to post-shift work. The magistrate
judge pointed to an official policy of Blair's, which provides
for rounding that ensures post-shift work is paid to the nearest
quarter hour.  Noting that the Fair Labor Standards Act expressly
permits some rounding policies, and that the Defendants had
offered evidence that the Plaintiffs were paid for time not
worked pursuant to Blair's rounding policy, the magistrate judge
concluded that absent sufficient support or allegations that the
rounding policy was improperly used to deprive the Plaintiffs of
appropriate compensation," post-shift work would not be included
in the conditional class.

Thus, the magistrate judge certified the following class:

     All current and former Telephone Sales Agents and Customer
Service Agents employed by Bluestem Brands, Inc. and/or Blair,
LLC, at the call center in Erie, Pennsylvania, at any time in the
last three years, who were not paid for off-the-clock work during
their preliminary boot-up time.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from and an objection to the
January 10 Order.

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
overruled in part and sustained in part the Plaintiffs' Objection
to the magistrate judge's January 10 Order.

There is some disagreement between the parties about whether this
Court should review the magistrate judge's January 10 Order under
a de novo or clear error standard of review. The Plaintiffs argue
that the clearly erroneous standard applies, whereas the
Defendants contend that while some courts have adopted such
deferential standard of review, this Court has held that its
review of a magistrate judge's ruling regarding a conditional
certification is de novo.

A magistrate judge's order on various pre-trial, non-dispositive
matters is reviewed under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law
standard of review. A finding is clearly erroneous' when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.

To proceed with a collective action, the Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that they are similarly situated to their proposed
FLSA class. Determining whether the Plaintiffs are similarly
situated to the proposed class requires a two-step inquiry.

First, the court determines whether the class should be
conditionally certified for notification and discovery purposes.
In this notice stage, the Plaintiffs need only establish a
colorable basis for their claim that the putative class members
were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.
Determination of class status at the notice stage is granted
liberally because the court has minimal evidence for analyzing
the class.

Second, after discovery and typically following a motion to
decertify, courts conduct a more searching inquiry to determine
if the class should be maintained through trial.

Here, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the
specific opt-in forms filed by the Warren and Franklin opt-in
plaintiffs do not provide sufficient information from which this
Court could infer that these employees are similarly situated to
the Erie employees.  To be sure, these forms explicitly state
that the opt-in plaintiffs certify that they know of their right
to join the instant lawsuit, and that the lawsuit is filed on
behalf of individuals who worked off-the-clock work during their
preliminary 'boot up' time and/or postliminary 'call completion'
time and were not paid overtime premiums.

The Court acknowledges that it is plausible to infer that the
plaintiffs who decide to opt-in do so because they presumably are
or were subject to the same allegedly unlawful compensation
practices that are asserted in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the
fact remains that these opt-in forms do not contain any factual
information tending to show that the opt-in plaintiffs were also
uncompensated for off-the-clock work under circumstances similar
to those of the named Plaintiffs.

Relying on these specific opt-in forms, standing alone, to
conditionally certify a class would come dangerously close to
eviscerating the requirement that the plaintiffs offer at least
some evidence, however preliminary, to support their contention
that members of the putative class are similarly situated.

To be clear, this Court is not requiring the Plaintiffs to
conduct full-blown discovery at this stage, and does not read the
magistrate judge's January 10 Order as imposing an impermissible
discovery requirement. Rather, what is required is some
affirmative evidence that Warren and Franklin employees were
required to perform off-the-clock work that went uncompensated
under the same or substantially similar policy as the employees
at the Erie call center.

In sum, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the
Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied in part. However, the Court's
conclusion is subject to an important caveat: although the Court
anticipates, in light of the present record, that the Plaintiffs
are unlikely to ultimately present evidence of a company-wide
policy sufficient to warrant inclusion of the Warren and Franklin
CCAs in the conditionally-certified class, the Court will give
the Plaintiffs an opportunity to present such evidence. The Court
is not convinced that filing different lawsuits and moving to
consolidate the actions is the best path forward. The Plaintiffs
will therefore be permitted to file a renewed motion for
conditional certification in the event that they obtain and file
at least some evidence to sustain their burden of establishing
that employees at the Franklin and Warren call centers were
subject to the same unwritten policy as that alleged by the Erie
employees.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Objection is overruled in part and
sustained in part. The Objection is sustained only to permit the
Plaintiffs to file a motion to add the Warren and Franklin call
centers to the conditionally-certified class, provided that their
new motion addresses the evidentiary deficiencies described in
this Order. In all other respects, the Plaintiffs' Objection is
overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7nxbm22 from Leagle.com.

Tina Norris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Wendy Loepp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sally Michalak, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jacob Robert Rusch -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker
PLLC & Molly E. Nephew, Johnson Becker PLLC.

Bluestem Brands, Inc. & Blair, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Andrew B. Murphy -- andrew.murphy@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP & Samantha M. Rollins --
samantha.rollins@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro
hac vice.


BRAND ENERGY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Swoboda Says
-------------------------------------------------------
LUKE SWOBODA, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRAND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; BRAND ENERGY SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, the
Defendant, Case No. BC708847 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018),
seeks unpaid wages and interest for unpaid work time, remedies
for missed meal periods, remedies for missed rest periods,
waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for
failure to timely pay employees, equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Brand Energy provides scaffolding services. The Company offers
coatings, insulation, fireproofing, abrasive blasting,
refractory, and formwork services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari E. Moss, Esq.
          Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 982 2984
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0389
          E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com
                  ari@mossbollinger.com
                  jeremy@mossbollinger.com

               - and -

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO LAW CORP.
          10573 West Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310)235-2350
          E-mail: ira@spirolawcorp.com


BROWNIE BRITTLE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brownie Brittle,
LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Brownie Brittle, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03665 (E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Brownie Brittle LLC was founded in 2013. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BURGER KING: Gesten's Motion to Seal Granted; Cert. Bid Stricken
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order in the lawsuit
styled RYAN D. GESTEN v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-
cv-20450-CMA (S.D. Fla.):

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      Unopposed Motion to File Unredacted Version of Plaintiff's
      Motion for Class Certification and Certain Accompanying
      Documents Under Seal;

   2. striking the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
      The Plaintiff had until June 18 to re-file his motion for
      class certification publicly, only leaving redacted
      information consistent with this Order; and

   3. ruling that this Order shall not be filed under seal.

The Court agrees that the Plaintiff's credit card account number
is confidential information and is not necessary for a decision
on the Motion for Class Certification.  The fact credit card
account information was disclosed at all, and not the specific
numbers, is relevant, Judge Altonaga states.  The Plaintiff's
credit card information, thus, may remain redacted, Judge
Altonaga opines.

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


C & S OILFIELD: Court Conditionally Certifies "Olivas" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A.J. OLIVAS, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C & S OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC;
DEWEY COFFMAN AND BRETT COFFMAN, Defendants, Case No. CIV 17-0022
JB\CG (D. N.M.), Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional
Certification, filed April 11, 2017.

In the Complaint, Olivas alleges that C&S Oilfield did not pay
him or other workers overtime pay.  He brings a class action
under rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
C&S Oilfield's alleged violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.  He also brings a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
against Oilfield Services.

In the Defendants' Answer to Collective and Class Action
Complaint, filed March 29, 2017, C&S Oilfield asserts several
affirmative defenses: (i) Olivas and the putative class have
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (ii) it
paid its workers what they were owed, and it acted in good faith
to comply with and in fact did not violate applicable law; (iii)
Olivas' action should not be a collective or class action; (iv)
Olivas is not similarly situated with the putative class members;
(v) any alleged violation would be subject to the de minimus
doctrine; (vi) Olivas and the proposed class did not work more
than forty hours during any week; (v) Olivas and the proposed
class have failed to mitigate their damages; (vi) it is entitled
to set off and/or credit for any amounts earned in mitigation;
(vii) it had no knowledge or reason to know that Olivas and the
putative class worked in excess of forty hours per week; (viii)
the statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches bars
some or all of the claims against it; (ix) if Olivas and the
putative class are entitled to overtime pay, they would be
entitled to overtime premium only; and (x) Olivas lacks standing.

In the Notice Motion, Olivas asks that the Court permit Olivas to
issue a notice to a limited group of the Defendants' current and
former employees so that they can decide whether to opt in to
Olivas' collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Olivas defines the target group as all field personnel employed
by the Defendants over the last three years who received pay on a
salary basis.  This Definition includes, but is not limited to,
positions referred to by the Defendants as field hands, lead
hands, water transfer technicians, crew leaders, laborers,
crewmembers, tank hands, and team leaders.

Olivas asserts that, for a court to permit a plaintiff to send
out a FLSA collective action notice, a plaintiff needs to make
substantial allegations or to provide some factual support that
there is a basis for a collective action.  Olivas argues he has
met that standard by providing six sworn statements from him and
other C&S Oilfield employees who aver that they and others
performed similar work as Olivas performed and were also not paid
for overtime.  He also asks the Court to order C&S Oilfield to
provide to Olivas the names and contact information for putative
class members.

C&S Oilfield argues that Olivas' proposed class is too broad,
because it disregards the duties and level of responsibility of
the various job titles and positions as well as the location
where such work was performed.  It notes that Olivas' affidavits
feature sworn statements from lead hands, a tank hand, a hand,
and a water transfer technician, but there are no sworn
statements or other evidence showing that crew leaders, laborers,
crew members, and team leaders are similarly situated to Olivas.
It also argues that Olivas' request for workers' names and
contact information is too broad, and that it should only be
required to provide that information for workers who performed
the same jobs as Olivas and the workers who provided affidavits.

Judge Browning concludes that Olivas' allegations and the
proposed class members' affidavits establish that he and the
proposed class members are similarly situated.  Accordingly, he
grants the Notice Motion and authorizes Olivas to notify the
proposed class of his collective action.

The Judge finds that Olivas makes substantial allegations that
the proposed class members are each victims of a single employer
policy.  Olivas also makes substantial allegations that he and
other C&S Oilfield workers are employees with similar positions.
In light of conditional certification's lenient standard, Olivas'
allegations that C&S Oilfield systematically denied overtime pay
to its field personnel, and the workers' sworn statements that
field personnel performed similar tasks and were denied overtime
pay, the Judge concludes that Olivas has provided substantial
allegations that his proposed class members are similarly
situated.

The Judge also finds that the proposed class is not too broad.
C&S Oilfield does not give the Court sound reason to conclude
that Olivas has failed to meet the lenient standard of providing
substantial evidence that field personnel are similarly situated.

C&S Oilfield also argues that Olivas' request for a list of names
and contact information for potential class members is too broad.
It argues that, if the Court conditionally certifies the class
and orders C&S Oilfield to provide employee names and contact
information, it should do so only for the workers who held the
same job titles as the affiants did, but not for Field Hands,
Crew Leaders, Laborers, Crewmembers, or Team Leaders.

Here, the Judge stated there is no concern that Olivas requests a
list of field personnel to find people to solicit, because Olivas
has provided evidence that many workers are interested in joining
the action.  With the Notice Motion, Olivas provides affidavits
from five other workers stating that C&S Oilfield did not pay
them overtime for similar work.  Meanwhile, 26 workers have
already consented to be party Plaintiffs in this action.
Consequently, Olivas' request for field personnel names and
contact information is proper, because he has already identified
many party Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Browning granted the the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional
Certification, filed April 11, 2017; and entered the Order
Granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification, filed Jan. 25, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/cfjHW7 from Leagle.com.

A.J. Olivas, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Derek Braziel --
jdbraziel@l-b-law.com -- Lee & Braziel LLP, Travis Andrew Gasper,
Lee & Braziel, LLP & Jack L. Siegel -- Jack@siegellawgroup.biz --
Siegel Law Group PLLC.

C & S Oilfield Services, LLC, Dewey Coffman, individually & Brett
Coffman, individually, Defendants, represented by Clara B. Burns
-- clara.burns@kempsmith.com -- Kemp Smith LLP.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter
Communications, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Charter Communications, Inc. doing business as: Spectrum,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05814-RWS (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications
company that offers its services to consumers and businesses
under the branding of Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Certification of Class Sought in Chicagoans Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHICAGOANS FOR AN END TO
THE GANG DATABASE: BLACK YOUTH PROJECT 100 CHICAGO, BLOCKS
TOGETHER, BRIGHTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, LATINO UNION,
MIJENTE, and ORGANIZED COMMUNITIES AGAINST DEPORTATION, as well
as DONTA LUCAS, JONATHAN WARNER, LESTER COOPER, and LUIS PEDROTE-
SALINAS, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons v. CITY OF CHICAGO, SUPERINTENDENT EDDIE
JOHNSON, and CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS MICHAEL TOMASO (#6404),
MICHAEL GOLDEN (#15478), PETER TOLEDO (#2105), JOHN DOES 1-4, and
JANE DOES 1-2, Case No. 1:18-cv-04242 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court
to enter an order that the case may be maintained as a class
action seeking solely equitable relief on behalf of:

     all persons who currently are or in the future will be
     included in the Chicago Police Department's Gang Database.

The Plaintiffs also seek relief on behalf of a sub-class of the
Black and Latinx members of the larger class.  If the Defendants
oppose class certification, the Plaintiffs will move for class
discovery in order to fully develop the facts relating to
certification.  The Plaintiffs will also move for an evidentiary
hearing on the issue of certification at which they anticipate
presenting live testimony from experts and other relevant
witnesses.

The lawsuit is brought for injunctive relief under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Illinois Civil Rights Act based on
the Plaintiffs' contention that the City of Chicago and the
Chicago Police Department use and maintain a Gang Database of all
suspected gang members in the City of Chicago that is arbitrary,
discriminatory, over-inclusive, and error-ridden.  The claims
arise from alleged CPD written and unwritten policies, practices
and procedures which are deeply rooted in the Department.  The
Plaintiffs contend that CPD has maintained a version of the
challenged policies, practices and procedures for at least 20
years.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IPc0xANd

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          Vanessa del Valle, Esq.
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW
          375 E. Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 503-2492
          E-mail: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu
                  vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Brendan Shiller, Esq.
          Chris Bergin, Esq.
          Tia Haywood, Esq.
          SHILLER PREYAR LLC
          601 S. California Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60612
          Telephone: (312) 226-4590
          E-mail: brendan@shillerpreyar.com
                  chris@shillerpreyar.com
                  Thaywood4u@gmail.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Homsy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICERS OF ELIZABETH A. HOMSY
          2506 N. Clark Street, Suite 286
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (773) 988-3486

               - and -

          Joey L. Mogul, Esq.
          PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE
          1180 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (773) 235-0070
          E-mail: joeymogul@aol.com


CINTAS CORPORATION: Cassingham's Bid to Certify Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman terminated as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion for Pre-Discovery Conditional Class Certification in the
lawsuit titled MARK CASSINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, Case No.
5:17-cv-05014-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Freeman also terminated as moot the Defendant's Motion for
Stay.  The hearing on the Defendant's Motion for Stay scheduled
for July 12, 2018, is vacated and the parties shall file their
stipulation on or before June 26, 2018.

According to the order, the parties filed a notice stating that
they have agreed to arbitrate certain claims and stay the
Plaintiff's PAGA claim pending the arbitration.  The parties
state that they will file a stipulation and proposed order on or
before June 26, 2018.

In addition, the parties agree that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Pre-Discovery Conditional Class Certification and the Defendant's
Motion for Stay are moot based on the parties' agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ALlDKq3o


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05811 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. engages in the
regulated electric, gas, and steam delivery businesses in the
United States. The company offers electric service to
approximately 3.4 million customers in New York City and
Westchester County; and delivers gas to approximately 1.1 million
customers in Manhattan, the Bronx, parts of Queens, and
Westchester County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COREPOWER YOGA: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Barnard" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAUNA BARNARD, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, all other aggrieved employees,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. COREPOWER YOGA
LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03861 (HSG) (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California,

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with
respect to the Plaintiff's Motions, along with the oral argument
presented during the final fairness hearing held on Feb. 15,
2018, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, and granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Fees and Costs in an Order entered Feb. 21, 2018.

Now, the Judge entered Judgment.  He approved the settlement
amount of $1.4 million, including payments of attorneys' fees in
the amount of $420,000; costs in the amount of $19,864.77; claims
administration fees in the amount of $12,878; and an incentive
fee for the named Plaintiff in the amount of $8,000.  He
dismissed with prejudice the Litigation without costs to any
Party, other than as specified in the Agreement and Order.

In consideration of the Class Settlement Amount, and for other
good and valuable consideration, each of the participating
Settlement Class Members shall, by operation of the Judgment,
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged all settled claims against CorePower Yoga in
accordance with Sections 22, 23 and 53 of the Agreement.  The
Judgement is the Final Judgment in the suit as to all Settlement
Class Members' Released Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/ZXxHdJ from Leagle.com.

Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Hawkes --
dhawkes@bkflaw.com -- Blanchard Krasner French & Derek John Emge
-- derek@emgelawfirm.com -- The Emge Firm LLP.

CorePower Yoga LLC, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Philippe Alexandre Lebel -- philippe.lebel@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Valerie Dutton Kahn --
valerie_kahn@ca9.uscourts.gov -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP, Ramon
Andres Miyar -- ramon.miyar@dbr.xom -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
& Cheryl D. Orr -- cheryl.orr@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP.


CRUNCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Eacret & Merritt Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN EACRET and JONATHAN KENT MERRITT, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRUNCH,
LLC and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-567322 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 15, 2018), alleges that Defendants forced
Plaintiffs and Class members to work off the clock and violated
the California overtime wage laws.

According to the complaint, Eacret is currently employed by
Defendants and throughout his employment with Defendants, was a
non-exempt employee working in the position of personal trainer
and as such he should have been, and should be, paid for all
hours worked. Merritt is no longer employed by Defendant. Merritt
was a non-exempt employee working in the position of personal
trainer. Merritt was not paid for all hours worked, was told to
clock-out from work while he continued to suffer and provide
benefits to Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashwin Ladva, Esq.
          LADVA LAW FIRM
          530 Jackson Street, 2nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 296 8844
          Facsimile: (415) 296 8845


CRYSTAL MORONEY: Faces "Ducreay" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of
Crystal Moroney, PC. The lawsuit is captioned as Masika Ducreay,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney,
PC, Crystal Moroney, and John Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-04882-JFK (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2018).

LOCM is an all-woman owned, operated, and managed law firm,
comprised of professional attorneys, legal assistants and support
professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abel Luc Pierre, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ABEL L. PIERRE, PC
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 766 3323
          E-mail: abel@apierrelaw.com


CSC HOLDINGS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSC Holdings, LLC doing
business as: Optimum, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05813 (S.D.
N.Y., June 27, 2018).

CSC Holdings LLC operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides telecommunications and
entertainment services. CSC Holdings offers pay-per-view movies
and events, video on demand, and high-speed data services
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISCOVER BANK: Faces "Therieau" Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discover Bank. The
case is styled as Clare B. Therieau o/b/o herself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Discover Bank, Defendant, Case
No. 8:18-cv-01537-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2018).

Discover Bank operates an online-only banking service that offers
a checking account, savings accounts, money market accounts, and
retirement products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian Lucas Shrader, Esq.
   Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
   612 W Bay St
   Tampa, FL 33606-2704
   Tel: (813) 360-1529
   Fax: (813) 336-0832
   Email: bshrader@dbllawyers.com

      - and -

   Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
   Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
   612 W Bay St
   Tampa, FL 33606-2704
   Tel: (813) 360-1529
   Fax: (813) 336-0832
   Email: gcentrone@dbllawyers.com

      - and -

   Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center, PA
   367 Commerce Ct
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Fax: (651) 704-0907


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Faces "Arnaud" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor's Associates
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Arnaud, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doctor's Associates
Inc. doing business as: Subway, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03703 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018).

Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as SUBWAY, operates a
chain of quick service restaurants. The Company offers
sandwiches, salads, sides, fresh breads, veggies, toppings,
desserts, cookies, drinks, and beverages. SUBWAY serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


DR. PEPPER: Ct. Denies Intervention in Canada Dry Ginger Ale Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, denied the Motion to Intervene and
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay or Transfer
Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule and suggestions in support
filed by Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell and Robin Dale (Proposed
Intervenors) in the case captioned ARNOLD E. WEBB, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. DR.
PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., DR. PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC.,
Defendants, No. 4:17-00624-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that the
Defendants falsely advertised Canada Dry Ginger Ale (Product) as
being Made from Real Ginger when the Product does not contain a
detectable amount of ginger (Webb action). The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act in addition to common law allegations of breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and
quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. The Plaintiff seeks
to represent a nationwide class as well as a Missouri subclass.

On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who
has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.

Courts apply several factors to determine timeliness: (1) the
extent the litigation has progressed at the time of the motion to
intervene; (2) the prospective intervenor's knowledge of the
litigation; (3) the reason for delay in seeking intervention; and
(4) whether the delay in seeking intervention may prejudice the
existing parties.

The Proposed Intervenors argue the Webb action had not progressed
substantially when the Motion to Intervene was filed because the
Defendants have not yet answered and a motion to dismiss is still
pending. The Plaintiff counters that the Webb action had
progressed significantly at the time the Motion to Intervene was
filed because by that time, a motion to dismiss had been filed, a
scheduling order and discovery plan had been filed, parties had
exchanged discovery, a protective order had been filed, and the
parties had engaged in court-ordered mediation. The Court finds
this factor could weigh in favor of either party and is thus,
neutral.

The Proposed Intervenors argue the notice provided was inadequate
because the notice was placed in single lines of text in lengthy
discovery documents, and neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants
directed the Proposed Intervenors' attention to the Webb action's
existence. The Court finds that the Proposed Intervenors were
first given adequate notice of the existence of the Webb action
by the Defendants' disclosure in their July 31, 2017 discovery
response.

The Proposed Intervenors concede that they overlooked the
disclosure of the Webb action during the exchange of documents
from July 2017 through September 2017 between themselves and the
Defendants. The Proposed Intervenors also argue the delay was
caused by the failure of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to
adequately notify the Proposed Intervenors of the Webb action.
The Court finds this reasoning unpersuasive. The Proposed
Intervenors were given adequate notice of the Webb action on July
31, 2017, and this oversight is not sufficient to excuse the
delay.

After reviewing the parties' arguments addressing prejudice in
the permissive intervention analysis, the Court finds the
Proposed Intervenors' delay in seeking intervention would
prejudice the existing parties.

Based on all of the circumstances, and in considering the
specific factors, the Court finds the Motion to Intervene is not
timely.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) provides for permissive intervention
by a party which has a claim or defense that shares with the main
action a common question of law or fact. The Proposed Intervenors
contend that common questions of law and fact exist because both
cases involve the same Defendant.

The central issue in both is whether the Defendants engaged in
false and misleading business practices with respect to the
marketing, labeling, and sale of the Defendants' soft drinks.
Finally, although the Fitzhenry-Russell action involves several
of the Defendants' products, both the Webb and Fitzhenry-Russell
actions involve the Product, Canada Dry Ginger Ale. Accordingly,
both actions share common questions of law or fact.

The Court finds that, first, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are
not prejudiced by the fact that a federal court outside of
Missouri would be addressing Missouri state law claims.  Both
actions contain similar issues; therefore, the Northern District
of California can sufficiently address the claims and defenses at
issue in the Webb action.

Next, the Court is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's argument that
a stay would cause witnesses' memories to fade.  However, the
Court finds the Plaintiff and the Defendants are prejudiced.
First, the Court finds merit in the Plaintiff's concern that the
Proposed Intervenors do not seek to litigate and only seek
intervention to stay, transfer, or dismiss the Webb action.

Next, the existing parties may be prejudiced if permissive
intervention is granted and the Webb action is transferred to
California due the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-
Myers where the Supreme Court held the California court did not
have specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant with
respect to non-resident Plaintiff's claims because the defendant
did not have sufficient contacts with California. 137 S. Ct at
1781-1782.  While the Fitzhenry-Russell Court has already
considered and determined Bristol-Myers did not apply to putative
class actions, courts have not interpreted Bristol-Myers
uniformly concerning its application to putative class actions.

Thus, while it is uncontested that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants, is it unsettled if the Northern
District of California would have personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants with respect to claims raised in the Webb action.
Accordingly, after considering the parties' arguments, the Court
finds intervention would prejudice the existing parties.

To demonstrate Article III standing, the movant must allege facts
showing each of the following elements: (1) an injury in fact
that is concrete, particularized, and either actual or imminent
if the Motion to Intervene is denied; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the defendant's conduct and (3) a favorable court
decision will likely redress the injury.

The issue of Article III standing is first raised by the
Plaintiff in response to Proposed Intervenors' Motion to
Intervene. The Plaintiff argues that the Proposed Intervenors do
not have standing because they will not suffer a concrete and
particular injury if the Motion to Intervene is denied. In their
reply brief, the Proposed Intervenors claim they easily meet the
standing requirements because they have standing for the same
reasons the Plaintiff has standing. The Proposed Intervenors
argue they would be members of the Plaintiff's asserted
nationwide class.

In their briefing, the Plaintiff confuses what is required for
the injury prong of the Article III standing requirement. The
Proposed Intervenors do not have to prove they would be injured
if the Court would not allow them to intervene. Instead, the
Proposed Intervenors only need demonstrate that they meet the
elements of Article III standing. Here, Proposed Intervenors'
injury, traceability, and redressability aspects are similar to
the Plaintiff's. As the Court has already determined in its Order
on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, these aspects meet the
elements for standing.

Because the Court finds that permissive intervention is
inappropriate, the Court need not address, and will not grant,
the Proposed Intervenors' request to dismiss, transfer, or stay
this case.

The Court finds that permissive intervention is inappropriate
because the Motion to Intervene is untimely and intervention
would unduly prejudice the existing parties. The Court will not
allow the Proposed Intervenors to permissively intervene for the
limited purpose of seeking to dismiss, stay, or transfer this
action. Consequently, the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to
Intervene and Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay
or Transfer this Action Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8e2oe9s from Leagle.com.

Arnold E Webb, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali, pro hac
vice, Timothy J. Peter, pro hac vice & Tim Eugene Dollar, Dollar,
Burns & Becker.

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

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


DRILFORMANCE LLC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Kitagawa"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASEY KITAGAWA and BRANDON SHELDON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DRILFORMANCE, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. H-17-726 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted
Drilformance's motion for summary judgment and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Casey Kitagawa and Sheldon, the named Plaintiffs in the putative
class action, work for Drilformance as applications engineers.
Drilformance designs, manufactures, and rents drill bits to
companies in the oil and gas industry.  The Plaintiffs, salaried
employees, allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), based on a 10% across-the-board salary reduction.

Oil prices dropped in 2015, and so did drilling operations
throughout the industry.  The demand for drill bits also dropped.
Drilformance's revenue followed suit, dropping 80 between
December 2014 and June 2016.

In June 2015, Haley Kitagawa, Drilformance's global-operations
director, sent an email to all Drilformance employees announcing
changes to Drilformance's human-resources policies based on the
market downturn.  This policy reduced the Plaintiffs' salaries by
10%.  Although the email stated that all employees would receive
a furlough day every other week, the Plaintiffs allege that they
were not able to take the furlough days, and instead continued to
work their regular schedules.  They also allege that Drilformance
did not ensure that employees refrained from working on the
furlough day.

The parties agree on the material facts and cross-moved for
summary judgment on the effect of the salary reduction.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the salary reduction removed them from the
status of salaried professional employees, exempt from the FLSA's
overtime requirements.  Drilformance seeks summary judgment that
the Plaintiffs remained exempt because the prospective salary
reduction based on the economic downturn did not violate the
Department of Labor's salary-basis regulation, and did not change
the Plaintiffs' exempt status.

Because the salary reduction was prospective and based on a
downturn in the oil market and the company's finances, Judge
Rosenthal finds that Drilformance did not violate Section
541.602's salary-basis requirement.  He also finds that even
though the Plaintiffs' salaries were reduced without a
corresponding reduction in their work schedule, the salary
reduction was based on an economic slowdown and did not require a
schedule reduction to maintain their overtime exemption.

Lastly, the Judge finds there is no record evidence showing that
the salary reduction was a sham, or that reductions were so
frequent that the salaries were the functional equivalent of an
hourly wage or were designed to circumvent the salary-basis
requirement.  Even though the salary reduction did not correspond
with a reduction in the Plaintiffs' work schedules, it was bona
fide.

For these reasons, Judge Rosenthal granted Drilformance's motion
for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/RBMTJv from Leagle.com.

Casey Kitagawa & Brandon Sheldon, Plaintiffs, represented by
Warren A. Berlanga -- wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com -- Wyly & Cook,
PLLC & Kelly Earl Cook -- kcook@wylycooklaw.com -- Wyly & Cook,
PLLC.

Drilformance, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Harvey --
mharvey@munsch.com -- Munsch Hardt Kopf Harr PC.


DUMBO PIZZA: Faces "Tepi" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dumbo Pizza Inc.
The case is styled as Celestino Romero Tepi, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dumbo Pizza
Inc. doing business as: Front Street Pizza, Salvatore Leonardi,
Larry Leonardi and Valentino Leonardi, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03664 (E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Dumbo Pizza Inc. is located at 80 Front St in Brooklyn, NY
11201.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EDEN CREAMERY: Underfills Ice Cream Pint, Kamal & Neely Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
YOUSSIF KAMAL, and GILLIAN NEELY, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EDEN
CREAMERY, LLC, dba HALO TOP CREAMERY, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01298-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal., June 15, 2018), alleges that
Halo Top knew it is short-changing its customers by under-filling
its pint containers, but refuses to do anything about it.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class
unknowingly paid for a full pint of Halo Top ice cream but did
not receive a full pint of Halo Top ice cream. Purchasers of the
premium-priced ice cream simply have no idea how much ice cream
they will get each and every time they buy a Halo Top "pint." And
Halo Top has been doing this for years.

In spite of this practice, Halo Top has become the self-described
"best-selling pint of ice cream in America." Halo Top has
successfully marketed itself as a "guilt-free" ice cream with
extremely low calories and containing other health benefits, such
as protein. As one of the important selling points to consumers,
the number of calories per pint is prominently displayed on the
pint container, generally 280 to 360 calories per pint.

As a result of its low-calorie content, claimed health benefits
and clever social media marketing campaigns, Halo Top has
developed a cult-like following among consumers over the past few
years. According to media reports, by the end of 2017 Halo Top
accounted for more than 5% of the ice cream market, selling more
of its "pints" than Ben & Jerry's and Haagen-Dazs. And like these
competitors, Halo Top charges a premium for its "pints" -- as
much as $6.99 each.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501 6550
          E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com


EDWARD D. JONES: PSLRA Service/Procedures in "Anderson" Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND KEITH CORUM, JESSE
WORTHINGTON, and COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD D.
JONES & CO., L.P.; THE JONES FINANCIAL COMPANIES, L.L.L.P.; EDJ
HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; JAMES D. WEDDLE; PENELOPE PENNINGTON;
DANIEL J. TIMM; KENNETH R. CELLA, JR.; BRETT A. CAMPBELL; KEVIN
D. BASTIEN; NORMAN L. EAKER; VINCENT J. FERRARI; TIMOTHY J.
KIRLEY; JAMES A. TRICARICO, JR.; OLIVE STREET INVESTMENT
ADVISORS, LLC; PASSPORT HOLDINGS, LLC; PASSPORT RESEARCH, LTD;
and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00714-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California entered the parties'
stipulated order regarding service and procedures under Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
complaint in the action, asserting, among other things, claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims under
Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
action is governed by the PSLRA.

Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, as amended
by the PSLRA, motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in
the action and for approval of Lead Counsel are due on May 29,
2018.  It is anticipated that following the Court's ruling, the
appointed Lead Plaintiff will file an amended complaint that
supersedes the pending complaint.

The counsel for the parties agree that to avoid duplicative
effort, unnecessary motion practice, and waste of judicial
resources, there is good cause to provide that the Defendants
need not respond to the pending complaint and will instead
respond to the anticipated subsequent pleading.

The counsel for the Defendants has agreed to accept service of
the complaint on behalf of all the Defendants, provided that no
responsive pleading to the current complaint is required.

The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Mendez granted that
(i) the Defendants accept service of the complaint; (ii) the
Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the pending complaint; (iii) the schedule for filing
an amended complaint and briefing any motions to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be
as follows: (a) the amended complaint will be filed within 60
days of the Court's Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving
the selection of Lead Counsel; (b) the motions to dismiss and
opening briefs in support thereof will be filed within 60 days of
the filing of the amended complaint (c) the opposition will be
due within 60 days of the filing of the motion to dismiss; and
(d) the replies in support of the motions to dismiss will be due
within 45 days of the filing of the opposition briefs; and (iv)
the parties expressly reserve all other rights of any kind.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/leKYo8 from Leagle.com.

Edward Anderson, Raymond Keith Corum, Jesse Worthington & Colleen
Worthington, Plaintiffs, represented by Ivy T. Ngo --
ngoi@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C. & John
Randolph Garner -- jrg@erglaw.net -- Garner Law Office.

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., The Jones Financial Companies, LLLP,
EDJ Holding Company, Inc., James D. Weddle, Penelope Pennington,
Daniel J. Timm, Kenneth R. Cella, Jr., Brett A. Campbell, Kevin
D. Bastien, Norman L. Eaker, Vincent J. Ferrari, Timothy J.
Kirley, James A. Tricarico, Jr., Olive Street Investment
Advisors, LLC, Passport Holdings, LLC & Passport Research, LTD.,
Defendants, represented by Meryl Lyn Young --
myoung@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


EMPIRE INT'L: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire
International, Ltd. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Empire International, Ltd. doing business
as: Empire CLS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03714 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 27, 2018).

Empire International, Ltd. operates in the ground transportation
industry. It provides chauffeured transportation services. The
company also provides customer, multi-profile, and corporate
online services. It operates in Europe, South America, Australia,
Africa, Asia, and Middle Eastern countries. Empire International
was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Norwood, New Jersey.
The company has additional offices in London, England; New York,
New York; Norwood, New Jersey; Atlanta, Georgia; Los Angeles and
San Francisco, California; and a regional sales office in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EOS CCA: Faces "Troyanovsky" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOS CCA. The case
is styled as Maya Troyanovsky, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03677 (E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

EOS CCA, headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, is a provider
of customer care and receivables management services. It is the
U.S. Receivables Management Division of the international EOS
Group based in Hamburg, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Against "Bowen" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sadie M. Curry (Plaintiff) brought a class action case against
defendant and respondent Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business
as Shell Oil Products US (Shell).  Curry's causes of action
included (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to
pay for missed break periods; and (3) unfair business practices.
Curry contends the trial court erred in its finding and by
granting summary judgment.

Shell moved for summary judgment asserting that Curry was not
employed by Shell and therefore her case against Shell failed.
Shell contended it had a business relationship with A.R.S., a
limited liability company, while Curry worked for ARS, but ARS
alone managed and controlled every aspect of its employment
relationship with its gas station employees such as Curry.

Curry opposed Shell's motion for summary judgment. Curry asserted
there were two independent businesses at the service stations:
(1) a convenience store and car wash business owned by ARS, and
(2) a fuel business owned by Shell. Curry contended the fuel
business was the primary business. Curry asserted Shell, through
ARS, exercised control over her wages, hours, and working
conditions.

The trial court found Shell was not Curry's employer and
therefore granted Shell's motion for summary judgment.  Curry
appealed that decision.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Two, affirmed the trial court's judgment granting the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Cal. App. finds that in regard to wages and hours, ARS "was
responsible for hiring, firing, disciplining, training, and
compensating" Curry.  This undisputed fact shows that ARS was
responsible for Curry's wage.  In regard to Curry's working
conditions, ARS maintained the right and ability to assign any
employee to perform tasks.  In other words, Shell could not
direct Curry to perform a particular task, only ARS could do
that.

Further, ARS maintained control over the daily work of its own
employees. Thus, the tasks Curry was made to perform, and the
conditions in which she performed them, were not controlled by
Shell they were controlled by ARS. Accordingly, Shell has met its
burden of establishing there is not a triable issue of fact
concerning Shell being Curry's employer under the wages, hours,
or conditions definition of employer.

The Court concludes Curry's causes of action fail under the
"wages, hours, or conditions" definition of employer.  The Court
also concludes that Curry has failed to meet her burden of
establishing there is a triable issue of fact as to Shell being
Curry's employer based upon the definition of suffering or
permitting Curry to work.  Thus, the Court concludes Curry's
causes of action fail under the suffering or permitting
definition of employer.

Curry worked at two gas stations, one at Via Rancho and another
at Carmel Mountain. The undisputed facts reflect, that as an ARS
station manager, Curry supervised approximately five to seven ARS
cashiers.  Thus, Curry was engaged in the distinct occupation of
an ARS station manager.

While employed by ARS, Curry reported to and took direction from
ARS employees and at times, from the manager of the ARS HR
department. From this evidence it can be inferred that Curry's
job was performed under the principal's direction.  In this case,
the principal was ARS. In regard to Shell providing direction to
Curry, Shell required various tasks be performed by ARS; however,
there is nothing indicating that Shell required Curry be the
person to perform those tasks. It was ARS that required Curry to
perform certain tasks.

Curry worked directly for Shell from May 2001 to March 2003. From
March to July 2003, Curry worked at a gas station. In July, 2003,
Curry was contacted by an ARS employee for the purpose of
recruiting Curry to become the manager of the Via Rancho Station.
It can be inferred from this evidence that skills are needed for
managing a gas station. The evidence that Curry was recruited by
ARS indicates a particular skill set was desired ARS wanted a
person with experience in the field.  Because Shell did not have
input on the hiring process or Curry's job duties, it can be
inferred that Shell did not require a particular skill sets
because Shell did not have input on the tasks performed by a
particular employee.

Curry's job training was provided by ARS. ARS required Curry
attend environmental compliance courses taught by Shell. ARS paid
for Curry's time at the classes. Curry was required to wear a
shirt and a nametag that were purchased by ARS and given to Curry
by ARS. Thus, ARS provided Curry with the information and uniform
necessary to conduct her work.  Therefore, it can be inferred
that Curry's job duties involved tasks such as determining the
amount of fuel in the storage tanks. As a result, Shell provided
some of the equipment for Curry's job, in that Curry performed
tasks related to Shell's fueling equipment.

The MSO contract authorizes Shell to have ARS remove an ARS
employee from a station, but does not permit Shell to terminate
any ARS employee's employment. For example, if Shell requested
Curry be permanently removed from its stations, then ARS could
employ Curry in its offices or assign Curry the off-site task of
driving around checking competing station's gas prices. The
evidence cited by Curry does not create a triable issue of fact
as to whether Shell could terminate Curry's employment because it
does not indicate that Shell could terminate Curry's employment.

When ARS offered Curry the position of manager of the Via Rancho
Station, it offered an annual salary of $32,000. Thus, Curry was
a salaried employee of ARS; she was not paid a project. The
undisputed facts reflect ARS maintained exclusive control over
all payroll for Curry.  Thus, Curry was not paid by Shell.

ARS operated approximately 15 gas stations San Diego County and
employed over 100 people at those stations. Given this undisputed
fact, it can reasonably be inferred that Curry's management of
two gas stations was part of ARS's regular business because ARS's
business involved operating gas stations.  Shell owned
approximately 365 fueling stations in California. There is
nothing indicating Shell employed people at the gas stations.
Thus, Curry's work at the fueling station was not part of Shell's
business. In other words, Shell was not in the business of
operating fueling stations it was in the business of owning real
estate and fuel.

In conclusion, Curry's three causes of action fail because there
is not a triable issue of material fact concerning Shell being
Curry's employer under any of the three legal definitions of
employer. The trial court properly granted summary judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.

The appeals case is captioned SADIE M. CURRY, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent,
No. E065764 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s April 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yct82nts from Leagle.com.

Samuel T. Rees -- STReesESQ@Earthlink.Net -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Reed Smith, Raymond A. Cardozo -- RCardozo@ReedSmith.com -- and
Remy Joseph Kessler -- rkessler@reedsmith.com -- for Defendant
and Respondent.


EXL PETROLEUM: McCoy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXL PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00106 (W.D. Tex., June 15, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Defendant's
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, McCoy and the other company men like
him regularly worked for EXL Petroleum for more than 40 hours
each week. EXL Petroleum improperly classified McCoy and those
similarly situated as independent contractors, paying them a day
rate with no overtime compensation. This practice violates the
overtime requirements of the FLSA.

EXL Petroleum Management, LLC acquires and develops oil and gas
properties. The company was founded in 2014 and is based in
Midland, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Solak, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  jsolak@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


FAMILY FIRST: Ledger Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANNIE LEDGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAMILY FIRST CAREGIVERS, INC. And JIM
NOWAK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01366-DAP (N.D. Ohio,
June 15, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed personal care
services including bathing, cooking, cleaning, dish washing and
other such activities that were customary and usual at each and
every home she worked at. These activities took up the better
part of her day, on a daily basis.

The FLSA and Ohio law required Defendants to pay overtime
compensation to its Home Health Aids. Allegedly, the Defendants
unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation to its Home Health
Aids. The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for
whether, the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class
was entitled to overtime pay under state and/or federal law.

Family First Caregivers is a family owned, senior home care
services business that operates in Ohio's Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain,
Medina and Summit counties.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


FARMERS INSURANCE: Certification UM Purchasers Class Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the trial court's order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned WILLIAM BOWEN,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 105643 (Ohio App.).

Defendant-appellant, Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc.,
challenges the trial court's order certifying a class of
individuals that purchased uninsured motorist coverage from
Farmers between October 1994 and September 1997.

The instant matter is premised on the Ohio Supreme Court's
decision in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d
478, 639 N.E.2d 438 (1994).  In his second amended complaint,
Bowen asserted causes of actions for breach of contract and fraud
relating to Farmers' practice of assessing multiple Uninsured
Motorist (UM) premiums for UM coverage, even after a UM premium
was paid on a first vehicle.

Bowen sought to certify a class as defined as follows: all
persons who purchased automobile insurance from Farmers and paid
premiums identified as paying for UM coverage on more than one
vehicle in the household at any time during the period October
1994 through September 1997.  The trial court granted Bowen's
motion for class certification.

Farmers filed the instant appeal challenging the trial court's
judgment. Farmers assigns three errors for review:

    I. The trial court erred in certifying an overly broad class
consisting entirely of class members whose claims are barred by
the statute of limitations.

   II. The trial court erred by finding that common questions
predominated where an injury-in-fact to each class member cannot
be proven by common evidence.

  III. The trial court erred by finding that common questions
predominated because, if tolling can apply to the class claims,
the trial court failed to consider the highly individualized
inquiries necessary to determine whether each class member's
claim was timely.

Overbroad Class

After reviewing the record, the Ohio App. finds that the
definition of Bowen's class is unambiguous and sufficiently
definite.  In order to determine whether an individual is a
member of the class, the trial court need only look to the
actions or practices of Farmers, rather than the state of mind of
any prospective class members. The definition permits
identification of class members with reasonable effort.

This information, whether an insured paid multiple UM premiums
for UM coverage, could be easily obtained by reviewing Farmers'
business records. As the trial court recognized in its judgment
entry granting Bowen's motion for class certification, a data
expert at Farmers testified that he could create a list of
insureds that falls within Bowen's proposed class definition from
Farmers' records, so the class members are identifiable.

The Court finds that the trial court properly found that Bowen
met the threshold requirement of establishing an identifiable and
unambiguous class. Accordingly, Farmers' first assignment of
error is overruled.

Civ.R. 23(B)(3) Predominance Requirement

Injury-in-Fact Proven By Common Evidence

Farmers maintains that all of the prospective class members were
not damaged by Farmers' practice of charging UM premiums on a
per-vehicle basis post-Martin v. Midwestern Group. In support of
its brief in opposition to Bowen's motion for class
certification, Farmers submitted an expert report from actuary
Paul Anderson.
The appellate court rejected Grange Mutual's disparate damages
argument, finding that both the named plaintiffs' claims and the
class members' claims were predicated upon common evidence
relating to Grange Mutual's failure to disclose legal
information, thereby allowing Grange Mutual to charge additional
premiums for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

In the instant matter, Bowen's and the class members' fraud claim
is predicated upon common evidence relating to Farmers'
misrepresentations about the nature of the multiple UM premiums
and/or the nature and extent of UM coverage, thereby allowing
Farmers to charge additional UM premiums. Farmers' damages
argument is based on various presumptions of fact, such as the
presumption that post-Martin v. Midwestern Group, UM premiums
would have been determined by using persons rather than vehicles
as the exposure unit.

Finally, the record reflects that each class members' damages
could be mathematically calculated by determining the multiple UM
premiums paid by the individual class members from October 5,
1994, through September 2, 1997. Accordingly, the trial court
could easily determine the exact amount due to each class member
without requiring each individual class member to present
additional evidence.

Statute of Limitations

In the third assignment of error, Farmers argues that even if the
discovery rule can apply to toll the statute of limitations, the
trial court erred by finding that Bowen satisfied the
predominance requirement because highly individualized inquiries
are necessary to determine whether the class members' claims were
timely.

In support of its argument that the fraud claim is time-barred,
Farmers argues that the discovery rule does not apply because (1)
knowledge of multiple UM premiums, rather than knowledge of the
illegality of these premiums or the Martin v. Midwestern Group
decision triggered the statute of limitations, and (2) Bowen and
the prospective class members knew or should have known about the
multiple UM premiums because they were reflected in the insureds'
declaration sheets.

The trial court explained that Bowen filed his original complaint
well after the four-year statute of limitations had expired. As
such, the trial court recognized that a determination must be
made as to when [he] actually discovered or should have
discovered the fraud. In finding that Bowen satisfied the
superiority requirement, the trial court stated, in relevant
part:

     "For Bowen, the evidence shows that he had actual knowledge
[of the fraud] only a short while before the complaint was filed.
So the issue for Bowen is whether he should have discovered the
fraud more than four years before first filing on March 31, 2009.
When determining whether, through the exercise of reasonable
diligence, a party should have discovered a case of fraud, the
relevant inquiry is whether the facts known would lead a fair and
prudent man, using ordinary care and thoughtfulness, to make
further inquiry. Marks v. KeyBank N.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
84691, 2005-Ohio-769."

After reviewing the record, the Ohio App. cannot say that the
trial court abused its discretion in determining that Bowen
satisfied the predominance requirement under Civ.R. 23(B).

In Lynch v. Dial Fin. Co. of Ohio No. 1, Inc., 101 Ohio App.3d
742, 656 N.E.2d 714 (8th Dist.1995), plaintiffs-appellants filed
an action in April 1992 alleging that the defendants violated the
Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging them for credit accident and
health insurance to secure three loans made between 1976 and
1978.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, in relevant
part, that appellants' claims for statutory damages were barred
by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The trial
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and
appellants appealed to this court.

On appeal, appellants argued that the one-year statute of
limitations should be tolled because they did not discover that
the statute was violated or that they were injured until their
lawyer explained the law to them in December 1991. This court
rejected appellants' argument and held that their claims were
barred by the one-year statute of limitations:

     "In this case, plaintiffs knew or should have known about
the charges for accident and health insurance because they were
itemized on the face of the loan documents which they signed in
the latter 1970s. What plaintiffs discovered seventeen years
later is that their lawyer told them that these charges allegedly
violated R.C. 1321.57. That discovery cannot be used to
circumvent the statute of limitations or limitations would become
meaningless."

The Ohio App. finds no basis upon which to conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion in finding that Bowen satisfied
the predominance requirement under Civ.R. 23(B). Farmers' third
assignment of error is overruled.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, the Ohio App. finds that
the trial court conducted the requisite rigorous analysis in
determining whether Bowen satisfied the prerequisites for class
certification pursuant to Civ.R. 23. Furthermore, the Ohio App.
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying the class in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s April 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb2vjnrz from Leagle.com.

Donald S. Scherzer -- dscherzer@ralaw.com -- Stephen W. Funk --
sfunkWralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A.; Joseph Karnen,
Brian M. Robinson, Attorneys for Appellant.

Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken &
Bernstein Co., L.P.A.; Ronald A. Margolis, Bonezzi, Switzer,
Polito & Hupp, Co., L.P.A., Attorneys for Appellee.


FAYETTE COUNTY: Faces "Arison" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. The case is styled as Miranda Arison, Malcolm Dyer,
Dante Ripley and Charles Smith, Jr., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fayette County,
Pennsylvania, Jeremy Myers, Warden of Fayette County Prison,
James Custer, Angela Zimmerlink, Dave Lohr, Vincent Vicites, Rich
Bower, Scott Abraham and Steve Leskinen in their official
capacities as members of the Fayette County Prison Board,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00845-MPK (W.D. Pa., June 26, 2018).

Fayette County is a county of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.
Fayette County is located in southwestern Pennsylvania, adjacent
to Maryland and West Virginia. As of the 2010 census, the
population was 136,606. Its county seat is Uniontown.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Alexandra T. Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
   Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project
   100 Fifth Ave, Ste 900
   Pittsburgh, Pa 15222
   Tel: (412) 434-6175
   Email: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org

      - and -

   Dylan T. Cowart, Esq.
   247 Fort Pitt Blvd.
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (972) 834-2152
   Email: dcowart@aclupa.org

      - and -

   Kevin M. Eddy, Esq.
   Blank Rome LLP
   501 Grant Street, Suite 805
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 932-2757
   Email: keddy@blankrome.com

      - and -

   Sara Rose, Esq.
   ACLU
   247 Fort Pitt Boulevard
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 681-7864
   Fax: (412) 681-8707
   Email: srose@aclupa.org

      - and -

   Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
   313 Atwood Street
   Pittsburgh, PA 15213
   Tel: (412) 681-7864
   Email: vwalczak@aclupa.org


FINANCIAL ENGINES: Scarantino Balks at Hellman & Friedman Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ENGINES, INC., BLAKE R.
GROSSMAN, JOSEPH A. GRUNDFEST, E. OLENA BERG LACY, ROBERT A.
HURET, HEIDI KUNZ, MICHAEL E. MARTIN, LAWRENCE M. RAFFONE, JOHN
B. SHOVEN, and DAVID B. YOFFIE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00892-UNA (D. Del., June 15, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction ,and in the
event Defendants consummate Proposed Transaction, rescinding it
and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
30, 2018, pursuant to which Financial Engines, Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of Hellman & Friedman, Edelman Financial,
L.P. and Flashdance Merger Sub, Inc.

On April 29, 2018, Financial Engines' Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed
Transaction is approved by Financial Engines' shareholders and
completed, Financial Engines' shareholders will receive $45.00 in
cash for each share of Financial Engines common stock they own.

On June 5, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the Proxy Statement.

Financial Engines, Inc. provides independent technology-enabled
financial advisory, discretionary portfolio management,
personalized investment advice, financial and retirement income
planning, and financial education and guidance services in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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


FLOWERS FOODS: Watson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WATSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF KNOXVILLE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00237 (E.D. Tenn., June 15, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and a class of other similarly
situated hourly, non-exempt employees who worked at Defendant
Flowers Baking Co. of Knoxville, LLC's facility in Knoxville,
Tennessee, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants' policy and practice is to
deny straight time pay and overtime pay to employees working at
their Knoxville bakery. Defendants' failure to pay employees
their earned wages and overtime compensation violates the FLSA
and the state laws of Tennessee.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former
employees:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


FLYING LOCKSMITHS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Flying
Locksmiths, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Flying Locksmiths, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05785 (S.D.
N.Y., June 26, 2018).

The Flying Locksmiths Inc. is an all-inclusive security
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Awarded $74K Costs of Bill in "Daniel"
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Cost of
Bill in the case captioned MARGIE DANIEL, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civ.
No. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.).

After judgment was entered in favor of the defendant following a
jury trial, the defendant submitted a Bill of Costs totaling
$99,406.02 for the costs of subpoenas, transcripts, witness fees,
copies, and related expenses.  The Plaintiffs have filed numerous
objections to the Bill of Costs, arguing that the court should
not award any costs, or in the alternative, reduce or disallow
costs for many of the items listed on the Bill of Costs.

The Plaintiffs' first argument is that the court should exercise
its discretion to deny all costs because of (1) the financial
disparity between the parties, (2) plaintiff Margie Daniel's
limited financial means, (3) the close and difficult questions
presented by the case, and (4) the potential chilling effect on
future litigation if costs are granted.

While the plaintiffs are correct that these are appropriate
factors to examine in determining whether to deny costs, at least
in the context of civil rights litigation, they do not warrant
denial of all costs in this case.

Overall, the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that
costs should not be awarded in this case under the factors listed
in Association of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 593,
and the court finds that the reasons for denying costs are not
sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of
an award. Accordingly, the court will proceed to examine the
plaintiffs' specific challenges to certain items on defendant's
Bill of Costs.

Service of Subpoenas

The Plaintiffs challenge defendant's taxation of costs for
$2,517.25 in fees for 17 subpoenas served by private process
servers, claiming that the costs should be disallowed because the
defendant did not state why these subpoenas were necessary and
did not provide enough detail to justify the amounts charged.  In
response, the defendant states that the subpoenas were required
to obtain the service records for the plaintiffs' vehicles which
were at issue in this case.

Here, the defendant has not shown why the amounts billed for each
subpoena range from $114 to $175, as there is no itemization of
hourly rates or expenses. Rather, the invoices listed for each
subpoena list only the total amount billed for each subpoena.
Because of the lack of greater detail as to these costs, the
court will award $65 in costs per subpoena, equal to the amount
charged by the Marshals Service for one hour of work for service
of process by one Marshal for each of the 17 subpoenas, for a
total of $1,105.

Transcripts and Related Costs

The Plaintiffs next object to awarding costs for the deposition
transcripts of several witnesses who did not testify at trial.
Whether a transcript or deposition is necessary' must be
determined in light of the facts known at the time the expense
was incurred.

Here, taking depositions of the former named plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs' family members, and Ford employees was reasonable at
the time the depositions were taken because they were all
potential witnesses at trial, even though these depositions were
not ultimately used during trial.

Accordingly, the court will award for transcripts and related
expenses, including video depositions - Total: $42,704.54.

The Plaintiffs next challenge the defendant's request for costs
of transcripts for the court's hearings on the defendant's
renewed summary judgment ($199.75), the hearing on the
plaintiffs' class certification and the defendant's motion for
sanctions ($193.60), and two other pre-trial hearings ($85.00 and
$218.25), which the defendant states was necessarily used in
preparing jury instructions and its trial brief. Upon review of
the requested costs and the defendant's supporting materials, the
court agrees that these costs were reasonably incurred in
preparing the defendant's proposed jury instructions and trial
brief, and will award the costs of $696.60 for these hearing
transcripts.

The Plaintiffs next object to the defendant's request for costs
for trial transcripts in the amount of $10,158.80. While the
defendant represents that the daily trial transcripts were
necessarily used for preparing its motion for judgment as a
matter of law, preparing its motion for decertification, and
answering jury questions, the court notes that these motions were
filed before the jury rendered a verdict, and that the defendant
has not explained why any trial transcripts were necessary to
answer any questions from the jury.

The court therefore declines to award defendant costs for trial
transcripts.

Witness Fees

The Plaintiffs next object to defendant's requested costs for
witness fees, which include attendance fees, mileage, tolls, car
rental fees, lodging, subsistence (or meals), parking, and
airfare at depositions and trial. The Plaintiffs do not argue
that costs are not allowed for these types of expenses, with the
exception of car rental fees, but contend that the defendant's
witness expenses are not properly documented or exceed the
amounts permitted under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1821 and 1920(3).

The court also finds that the defendant has properly documented
its costs for trial attendance of witnesses Paul Taylor, Donald
Tandy, Thomas Giapponi, Bruce Strombom, and Robert Pascarella,
with the exception of Tandy's subsistence. However, the
plaintiffs argue, and the defendant does not dispute, that the
applicable GSA hotel rate for Sacramento during trial is $128 per
day, and that the daily hotel rates charged for most of these
witnesses exceeded $128. Thus, the court will reduce the amounts
charged accordingly, and allow trial attendance costs in the
amount of $178.30 for Taylor's hotel, $324.10 for Tandy's hotel,
$316.60 for Giapponi's hotel, $229.86 for Strombom's hotel and
subsistence, and $451.22 for Pascarella's hotel and subsistence.

The court will also allow $40 per day for each day each witness
testified, and will allow the requested amounts for mileage,
tolls, taxis, and parking not included in the hotel expenses
above. However, the court declines to allow costs for Tandy's
subsistence due to failure to document when he incurred the
associated charges for meals.

Having reduced the costs for certain requests for witnesses'
hotel stays, airfare, car rental, and subsistence, the court will
award witness costs for depositions and trial -- in the total
amount of $ 6,129.57.

Exemplification and Photocopy Costs

The Plaintiffs object to the defendant's request for photocopy
costs for courtesy copies of the defendant's motions in limine to
exclude the testimony of Thomas Lepper and Andrew Webb ($644),
the defendant's Reply in support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment ($199), and the defendant's Pretrial Statement
($133.50). These copies were necessarily obtained by the
defendant given the court's rules requiring courtesy copies,
including Local Rule 133(f).

Moreover, the plaintiffs have not provided any authority, and the
court is unaware of any, providing that costs are not recoverable
in connection with a motion where the party seeking costs was a
prevailing party under Rule 54(d)(1) but did not prevail on that
particular motion.

Under the circumstances, the costs billed are reasonable, and the
court will award $976.50 for courtesy copies.

In total, costs of 74,551.48 will be allowed for the defendant
and are taxed against plaintiffs Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe,
Mary Hauser, Donna Glass, and Andrea Duarte, calculated as
follows:

   Subpoenas                          $1,105.00
   Deposition and Related Costs      $42,704.54
   Hearing Transcripts                  $696.60
   Witness Fees                       $6,129.57
   Courtesy Copies                      $976.50
   Models and Animation              $16,093.94
   Trial Binders                      $6,845.33

   TOTAL AWARD                       $74,551.48

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4mzf3p from Leagle.com.

Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass & Andrea
Duarte, Plaintiffs, represented by John B. Thomas --
jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- Hicks Thomas, LLP, Joseph Henry
Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Kelsey McDowell Machado, Hicks Thomas LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany
W. Oldham -- toldham@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
pro hac vice & James Allen Carney, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David M. George, Dykema, pro hac vice, Fred J.
Fresard -- ffresard@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, PLLC, pro hac
vice, James P. Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC, Tamara A. Bush -- tbush@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP,
Brittany J. Mouzourakis -- bmouzourakis@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Janet L. Conigliaro --
jconigliaro@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, John Mark Thomas --
jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, Krista L. Lenart --
klenart@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice & Norman
C. Hile -- nhile@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Goodroad et al. Sue over Defeat Devices in Trucks
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN GOODROAD, JR., RICHARD CASTRO, ALAN FLANDERS, EDWARD
HATTEN, MICHAEL KING, WILLIAM MCKNIGHT, LUTHER "ED" PALMER, DON
RECKER, IVAN TELLEZ, BRIAN URBAN AND CHRISTINA BOUYEA, VALUE
ADDITIVES LLC, AND MICHAEL WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, JAMES HACKETT, MARK FIELDS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT
BOSCH LLC, and VOLKMAR DENNER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
11900-BAF-SDD (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from continuing unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and
unfair business practices involving promotion, sale, and leasing
of trucks equipped with 6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel engines.

Ford markets and sells these vehicles as fuel-efficient,
reliable, with best-in-class performance and significantly
reduced emissions -- a cleaner alternative to the high-polluting
diesels of old. But these diesels are dirty. Like the well-known
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" vehicles, Ford equips these trucks with
an illegal software algorithm -- a "defeat device" -- designed to
cheat federal and state emission testing for oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), thereby deceptively inducing regulators to certify for
sale hundreds of thousands of non-compliant vehicles, and
hundreds of thousands of consumers to buy or lease dirty diesels,
thinking they are clean and emissions compliant.

The Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN].

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Juli Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
          jfarris@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

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


GAINESVILLE LODGE: Faces "Quarterman" Suit in N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gainesville Lodge,
LLC. The case is styled as Lanie Quarterman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gainesville
Lodge, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00120-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 27, 2018).

Gainesville Lodge, LLC is a 2-star hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JESSICA LYNN KERR, Esq.
   200 SE 6TH STREET, SUITE 504
   FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


GEO GROUP: Court Won't Dismiss "Chen" Minimum Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Defendant The GEO Group Inc.'s Motion
for Order of Dismissal Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Join
Required Government Parties in the case captioned CHAO CHEN,
Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.).

GEO operates the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC), a 1,500-bed
detention facility, since 2005, based on a contract with ICE
(GEO-ICE Contract). GEO takes care of immigration detainees
awaiting resolution of immigration matters and relies on
detainees for a wide range of services under the Voluntary Work
Program (VWP) required by the contract. GEO compensates detainees
at $1 per day.

The Plaintiff initiated this action under the theory that the
GEO-ICE Contract at least allows for, if not requires, GEO to
compensate detainees working in the VWP at least the minimum wage
required by with the State Minimum Wage Act (MWA).

Joinder is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, a rule that imposes a
three-step inquiry:

   1. Is the absent party necessary under Rule 19(a)?

   2. If so, is it feasible to order joinder of the absent party?

   3. If joinder is not feasible, is the party indispensable
under Rule 19(b) such that in equity and good conscience the suit
can proceed short of dismissal?

Is ICE a necessary party under Rule 19(a)?

Rule 19(a)(1) provides: "(1) Required Party. A person who is
subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive
the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a
party if: (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord
complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims
an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence
may:(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's
ability to protect the interest; or(ii) leave an existing party
subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or
otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest."

The Defendant argues that complete relief cannot be obtained
among existing parties because the day rate of $1 is fixed by ICE
and cannot be adjusted without ICE's consent. To bolster its
conclusion, the Defendant cites two provisions of the GEO-ICE
Contract, an opinion letter by the Department of Defense, and 8
U.S.C. Section 1555(d).

Next, the Defendant relies on a 1992 opinion letter issued by the
General Counsel to the Department of Defense on the issue of
whether aliens may perform general labor at the Naval Air
Facility, so long as performance is voluntary not unduly
hazardous, and the aliens remain in DHS custody.

Finally, the Defendant cites 8 U.S.C. Section 1555(d), which
provides that congressional appropriations for immigration
service expenses shall be available for payment of payment of
allowances (at such a rate as may be specified from time to time
in the appropriation Act involved) to aliens, while held in
custody for work performed.

In this case, at least arguably, no such 'rock and a hard place'
exists, because the Plaintiff's theory points to the likelihood
of harmony between GEO's contractual obligation and complying
with the MWA, the Court notes.  Under the Plaintiff's theory, the
plausibility of which the Court previously addressed, whether
detainees are employees is a fact-driven question informed by
whether GEO acts like an employer under the MWA.  For the same
reason Dawavendewa can be distinguished, GEO's reliance on
E.E.O.C. v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.
2005), fails. In this case, at least arguably, no such impossible
predicament precludes complete relief among existing parties
exists.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)

The Court finds that ICE does not have a legally protected
interest in this case.

At least as of March 7, 2018, when members of Congress sent a
letter to ICE, ICE has had general knowledge of the litigation.
Furthermore, by contract, GEO is apparently required to notify
ICE of this case within five days of its filing. It is undisputed
that ICE has not appeared in this case, the related class action
case, or any similar cases. ICE has not asserted any interest in
the case. Defendant has speculated that an increase in detainee
wages could result in a contract modification regarding
reimbursement from ICE to GEO.

Because ICE does not have an interest in the case, it is not a
necessary party under either subsection (i) or (ii) of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B).

In sum, the Court finds that ICE is not a necessary party under
Rule 19(a).

Is it feasible to join ICE?

Federal agencies are protected from suit, except where Congress
has spoken. According to the Defendant, Congress has not waived
the federal agency's sovereign immunity and ICE has not itself
consented to be sued. The Plaintiff has not made any showing to
the contrary, where it argues, by incorporating a footnote, only
that the doctrine of sovereign immunity would not preclude GEO
from impleading DHS/ICE as a third party for purposes of
"declaratory and injunctive relief" when challenging a final
agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The
footnote does not address the feasibility of joinder as to all
claims here.
The Court assumes that it is not feasible to join ICE.

Is ICE an indispensable party under Rule 19(b)?

A party is indispensable for Rule 19(b) purposes if the action
should proceed in equity and good conscience, considering the
following non-exhaustive factors:

   "The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's
absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties.  The
extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the
relief; or (C) other measures."

Whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be
adequate; and Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy
if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

The first factor, prejudice, weighs heavily in favor of the
Plaintiff. ICE suffers no more prejudice as an absent party than
if it participates. The Plaintiff does not seek relief from ICE,
and, assuming an outcome in favor of the Plaintiff, the GEO-ICE
Contract will remain intact. ICE is fully capable of protecting
itself. The prejudice to the Defendant is no more than if ICE
participates.

The next factor, lessening prejudice with mitigating measures,
favors neither party because there is no prejudice to ICE, and,
as GEO acknowledges, there are no mitigating measures available.
The final two factors favor the Plaintiff. Again, assuming the
Plaintiff's theory of the case prevails, the Plaintiff will have
obtained its remedy with the GEO-ICE Contract unchanged and
without prejudice to ICE. On the other hand, if the case were
dismissed for the failure to join ICE, the Plaintiff would be
left without a legal remedy.

Equity and good conscience, in light of these four factors, weigh
in favor of the case proceeding, rather than its dismissal. ICE
is not an indispensable party under Rule 19(b).

ICE is not a necessary or an indispensable party under Rule 19.
Dismissal for non-joinder is not warranted. Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion should be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgqx4ax from Leagle.com.

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

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

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


GLOBAL CREDIT: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "Williams" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading on
his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTIONS; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS,
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-03323 (N.D. Ill.), file with the Court
their renewed joint motion for an order conditionally certifying
class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement
agreement.

The class consists of:

     All persons in the State of Pennsylvania who were sent
     collection letters and/or notices from GCC on a debt owed to
     Velocity that was beyond the statute of limitations, wherein
     Defendant made a settlement offer on said debt without
     disclosing the debt was beyond the statute of limitations,
     during a period beginning May 2, 2016 through June 9, 2017.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges GCC violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
which offered settlements of debts without disclosing the debt
was beyond the statute of limitations and thereby implying that
the debt was legally enforceable.

A copy of the Renewed Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rs2KBXkG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Ledebuhr, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 609-7845
          E-mail: bledebuhr@vedderprice.com


GOLDEN TOUCH: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Touch
Transportation of NY, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Golden Touch Transportation of NY, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03731 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

Golden Touch Transportation of NY, Inc. offers ground
transportation services in the metropolitan New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN ISLAND: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Island
Associates. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Green Island Associates doing business as:
The Sagamore and Ocean Properties, Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03689 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018).

Ocean Properties Hotels Resorts & Affiliates is one of North
America's largest hotel management and development companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GREENBROOK SPORTS: Rivero Sues over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------
MARIO RIVERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENBROOK SPORTS & FITNESS, LLC
d/b/a CRUNCH FITNESS f/k/a ECLIPSE FITNESS, a New Jersey
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-10329-BRM-LHG
(D.N.J., June 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal action of Defendant, in negligently
and/or willfully using an automatic telephone dialing system to
call Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without
Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Greenbrook is in the physical fitness clubs with training
equipment business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

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


HERITAGE ONE: Faces "Solorzano" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage One Door
and Carpentry LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as JR Solorzano, on
behalf of himself all others similarly situated and on behalf of
the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Heritage One
Door and Carpentry LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-
00234479-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com


HOSPITALITY STAFFING: "Arguelles" Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brenda Arguelles, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01885, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California -
(Sacramento) on June 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-01729-WBS-EFB to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb.

Hospitality Staffing Solutions is the largest staffing agency
focused on hospitality staffing nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Walter Perlman, Esq.
          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          E-mail: douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC:

          Lisa Mireille Bowman, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 369 3555
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: lisa.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com


IDAHO, USA: Wolf Moves for Certification of IDOC Prisoners Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANDREW J.J. WOLF, and those
similarly situated v. IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00264-DCN (D. Idaho), moves for certification of
class of all IDOC Prisoners.

Mr. Wolf has brought before the Court a Verified Class Action
Civil Rights Complaint setting for violations under the Religious
Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act and civil rights
concerning the Defendants' alleged actions of denying him and the
class their right to use open flame, such as incense and candles,
indoors at their religious services.

The Plaintiff, of Boise, Idaho, appears pro se.

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


INTEL CORPORATION: Alvira Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
ELVIS ALVIRA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, BRIAN M. KRZANICH,
and ROBERT H. SWAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03416-YGR
(C.D. Cal., June 8, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Intel between July 27, 2017 and January 4,
2018, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, on January 3, 2018, Reuters published
an article titled, "Security flaws put virtually all phones,
computers at risk." On this news, shares of Intel fell $1.59 per
share, or over 3.5%, from its previous closing price to close at
$45.26 per share on January 3, 2018, damaging investors. Then, on
January 4, 2018, news outlets reported that Intel's CEO, the
Defendant Krzanich, sold millions of dollars worth of shares
after Intel was informed of vulnerabilities in its semiconductors
but before it was publicly disclosed. Defendant Krzanich sold
about half his stock months after he learned about critical flaws
in billions of Intel's microchips, but before it was publicly
disclosed, and now holds only the minimum number of shares he's
required to own.

On this news, shares of Intel fell $0.83 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $44.43 per share on January 4,
2018, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market
value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Dismissal Ruling in "Foster" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET CAROL FOSTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. B278723 (Cal. App.), Judge Helen I. Bendix
of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division One, affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the trial
court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to Foster's
causes of action against the Defendant.

On Oct. 21, 2011, the Plaintiff was driving her 2006 BMW 750Li on
the 405 freeway.  While completely stopped in traffic, her car
was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Austin B., then a
minor.  The Plaintiff's vehicle was thrust forward into the
vehicle ahead of her, which in turn was pushed into the vehicle
ahead of it.  The Plaintiff's car sustained substantial damage.

The Plaintiff's car was insured under a policy issued by
defendant.  Part III of the policy covered physical damage,
including comprehensive and collision coverage.  The Plaintiff
filed a claim with the Defendant requesting the full cash value
of her car at the time of the accident, which was $31,342.  The
Defendant represented that it would not declare the car a total
loss and would instead repair it.  The car was repaired at a cost
of $22,602.81.

The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, Austin B. and his
parents.  In her third amended complaint ("TAC"), the operative
complaint in the appeal, she asserted combined individual and
class action claims challenging the Defendant's option to repair
damaged vehicles rather than pay for the loss of their
preaccident value.  She claimed that it was Defendant's policy,
practice and procedure to refuse to declare vehicles total losses
when it was not to the Defendant's economic advantage to do so,
without regard to the interests of its policyholders or the terms
of its insurance contracts.

The Plaintiff's first cause of action was against Austin B. and
his parents for negligence.  Her second cause of action, asserted
both individually and on behalf of a putative class, was against
the Defendant for breach of contract, damages, and declaratory
relief based on its wrongfully refusing to replace vehicles.  His
third cause of action was brought on behalf of a putative class
seeking declarative and injunctive relief against defendant based
on illegal policy provisions and related practices in violation
of Business and Professions Code section 17200 through 17210.
His fourth cause of action, asserted both individually and on
behalf of a putative class, was against the Defendant for
entering into a purportedly unlawful subrogation agreement with
Austin B.'s parents' insurer.  He claimed damages of $31,969, as
well as taxes, registration, interest, attorney fees, and costs,
and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Defendant demurred to the second, third, and fourth causes of
action.  As to the second cause of action for breach of contract,
it argued that appellate courts have enforced contract language
allowing insurers to choose to repair rather than replace a
vehicle, and have rejected the argument that this choice breached
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  As to the third
cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code
section 17200 et seq., the Defendant argued that prior cases have
held that excluding coverage for diminution in value was neither
unlawful nor unfair, and the Plaintiff failed to allege fraud
sufficiently.  As to the fourth cause of action concerning the
subrogation agreement, it argued that the Plaintiff did not have
standing to assert it.

Following the filing of the demurrer, the Plaintiff filed a
fourth amended complaint, which the trial court struck for
failure to seek leave to file.  She then filed her opposition to
the demurrer, arguing application of the coverage exclusion for
diminution of value was both a breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and an unfair business practice given
Defendant's (1) advertising and the language in the policy; (2)
its alleged knowledge that cars cannot be fully repaired if
severely damaged; and (3) the Defendant's unilateral decision
making as to whether to repair or replace a damaged vehicle.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend,
ruling that an insurer's decision to repair rather than replace a
vehicle did not breach the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing citing Baldwin and Carson v. Mercury Insurance Co.  The
court sustained the demurrer to the fourth cause of action based
on the Plaintiff's lack of standing and failure to address that
cause in her opposition to the demurrer.  It denied leave to
amend, finding as to the second and fourth causes of action that
the Plaintiff had failed to state in her opposition how she would
cure the defects in the TAC.  The court also denied leave to
amend the third cause of action, but did not expressly state its
reasons for the denial.

The court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.  The
Plaintiff timely appealed.

On appeal, the Plaintiff challenges the court's order sustaining
the demurrer as to the second and third causes of action only.
Judge Bendix holds that the demurrer was properly sustained.  She
finds that the insurance policy expressly excluded coverage for
diminution of value, and the Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient
facts to support damages on another basis.

The Plaintiff does not explain how CACI No. 3903J applies other
than to say the damages claim for loss of value of automobiles
are conceptually the same under tort and contract.  The Plaintiff
also states that the Defendant promised "full coverage," but this
does not appear to be alleged in the TAC, and she does not
identify where in the policy or any other document this language
appears.  The Judge state that the Defendant's exercise of
discretion as alleged did not breach the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing because it was permitted under the
contract and within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The Judge disagrees with the Plaintiff's claims that she
adequately stated a claim that the Defendant's insurance policies
and related practices violated the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL").  She stated that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
that the Defendant's insurance policy and related practices
violated the Insurance Code or public policy.  The Plaintiff's
allegations are insufficient to state a claim for fraud or false
advertising under the UC.  Given the Plaintiff's lack of showing
how she might amend the TAC to properly state a cause of action
after several rounds of pleading, the Judge cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.

For these reasons, Judge Bendix affirmed the judgment.  The
Defendant is awarded its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/QK37Ul from Leagle.com.

Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Derek G. Howard --
derek@derekhowardlaw.com; Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, Daniel J.
Mulligan -- dan@jmglawoffices.com; and Day Law Offices,
Montie S. Day -- msdayesq@aol.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Raul L. Martinez --
Raul.Martinez@lewisbrisbois.com -- Jon P. Kardassakis --
Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Celia Moutes-Lee --
elia.Moutes-Lee@lewisbrisbois.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


IT COSMETICS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IT Cosmetics, LLC.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. IT Cosmetics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03663
(E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

IT Cosmetics, LLC manufactures skincare and makeup products.  It
offers its products online, as well as through its stores in the
United States. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Jersey City, New Jersey. As of August 31, 2016, It Cosmetics, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of L'Oreal SA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


JACK BLACK LLC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Black, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jack Black,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03657 (E.D. N.Y., June 25,
2018).

Jack Black, L.L.C. manufactures men skin care products. The
Company offers shaving creams, moisturizers, deodorant, shampoos,
conditioner, cleansers, and anti-aging products. Jack Black
serves clients in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Prado Moves to Certify Class of Detainees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
action titled Saili Prado, et al. v. Jackson County, Missouri,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00506-BP (W.D. Mo.), as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case concerns the alleged unconstitutional conditions that
pretrial detainees and inmates were subjected to during their
time in custody at the Jackson County Detention Center.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order class notice be
proposed, approved and distributed to class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yc5Yt7PH

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Dylan M. Long, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  dml@edgarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David R. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAWRENCE
          One Park Place
          700 W. 31st Street, Suite 408
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 753-9393
          Facsimile: (816) 778-0957
          E-mail: david@smithlawrence.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Yonke, Esq.
          YONKE LAW, LLC
          The Harzfeld Building
          1111 Main Street, Suite 700
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 221-6400
          Facsimile: (816) 888-5188
          E-mail: myonke@yonke-law.com


KEITH D. WEINER: Faces "Clark" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keith D. Weiner &
Associates, CO., L.P.A. The case is styled as Kevin A. Clark,
individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Keith D. Weiner & Associates, CO., L.P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00973-WCG (E.D. Wis., June 26, 2018).

Keith D. Weiner & Associates, CO., L.P.A. is a Bankruptcy
attorney in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip D Stern, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: philip@sternthomasson.com

      - and -

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Dean's Claims v. Apple in "Opperman" Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
entered Plaintiff Stephen Dean and Apple, Inc.'s stipulated order
dismissing with prejudice specified claims against Apple.

Dean and Apple stipulated that the Plaintiff's claims against
Apple, excepting only those claims for aiding and abetting
invasion of privacy that were the subject of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement and that were released by operation of that
Class Action Settlement Agreement upon its final approval and
entry of judgment by the Court, will be dismissed with prejudice,
each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to
FRCP 41.  Without limitation of the foregoing and for the
avoidance of doubt, the dismissal includes Counts Three, Four,
Five and Six of the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gZVjs2 from Leagle.com.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin --
nac@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian
Samuel Clayton Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan -- dirk@dirkjordan.com --
Frank H. Busch -- busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe --
wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael
John von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP.

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine,
Given &  Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo
Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo
Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo
Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J.
Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah
Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon -
- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G.
Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael
Henry Page -- mpage@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall
Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright --
alan.albright@bracewell.com -- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP,
Clayton Cole James -- clay.james@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston --
jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R.
Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda
Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP, Molly A. Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee
Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP,
Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. &
Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P.,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell,
Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet
K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.


KRISHNA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Honeywell" Suit in N.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krishna Enterprises
of Alachua, Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Krishna Enterprises of Alachua, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00119-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.,
June 27, 2018).

Krishna Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1991. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of cutlery and
general hardware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JESSICA LYNN KERR, Esq.
   200 SE 6TH STREET, SUITE 504
   FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


KSW OILFIELD: White & Shaw Seek Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL A. WHITE and JAMES SHAW individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KSW OILFIELD RENTAL,
LLC; AND DUPRE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01983 (S.D. Tex., June 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Solids Control
Consultants. Plaintiffs and the other workers like them regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week, but these
workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated workers only a day rate. The Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated workers were treated as independent
contractors by Defendants.

KSW Oilfield Rental, LLC is the energy industry's leader in Fluid
Management Equipment and Solids Control.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LANDRY'S RESTAURANT: Sustaining Demurrer on Class Claims Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
One, reversed in part the trial court's judgment sustaining the
demurrer without leave to amend in the case captioned JORGE
FIERRO, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LANDRY'S RESTAURANT
INC., Defendants and Respondents, No. D071904 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Jorge Fierro filed the action against Landry's
Restaurant Inc., seeking remedies for what Fierro alleges to be
Landry's' violations of specified California labor laws and wage
orders.  Fierro asserts claims on behalf of himself and on behalf
of a class of individuals that he alleges is similarly situated.
Landry's demurred to the complaint on the basis that each of the
causes of action was barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.

As to Fierro's individual claims, the trial court overruled the
demurrer, concluding that the statute of limitations defense did
not appear affirmatively on the face of the complaint. As to the
class claims, the trial court sustained the demurrer without
leave to amend on the basis that a prior class action with
identical class claims against Landry's had been dismissed for
failure to bring the case to trial in five years as required by
Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360.

In September 2007, Roberto Martinez filed the Martinez action,
seeking to represent a class of salaried managerial employees who
worked at Joe's Crab Shack restaurants in California. In three
causes of action, Martinez alleged claims for overtime pay on the
basis that class members had been misclassified as exempt
employees; and violations of law or regulations related to meal
and rest periods and to wage statements. Martinez identified the
original defendant as Joe's Crab Shack, Inc., and in a March 2008
amendment substituted Landry's Restaurant, Inc., for Doe 2.  By
judgment filed in August 2016, the Martinez court dismissed with
prejudice all of the claims in the Martinez action and awarded
costs to the three named defendants. The Court does not know
what, if anything, happened to the class claims in Martinez prior
to the dismissal. The Martinez plaintiffs, Martinez, Saldana,
Eriksen, and Rankin-Stephens, appealed from the judgment of
dismissal in October 2016.  Fierro says this appeal is still
pending.

Under the death knell doctrine, Fierro appeals from that portion
of the order sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to
the class claims.  The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial
court erred in sustaining without leave to amend the class claims
in the complaint.

The Court rules that dismissal of the Martinez Action is not a
basis on which to have dismissed the Class Claims in the Fierro
Action.  First, a judgment dismissing the prior action for want
of prosecution is not one upon the merits and it does not bar a
subsequent action upon the same cause. That is because under
California law, a dismissal for failure to prosecute is not a
final judgment on the merits. More to the point, a judgment of
dismissal based on the failure to prosecute is not a final
judgment for purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Here, because the Court is proceeding under the assumption that
the Martinez judgment of dismissal was based on a failure to
prosecute, the judgment does not bar Fierro's class claims.

Second, a judgment that is on appeal is not final for purposes of
applying the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Here, because the Martinez judgment was on appeal at the time the
court in the present action sustained Landry's' demurrer to the
class claims, the judgment did not bar Fierro's claims.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the trial court erred in
ruling that, based on the dismissal of the Martinez action,
section 583.310 et seq. bar the class claims in the present
action.

The Court also rules that application of American Pipe Tolling is
not a basis on which to dismiss the Class Claims in the Fierro
Action.

Because the Court reviews the ruling of the trial court, not the
reasons therefore, the Court next consider Landry's' argument on
appeal that, upon proper application of American Pipe tolling,
the pertinent statutes of limitation bar Fierro's class claims.

In the complaint, Fierro alleges that the filing of the Martinez
action on September 7, 2007, has tolled the statute of
limitations as to Fierro and the class he seeks to represent. The
class period covered by this Complaint based on the tolling of
the statute by Martinez is September 7, 2003, to the present.
Without tolling, according to Landry's, the applicable statutes
of limitation bar each of the class claims Fierro alleges in his
complaint.

Under the specific facts of this case, namely, where the trial
court denied a motion to certify a plaintiff class on the basis
that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative
and, instead of appealing the order, the named plaintiff amended
the complaint in an effort to provide an adequate class
representative, American Pipe tolling recommences upon the filing
of the amended complaint.

Under La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864,
if the trial court finds the named plaintiffs to be inadequate
class representatives, the court should at least afford
plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to add new
individual plaintiffs in order to establish a suitable
representative. Unless American Pipe tolling applies upon the
filing of an amended complaint in which new class representatives
are presented, once the court rules that that the originally
named plaintiff is not an adequate class representative, the
plaintiff will have no incentive to attempt to efficiently and
economically replace the inadequate representative. Instead, the
inadequate plaintiff class representative would be forced to
appeal or to abandon the class claims.

Finally, based on these legal rulings, the Court will apply
American Pipe tolling to the class claims in the present case.
The only time during which the class claims were not tolled is
between August 24, 2016 (dismissal of the Martinez action), and
August 29, 2016 (filing of the present action). Needless to say,
during those three days, none of the one- to four-year statutes
of limitation ran on the class claims. The Court's application of
American Pipe tolling is based on and necessarily limited to the
record on appeal and the standard of review of an order
sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend.

That portion of the trial court's order sustaining Landry's'
demurrer without leave to amend as to Fierro's class claims is
reversed, and on remand the court is instructed to enter an order
overruling that portion of Landry's' demurrer directed to the
class claims.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s April 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qthlys from Leagle.com.

Righetti Glugoski, Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com --
and John J. Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Offices of Mary E. Lynch, Mary E. Lynch --
mary@marylynchlaw.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
Ryan D. McCortney -- rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jason
M. Guyser -- jguyser@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


LEIKIN INGBER: "Sebestyen" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III, granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the case titled CAROLYN SEBESTYEN v. LEIKIN, INGBER, &
WINTERS, P.C., and PAUL M. INGBER, Case No. 2:13-cv-15182-SJM-RSW
(E.D. Mich.).

Judge Murphy also ruled that the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class is moot, and that the case is dismissed without prejudice.

Five years ago, Plaintiff Carolyn Sebestyen received a letter
that she claims violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Defendants moved to dismiss and Ms. Sebestyen moved to
certify a class.  The Court, Judge Patrick Duggan, resolved the
motions and after a trip to and from the Sixth Circuit, Ms.
Sebestyen and the Defendants are back with the same motions --
but different arguments.

In the order, Judge Murphy stated that the Court will dismiss the
case for lack of jurisdiction.  Judge Murphy opined that Ms.
Sebestyen has failed to carry her burden in establishing the
court's jurisdiction because she has failed to plead an injury in
fact.

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


LOGITECH INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Chernus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, STEVEN CHERNUS and ED SHAPIRO,
individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOGITECH, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-
673(FLW)(D. N.J.).

In August 2010, Logitech began selling and distributing high-
definition digital video security systems under the "Alert" brand
name.  The Alert System is a complete home video security system
that would allow customers to "Be There When You're Not."

The Plaintiffs allege that Logitech aggressively marketed and
sold its Alert System to consumers directly through its website
and retail affiliates by promising to deliver "peace of mind in a
box."  They further allege that Logitech emphasized that its
Alert System is the comprehensive solution to home security, and
that the System would provide consumers with safety and security
features, such as motion detection alerts, plus live and recorded
video feeds available from any internet connected computer,
smartphone or table, which would allow users to monitor their
home remotely.  According to them, Logitech advertised these
benefits and features, and charged consumers premium prices
accordingly.

Logitech provided an express warranty with the Alert System that
its Logitech hardware product will be free from defects in
material and workmanship.  In addition, Logitech warranted that
the Alert System would be merchantable for its ordinary purpose
of providing reliable digital home security for the duration of
the one-year express warranty.  In that regard, the Plaintiffs
claim that Logitech represented that purchasers whose Alert
Systems failed could either choose Logitech to (1) repair or
replace the products, or (2) provide a refund.

Both the Plaintiffs purchased a Logitech Alert System.  They
allege that soon after they installed their Systems, they began
experiencing camera failures, issues with the products staying
powered up, large gaps in recorded videos, connectivity issues,
malfunction of SD (memory) cards, as well as false and/or failed
security alerts.  As a result, according to the Plaintiffs, they
complained of these problems to Logitech, but were not provided
any relief under the warranty.  Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that
numerous other consumers have experienced the same reliability
and performance issues with their Alert Systems, and Logitech has
similarly ignored the consumers' requests to honor the company's
warranties.

The Plaintiffs aver that in the last quarter of 2012, Logitech
decided to discontinue entirely the manufacture and sale of the
Alert Systems by 2014.  They Plaintiffs allege, however, Logitech
knew internally for nearly two full years that it had given up on
the defective Alert Systems but continued to sell its remaining
stock to unsuspecting customers who would eventually be stuck
with significant investments in defective products that Logitech
was unable to repair or replace.  They Plaintiffs further claim
that this fraudulent omission led customers to continue to
purchase the Alert Systems without knowledge of Logitech's
concealments.

The Plaintiffs brought the action alleging that Logitech's
conduct violated consumer protection and warranty laws by, inter
alia: 1) deceptively marketing and selling Alert Systems that
Logitech knew were defective because the cameras experienced a
high rate of failure; (2) deceptively marketing and selling Alert
Systems that were never merchantable for the purposes of
providing continuous, reliable digital home security; (3)
refusing to honor express and implied warranty obligations; and
4) concealing from purchasers that Logitech was discontinuing the
sales of Alert Systems, which left consumers without replacement
parts when their Systems became inoperable.

Based on these allegations of wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs
assert claims against Logitech, a California corporation, under
i) California's Unfair Competition Law; ii) the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; iii) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act ("NJCFA"); and iv) the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Act, as well as New Jersey and
Pennsylvania common law claims of breach of express and implied
warranty and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and a
proposed nationwide class defined as all purchasers of Logitech
Alert Systems in the United States (except California).  In
addition, Plaintiff Chernus, a resident of Pennsylvania, and
Plaintiff Shapiro, a resident of New Jersey, seek to represent
sub-classes of consumers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
respectively, under their respective state's laws.

In the instant matter, the Defendant moves to dismiss Chernus as
a Plaintiff on the basis that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Logitech with regards to Chernus' claims.  In
addition, it argues that the Court also lacks personal
jurisdiction over the non-New Jersey nationwide-class claims
pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court; in that regard, the Defendant moves that
Chernus' claims be dismissed and that the Pennsylvania and
nationwide-class allegations be struck.  Moreover, it moves to
dismiss Shapiro's New Jersey based claims for lack of standing
and failure to state a claim.

Judge Wolfon granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed Plaintiff Chernus from the suit
as the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over his claims.  As
such, he dismissed all Pennsylvania state law claims asserted in
the Complaint.  The Judge also dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff Shapiro's NJCFA claim.  Plaintiff Shapiro is given
leave to amend the Complaint to cure the deficiencies with regard
to that claim within 15 days from the date of the Order
accompanying the Opinion.

In addition, the Judge dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment and declaratory relief causes of action.  He
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, as
well as its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of express
and implied warranty claims.  Finally, he denied without
prejudice the Defendant's request to dismiss the nationwide
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RMNBia from Leagle.com.

EDWARD SHAPIRO, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS
-- wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- PINILIS HALPERN.

LOGITECH, INC., Defendant, represented by SUNA LEE --
suna.lee@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER, LLP.


LVNV FUNDING: Maisano Balks at Trading of Consumer Debt
-------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT C. MAISANO, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, the Defendants, Case No. HUD-L-002258-18 (N.J. Sup. Ct., June
8, 2018), is a putative class action arising from Defendant's
unlawful purchase and enforcement of alleged consumer debts
without first obtaining a license to engage in business as a
consumer lender or sales finance company, as required by the New
Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act. As a result of Defendant's
unlicensed status, the credit account contracts became void and
unenforceable as of the date the Defendant took assignment of
them, pursuant to the CFLA. The Plaintiff and the putative class
members are New Jersey consumers against whom Defendant has
unlawfully enforced consumer debts after unlawfully taking
assignment of them without a sales finance company or consumer
lending license. Thus, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
himself and a class of other Jersey consumers whose consumer
debts were purchased and/or enforced by Defendant without first
obtaining a license to engage in business as a sales finance
company or consumer lender.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05740 (S.D.
N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC provides therapeutic massage and
spa services in the United States. It also owns and operates
franchise locations in the United States. The company was founded
in 2002 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC is a former subsidiary of Natural Wellness USA,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2672: Ct. Denies Class Member's Bid to Opt Out of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Matthew G. Hoffer's Motions to Op Out of Class
Action Settlement and for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt.
Nos. 4948, 4949. Hoffer v. Audi of America, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-
2620-CRB, Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. (N.D. Cal.) MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC).
(N.D. Cal.).

In two pro se motions, Matthew Hoffer, the owner of a 2011 Audi
A3 TDI vehicle, seeks to opt out of the settlement and to obtain
summary judgment on claims that he filed against Audi prior to
the settlement.  Mr. Hoffer is a member of the nationwide 2.0-
liter TDI settlement class.

The Court holds that a class member who seeks to opt out of a
class action settlement after the applicable deadline has passed
must show that excusable neglect or good cause excuses the delay.
The Court has reviewed Mr. Hoffer's opt-out motion and his reply
brief and concludes that he has not made such a showing.

The Court therefore denies his opt-out motion.

Under the settlement, Mr. Hoffer and the other class members
agreed to release those claims.  Because Mr. Hoffer has released
his claims against Audi, the Court denies his motion for summary
judgment and dismisses his individual suit with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7lv7omj 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.

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,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles
J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-
law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist
Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger
& Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. --
rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns &
Bell LTD., Jeffrey Lance Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin
LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP,
Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden --
cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC.


MED-SPEC TRANSPORT: Washington's Bid to Certify Cont'd to July 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 14, 2018, in the case titled
Sandra Washington, et al. v. Med-Spec. Transport, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03334 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification as to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Equal Pay Act claims, and for class certification of
Illinois Minimum Wage Act claims is entered and continued to July
12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Pilosova" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Yelena Pilosova, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03710 (E.D.
N.Y., June 26, 2018).

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:

   Daniel A. Louro, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dlouro@cml.legal


MURATA MANUFACTURING: Court Consolidates Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEPENDABLE COMPONENT SUPPLY CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al.,
Defendants. And all related actions, Case No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, (i)
granted the motions to consolidate; (ii) granted the motion to
appoint BFA and Hausfeld as co-lead interim counsel; and (iii)
denied the competing motions.

The Plaintiffs in the cases have sued the Defendants for
antitrust violations relating to alleged price-fixing in the
inductor market.

Presently before the Court are two matters.  The first are
several motions to consolidate the currently-related cases
against the Defendants.  The second are several motions to
appoint various Plaintiffs' counsel as lead or co-lead interim
class counsel.  The Court held a hearing on April 26, 2018
hearing.

Upon review of the complaints in each of the actions presented,
Judge Davila finds that each case presents substantially similar
factual and legal issues.  The Plaintiffs in each action allege
that the Defendants conspired to fix prices in the inductors
market and that they suffered injuries in their purchases from
Defendants.  The actions are in the same procedural stage as the
Defendants have not yet filed an answer or responsive motion.
Moreover, since the claims for each case arise from the same or
similar set of circumstances, discovery issues relating to each
action will be parallel.  In addition, there appears to be no
basis to find that consolidation would cause inconvenience, delay
or expense, especially since the parties appear to agree with the
consolidation request.  As such, he finds consolidation
appropriate.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the motions to
consolidate.

Plaintiffs Dependable Component Supply, Powerweb Inc. and
Powerweb Energy Inc., and Arch Electronics Inc. move to appoint
their attorneys, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") and Hausfeld
LLP, as the co-lead interim class counsel.  Plaintiff Cambridge
Capital Corp. moves to appoint its attorneys, Berman Tabacco
("BT"), as either the sole lead counsel or the co-lead counsel
with any other firm which the Court appoints as the lead.
Plaintiff Five Rivers Electronics Innovations, LLC moves to
appoint its attorneys, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. ("JSLF"), as
the sole lead counsel.  Plaintiff Inductors, Inc. has filed a
"response" which states that it supports the appointment as JSLF
as the lead counsel or requests that, if the Court prefers a co-
lead structure, that the Court appoints its attorneys, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP ("SSH"), as the co-lead counsel with JSLF.

Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions and
counsel's arguments at the April 26, 2018 hearing, the Judge
finds that the most appropriate choice is to appoint BFA and
Hausfeld as the co-lead counsel.  While he commends all firms on
their impressive resumes and litigation experience, the efforts
expended by BFA and Hausfeld to promptly identify and investigate
the claims, coupled with the extensive amount of resources which
they have available to expend on this case, renders them superior
to represent the putative class.  Accordingly, he appointed BFA
and Hausfeld as the co-lead interim counsel.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila granted the motions to
consolidate.  He granted the motion to appoint BFA and Hausfeld
as the co-lead interim counsel, and denied the competing motions.

In light of the proposed Case Management Order, the Judge ordered
the Clerk of the Court to consolidate case numbers 5:18-cv-00198-
EJD, 5:18-cv-00349-EJD, 5:18-cv-00511-EJD, 5:18-cv-00686-EJD,
5:18-cv-00851-EJD, 5:18-cv-01128-EJD, and 5:18-cv-02175-EJD into
one case such that the earliest-field action, 5:18-cv-00198-EJD,
is the lead case.  Once consolidated, the Clerk will close 5:18-
cv-00349-EJD, 5:18-cv-00511-EJD, 5:18-cv-00686-EJD, 5:18-cv-
00851-EJD, 5:18-cv-01128-EJD, and 5:18-cv-02175-EJD.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jWYqfQ from Leagle.com.

Cambridge Capital Corporation, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Anthony Seaver
-- tseaver@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Jessica Moy --
jmoy@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
-- jtabacco@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Matthew David-
Craig Pearson -- mpearson@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco &
Sarah Khorasanee McGrath -- skmcgrath@bermantabacco.com -- Berman
Tabacco.


MY FL 4051: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MY FL 4051, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Sierra, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MY FL 4051, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-
61454-BB (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2018).

My Fl 4051, LLC is a Florida Corporation based in Sunny Isles
Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


N.J. 52 INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.J. 52 INC. d/b/a
Toasties. The case is styled as Pablo Ramirez and Christian
Vizhnay, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. N.J. 52 INC. d/b/a Toasties et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-05818 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

N.J. 52 INC. d/b/a Toasties is a restaurant in New York, NY
10017.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NATIONAL GRID: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Grid USA
Service Company, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-05815 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. provides utility
services. The Company distributes electricity and gas energy.
National Grid supplies energy to customers throughout the
northeastern United States and the United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Bid to Certify Class of Black Workers Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
KENNETH CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant. LORETTA K. BETHEA, Plaintiff,
v. AMTRAK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 99-2979
(EGS), 01-1513 (EGS) (D.D.C.).

Plaintiffs, seventy-one African-American current or former
employees or applicants for employment at defendant National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), allege that Amtrak
engaged in racial discrimination in its hiring, promotion, and
disciplinary practices and created a hostile work environment.

The named plaintiffs in this case are seventy-one African-
American Amtrak employees, former Amtrak employees, or applicants
for employment at Amtrak. Plaintiffs move to certify the
following classes or, in the alternative, subclasses:

   (1) All Black employees of Amtrak who are represented for
purposes of collective bargaining by any labor union (except
those who have worked only in the Northeast Corridor and are
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the
Pennsylvania Federation of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees) (Black CBA employees) who, since April 4, 1996, have
been discriminated against because of their race or color in
regard to competitive promotion selections; and/or in the
alternative,

   (a) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Shop Crafts who raise
such promotion selection claims;

   (b) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Engineering Crafts who
raise such promotion selection claims;

   (c) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Operating and Police
Crafts who raise such promotion selection claims;

   (d) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Clerical and On-Board
Services Crafts who raise such promotion selection claims;

   (2) All Black CBA employees of Amtrak who, since April 4,
1996, have been exposed to a racially hostile work environment,
as embodied in racial harassment and/or racial discrimination in
regard to training, job assignments, work assignments, non-
competitive transfers, scheduling, and other terms and conditions
of employment; and/or in the alternative,

   (a) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Shop Crafts and have
been exposed to such a racially hostile work environment;

   (b) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Engineering Crafts and
have been exposed to such a racially hostile work environment;

   (c) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Operating and Police
Crafts and have been exposed to such a racially hostile work
environment;

   (d) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Clerical and On-Board
Services Crafts and have been exposed to such a racially hostile
work environment;

   (3) All Black CBA employees of Amtrak who, since April 4,
1996, have been discriminated against in regard to discipline or
termination; and/or in the alternative,

   (a) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Shop Crafts and have
been discriminated against in regard to discipline or
termination;

   (b) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Engineering Crafts and
have been discriminated against in regard to discipline or
termination;

   (c) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Operating and Police
Crafts and have been discriminated against in regard to
discipline or termination;

   (d) a subclass of all Black CBA employees who, since April 4,
1996, have worked for Amtrak in any of the Clerical and On-Board
Services Crafts and have been discriminated against in regard to
discipline or termination; and

   (4) All Black CBA who have applied to work for Amtrak for any
position(s) that would be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by any labor union since April 4, 1996, and been
denied employment because of their race.

The Court finds that each of these proposed class definitions
makes membership in the class contingent on individualized merits
determinations as to whether the individual suffered
discrimination because of his race, was exposed to racial
harassment and/or racial discrimination, or was denied employment
because of his race.

In other words, to determine whether any individual is a member
of one of these putative classes, the Court would be required to
answer a critical question that goes directly to the merits of
the litigation: did the individual suffer racial discrimination
at the hands of Amtrak?

The parties have failed to address these problems with the
plaintiffs' class definition, perhaps because the problems are
repairable. The Plaintiffs could, for example, redefine their
classes so that membership is not contingent on whether the
individual suffered racial discrimination.

Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will
address the parties' arguments regarding the requirements of Rule
23.

A plaintiff seeking class certification must establish that there
are questions of law or fact common to the class.

The Plaintiffs suggest that they provide such glue because
Amtrak's common and uniform employment policies, as set out in
corporate policies governing promotions and transfers and through
various collective-bargaining provisions, unite the individual
acts of discretion of lower-level employees. Thus, to establish
commonality under such a theory, the plaintiffs must show how
Amtrak's uniform policies resulted in a common mode of exercising
discretion that pervaded the entire company and led to the
discrimination about which plaintiffs complain.

The Plaintiffs try to make such a showing by pointing to (1) the
testimony of their expert that Amtrak's uniform employment
policies were vulnerable to bias; (2) statistical evidence that
shows disparities in selection and discipline rates between
African-American and non-African-American individuals; (3)
anecdotal evidence from members of the putative class describing
instances of racial discrimination; and (4) the testimony of a
former Amtrak employee discussing the inadequacies in Amtrak's
handling of discrimination complaints.

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to put forward
significant proof that any alleged disparate outcomes in Amtrak's
hiring, promoting, and disciplinary decisions are the result of a
common mode of exercising discretion.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirements, and the plaintiffs' proposed classes
cannot be certified.

In short, the plaintiffs have not identified a specific
employment practice applicable to all putative class members that
purportedly caused the alleged discrimination about which
plaintiffs complain. Moreover, the plaintiffs' evidence makes
clear that many putative class members suffered discrimination in
a variety of ways through the decisions of different individuals
in a wide range of contexts. Such potential breadth of
experiences and claims among the putative class members is not
the mark of a class that meets the commonality requirement of
Rule 23(a).

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fb8f9x
from Leagle.com.

LORETTA K. BETHEA, Plaintiff, pro se.

LORETTA K. BETHEA, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming -
- tfleming@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, PLLC & Russell W. Adams, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice.

AMTRAK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, represented by Grace E.
Speights -- grace.speights@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, LLP & Melissa Barbara Rogers, NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION.


NCH CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanese Says
------------------------------------------------
JOE LANESE, in his individual and representative capacities, the
Plaintiff, v. NCH CORPORATION a Florida Corporation; DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC709629 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
indemnify or reimburse Lanese and the Class members for necessary
expenditures incurred by them as a direct consequence of
discharging their duties, including, but not limited to, all
costs associated with the operation and use of their personal
vehicles, including, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance
and registration costs.

NCH Corporation's website touts that it has multiple divisions
and brands including: Chemsearch, Chem-Aqua, LSP, NCH Partsmaster
among others. NCH Corporation and its divisions concentrate on
developing, manufacturing and distributing cleaning, maintenance,
water treatment and remediation, plumbing, pet care and special
industrial products. NCH operates worldwide employing thousands
of employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Berliner, Esq.
          FORTIS LLP
          650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1530
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 839 3800
          E-mail: mberliner@fortislaw.com

               - and -

          Corbett H. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CORBETT H. WILLIAMS
          24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 370
          Laguna Hills, CA 92653
          Telephone: (949) 679 9909
          E-mail: cwilliams@chwilliamslaw.com


NELNET INC: Olsen Sues over Servicing of Student Loans
------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA OLSEN, on behalf of herself and the class members,
Plaintiffs, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska Corporation,
NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability
company, and NELNET SERVICING LLC, a Nebraska limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03081-RGK-MDN (D. Neb.,
June 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants breached their servicing
contract with the federal government, of which Plaintiff was an
intended third party beneficiary; breached and/or tortuously
interfered with written agreements between the federal government
and student loan borrowers, namely Plaintiff; and violated state
and federal laws in connection with the servicing of Plaintiffs'
federal student loans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants -- in connection with
their servicing of federal student loans -- failed to promptly
process borrowers' requests to renew their Income-Driven
Repayment plans, unlawfully cancelled borrowers' income-driven
payments due to processing errors, unlawfully capitalized
interest that accrued on borrowers' accounts, and unlawfully
applied forbearances to borrowers' accounts during processing
delays. These abusive practices caused borrowers to suffer
measurable financial harm when (a) the duration of their loans
was extended; (b) interest accrued on the principal balance of
loans during unnecessary periods of deferment or forbearance; and
(c) they were charged additional fees and higher monthly payments
due to the delay in processing their applications for IDR
programs. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class have also lost
out on months or years of qualifying loan payments that would
have brought them closer to loan forgiveness under the various
IDR programs; been overcharged; or otherwise disadvantaged when
they were unable to utilize federal programs designed to make
their education more affordable.

Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services. The company is headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Classes:

          David A. Domina, Esq.
          DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLC
          2425 S. 144th St. Omaha, NE 68144
          Telephone: (402) 493 4100
          Facsimile: (402) 493 9782
          E-mail: DAD@dominalaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Frances R. Green, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER, & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Anthony Fiorentino, Esq.
          FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2440
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 853 0050
          Facsimile: (312) 853 3254
          E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com


NIC & ZOE: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nic & Zoe Company.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Nic & Zoe Company doing business as: Nic + Zoe,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03669 (E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Nic & Zoe Co designs and delivers women apparel. The company was
founded in 2005 and is based in Natick, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


NORTH CAROLINA, USA: Buffkin Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled LLOYD BUFFKIN, et al. v.
ERIK HOOKS, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00502-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), ask
the Court to certify a class defined as:

     all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or
     will have chronic hepatitis C virus, at least twelve weeks
     remaining on their sentences, and have not been treated with
     direct-acting antiviral drugs.

Erik Hooks is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety.

The Plaintiffs, who have been diagnosed with hepatitis C and are
incarcerated in North Carolina state prisons under the custody of
the state Department of Public Safety), bring the action alleging
that the Defendants have acted and continue to act with
deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs under the
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution incorporated through
the Fourteenth Amendment, and have discriminated and continue to
discriminate against them based on their disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint their counsel of record as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I39zL8ZJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michele Luecking-Sunman, Esq.
          Daniel K. Siegel, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          P.O. Box 25397
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 856-2220
          Facsimile: (919) 856-2223
          E-mail: mlueckingsunman@ncpls.org
                  dsiegel@ncpls.org

               - and -

          Christopher A. Brook, Esq.
          Emily E. Seawell, Esq.
          ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA
          P.O. Box 28004
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 834-3466
          E-mail: cbrook@acluofnc.org
                  eseawell@acluofnc.org


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Murdzia" Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Donald Murdzia and
Susan Embree, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00804-RSM (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ricardo S Martinez.

Ocwen Loan offers and services residential mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2633 E Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART (CA)
          2221 Camino Del Rio South No. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2633 E Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 900 1288
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


OHIO EDUCATION: Faces "Lee" Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ohio Education
Association.  The case is styled as Sarah R. Lee, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ohio
Education Association, Avon Lake Education Association as
representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the
Ohio Education Association, National Education Association, Avon
Lake City School District as representative of the class of all
school districts in Ohio, Governor of Ohio John R. Kasich,
Michael DeWine, W. CriagZimpher, Aaron A. Schmidt and J. Richard
Lumpe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01420 (N.D. Ohio, June 25,
2018).

Ohio Education Association (OEA) is a teachers union which serves
as the largest such organization for educators in the American
state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sean T. Logue, Esq.
   27 West Main Street
   Carnegie, PA 15106
   Tel: (412) 389-0805
   Fax: (412) 253-6520
   Email: pittbankruptcy@gmail.com


OMEGA INSURANCE: Dismissal of "Ganzemuller" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurence Silberman of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Second District affirmed the trial court's final
order dismissing with prejudice the case, ALBERT C. GANZEMULLER
and JANICE R. GANZEMULLER, Appellants, v. OMEGA INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellee, Case No. 2D17-1284 (Fla. Dist. App.).

The Ganzemullers purchased homeowner's insurance from Omega that
covered a one-year period beginning Nov. 24, 2015.  They selected
a $1000 deductible, applicable to all perils except hurricane and
sinkhole claims.  Based on that selection, they received a $100
credit against their policy premium.  It is not necessary to
detail the contents of the policy other than to note that it
includes provisions addressing loss settlement, the insurer's
option to repair, and the deductible.

In March 2016, the Ganzemullers' property suffered hail damage,
and they filed a claim with Omega.  Omega acknowledged coverage,
and there is no dispute that the loss was a partial loss.  Omega
invoked its option under the policy to repair the damage and
hired a contractor. The repair costs totaled $16,611.90, and the
Ganzemullers were required to pay their $1,000 deductible to the
contractor.  The Ganzemullers then filed their class action suit,
contending that Florida law precludes the insurer from requiring
payment of the deductible when the insurer elects to repair the
damage.

Omega moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the
Ganzemullers did not have a viable claim.  The trial court agreed
and dismissed the action with prejudice, determining that neither
the policy nor Florida law supported the Ganzemullers' cause of
action.

The issue on appeal is whether subsections 627.7011(5)(e) and
627.702(7) relieve the Ganzemullers and potential class members
from the obligation to pay deductibles when Omega invokes its
option to repair partial losses.  The Ganzemullers contended in
the trial court that Omega improperly required them to pay a
deductible when Omega invoked its right to repair the property.
They argue that subsection 627.7011(5)(e), Florida Statutes
(2015), which references subsection 627.702(7), prohibits an
insurer from requiring that the insured pay a deductible when the
insurer invokes its right to repair property damage, regardless
of whether the damage is a partial or total loss.  The trial
court entered its final order of dismissal, concluding that the
Ganzemullers failed to state a cause of action and, under the
applicable law, would not be able to state a viable cause of
action.

Judge Silberman explains that subsection 627.702(1) specifically
deals with total losses, and subsection (7) addresses the
insurer's right to repair without contribution by the insured in
lieu of any liability created by subsection (1).  Thus, these
subsections preclude the insurer from requiring the insured to
make any contribution when the insurer elects to make repairs in
total loss situations.  The parties do not dispute that
deductibles are covered by the "without contribution" language.

Section 627.7011 specifies those things that an insurer must
offer prior to issuing a homeowner's policy.  Subsection (5)(e)
makes clear that section 627.7011 does not prohibit an insurer
from exercising its right to repair damaged property in
compliance with its policy and s. 627.702(7).  He says nothing in
this language suggests a statutory intent to eliminate policy
deductibles for partial losses as well as total losses where the
insurer elects to make repairs.  His is buttressed by the fact
that subsection 627.702(7) provides that the insurer's repair or
replacement of damaged property is in lieu of liability under
subsection 627.702(1), which deals with the insurer's liability
under the policy for a covered total loss.

In summary, the pertinent statutory sections relied on by the
Ganzemullers do not eliminate an insured's obligation to pay the
required deductible under the policy when the insured suffers a
partial loss that the insurer elects to repair.  Accordingly,
Judge Silberman affirmed the order dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/789fu4 from Leagle.com.

Sean Estes of James Hoyer, P.A., Tampa; Donna Stockham of
Stockham Law Group, P.A., Tampa; and John Marc Tamayo --
j.tamayo@cttalaw.com -- of Valenti, Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo &
Aranda, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellants.

David B. Shelton -- dshelton@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger, Kirk
& Caldwell, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.


PATRICK K WILLIS: Faces "Jones" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrick K Willis
Company Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Cassandra Jones, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-50 and Patrick K Willis
Company Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00234487-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Sup. Ct., June 8, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: $3.5MM Settlement in "Mathein" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAUREN MATHEIN and CHRISTINE SABAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PIER 1
IMPORTS (U.S.), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement
awards, and final approval of a class action settlement.

On Jan. 20, 2016, Mathein filed the original class action
complaint against the Defendants.  The action now proceeds on
Plaintiffs Mathein and Sabas' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
filed on Sept. 8, 2016.

The primary issue in the case revolves around whether the
Defendant's "Flex Shift" policy -- shifts in which associates
were scheduled to work, required to report for work, but not
guaranteed the opportunity to do so -- violated various
provisions of the applicable California wage order.  As part of
the "Flex Shift" policy, associates would report to work, either
by phone or in person, before learning if they would actually be
able to work the flex shift and earn wages.

The Plaintiffs alleged the following causes of action: (i)
failure to pay reporting time pay; (ii) failure to pay minimum
wage; (iii) failure to maintain required business records; (iv)
failure to furnish proper wage statement stubs; (v) failure to
pay all wages earned at termination; (vi) failure to reimburse
business expenses; (vii) failure to pay split shift premiums;
(viii) violations of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200; and (ix) violations of the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On Feb. 17, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Plaintiffs opposed.  The Defendants' motion
for summary judgment came before the Court for a hearing on March
21, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Court agreed to defer ruling on
the motion for summary judgment and suspended all deadlines
established by the scheduling order in the action pending the
parties' participation in private mediation.

On May 17, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation informing the
Court of a scheduled mediation with David Rotman, Esq. on Aug. 9,
2017.  On Aug. 15, 2018, the parties informed the court that they
had reached a settlement.  On Sept. 20, 2017, the parties
submitted a stipulation to dismiss Pier 1 Imports, Inc. from the
action with prejudice, which the court granted on Sept. 21, 2017,
resulting in the action then proceeding only against Defendant
Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.

The proposed class for this settlement is defined as all current
and former non-managerial associates who are/were working in
Defendant's stores in California from Jan. 20, 2012 up through
March 26, 2016.  There is also a subclass of retail sales
associates whose employment terminated during that time period.

Under the settlement agreement, the Defendant will pay a maximum
settlement amount ("MSA") of $3.5 million.  The settlement
agreement proposes that the following deductions be made from the
MSA: (i) administration costs not to exceed $70,000; (ii)
attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the MSA
($1,166,666) paid to the class counsel, plus reimbursement of
reasonable and actual expenses, not to exceed $31,500; (iii)
enhancement payment of $12,500 to each class representative in
addition to their distribution amount as a class member; (iv)
employers' payroll taxes; (v) $15,000 allocated to settle the
portion of the case brought under the PAGA, with 75% of the PAGA
payment ($11,250) paid to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency, and 25% of the PAGA payment ($3,750) included
in the class fund.  The remaining funds make up the Net
Settlement Amount ("NSA"), which is estimated to be $2,203,200.
The NSA will be distributed to settlement class members on a
proportional basis based on the number of weeks that each class
member worked.

On Sept. 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  At the
Court's request, the Plaintiffs filed supplementary briefing in
support of the motion on Oct. 24, 2017.  The Plaintiffs sought an
order: (i) preliminarily approving the settlement agreement; (ii)
conditionally certifying the case for settlement purposes; (iii)
directing that the notice packet be mailed to class members; and
(iv) scheduling a hearing to determine final approval of the
settlement agreement.

On Dec. 12, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement and for
conditional certification for settlement purposes.  On Feb. 16,
2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and enhancement awards in conjunction with final approval
of class action settlement.  On March 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs'
counsel filed a motion for final approval of the class action
settlement.

Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the settlement, certified the settlement class, and approved the
settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The Judge granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards, and awarded the following sums: (i) the Class counsel
will receive $1,166,666.66 in attorneys' fees, and $28,275 in
expenses; (ii) Named Plaintiffs Mathein and Sabas will each
receive $12,500 as incentive payments; and (iii) the parties will
direct payment of 75% of the settlement allocated to the PAGA
payment, or $11,250, to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, as required by California law, and the
remainder of the PAGA payment, or $3,750, will be included in the
class fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Zl25g9 from Leagle.com.

Lauren Mathein & Christine Sabas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Anthony Baird -- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman,
LLP & Stanley D. Saltzman -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com --
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory
William Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
and Feld LLP & Galit Avitan Knotz -- gknotz@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.


PINOT'S PALETTE: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinot's Palette
Franchise LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pinot's
Palette Franchise LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05784 (S.D.
N.Y., June 26, 2018).

Pinot's Palette is an American national paint and sip franchise
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Founded in 2009, Pinot's Palette
offers step-by-step group art lessons accompanied by wine or
cocktails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PIPES & SHAW: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pipes & Shaw, LLC.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Pipes & Shaw, LLC doing business as: Veronica Beard,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03671 (E.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Pipes & Shaw, LLC (trade name Veronica Beard) is in the
Designers, Apparel business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PLANO, TX: Faces "Neil" Suit in Texas State Court
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Plano. The
lawsuit is captioned as Jon Neill, Ashley Nicole Hill, On behalf
of themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
v. City of Plano and Gregory C. Rushin, Chief of Police for The
City of Plano, the Defendant, Case No. 417-02665-2018 (Texas
Dist. Ct., Collin Cty., June 1, 2018).

Plano is a city in north Texas. The Heritage Farmstead Museum is
a restored 19th-century farm with original tools and furniture,
plus a replica 1895 schoolroom.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell J. Bowman, Esq.
          800 Airport Fwy No. 860
          Irving, TX 75062
          Telephone: (214) 922 0220


PLATINUM RESTAURANT: Green Moves to Certify Class of Servers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LAUREN GREEN, et al. v.
PLATINUM RESTAURANTS MID-AMERICA, LLC d/b/a EDDIE MERLOT'S PRIME
AGED BEEF AND SEAFOOD, Case No. 3:14-cv-00439-RGJ-DW (W.D. Ky.),
ask the Court to certify their Kentucky Wage and Hours Act claims
as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant required certain
employees in its Louisville restaurant to participate in a tip
pool scheme, which was required as a condition of employment and
so violated the KWHA.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class,
which consists of:

     all Servers, Cocktail Servers and Bartenders employed by the
     defendant in its Louisville restaurant since it opened on
     January 6, 2011.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E6R7x4Pa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Wallace Blizzard, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 314-0793
          E-mail: wblizzard@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Garry R. Adams, Esq.
          CLAY DANIEL WALTON & ADAMS PLC
          462 South Fourth Street, Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561-2005
          E-mail: garry@justiceky.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John T. Lovett, Esq.
          Kyle D. Johnson, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202-3363
          Telephone: (502) 589-5400
          E-mail: jlovett@fbtlaw.com
                  kjohnson@fbtlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Zazovskaya" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Svetlana Zazovskaya, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03711 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018).

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides receivable collection
and management services. The Company offers insurance follow-up,
credentialing, skip tracing, zero balance claim review, and
practice management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel A. Louro, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dlouro@cml.legal


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Bid to Remand Chiropractors' Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied Plaintiff's
Motion for Remand the case, HANDS ON CHIROPRACTIC PL, Plaintiff,
v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-192-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla.).

In the instant action, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting a class action claim against the Defendant for
declaratory relief and damages in state court.  The Defendant
then filed a notice of removal, invoking diversity jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff then moved to remand the action back to state
court, contending that the Defendant's allegations concerning the
amount-in-controversy ("AIC") were deficient.  On referral, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick finds that the Defendant met its
burden of proving the AIC by a preponderance of the evidence, and
he recommends denying the Motion.

No party objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now
passed.  Absent objections, Judge Dalton has examined the R&R
only for clear error.  On review, he agrees with Magistrate Judge
Irick's recommendation and finds that the Defendant has met the
AIC, so the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.  Thus, the
Motion is due to be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Dalton adopted and confirmed Magistrate Judge
Irick's Report and Recommendation, and made a part of his Order.
He denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4nrZ7C from Leagle.com.

Hands On Chiropractic PL, A/A/O Samantha Schurr, Plaintiff,
represented by Alyson M. Laderman --
aladerman@theorlandolawgroup.com -- The Orlando Law Group &
Lawrence M. Kopelman, Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.

Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Allison Paige Gallagher -- allison.gallagher@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP & Megan Costa DeVault -- megan.devault@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP.


PROVIDENCE, RI: Ricci Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ROBERTA RICCI, DACHELLE
L. THREATS, VINCENT PIZZI, DIANE DINOBILE, ABIGAIL TORRES, JOHN
BORDEN, and NORTH AMERICAN AUTO LEASING, LLC, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE,
by and through its Treasurer, James J. Lombardi, III, Case No.
1:18-cv-00171-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), ask the Court to enter a
preliminary approval order granting the parties' class action
settlement.

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant their Unopposed Motion
and enter the Preliminary Approval Order, that for settlement
purposes only, provides for:

   (1) conditional certification of the Class as defined in the
       Settlement Agreement;

   (2) conditional appointment of Named Plaintiffs to serve as
       Class representatives;

   (3) conditional appointment of Plaintiffs' counsel, Peter N.
       Wasylyk, Esq., of the Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk and
       Peter J. Petrarca, Esq., of Petrarca & Petrarca Law
       Offices to serve as Class counsel;

   (4) approval of the proposed notice, in the form and manner
       provided for in the Settlement Agreement, which proposed
       notice will inform Class Members of the terms of the
       Settlement and their rights, including the proposed Class
       definition, conditional certification of the Class,
       conditional appointment of Named Plaintiffs as Class
       representatives, conditional appointment of Named
       Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel, deadline for Class
       Members to exclude themselves from the Class, object to
       the Settlement, and determine whether they wish to
       challenge their speeding citations at a new hearing before
       the City of Providence Municipal Court by completing and
       timely submitting a simple, easy to understand hearing
       request form; and

   (5) scheduling a date and time for a fairness hearing to
       consider final approval of the Settlement.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Petrarca, Esq.
          PETRARCA & PETRARCA LAW OFFICES
          330 Silver Spring Street
          Providence, RI 02904
          Telephone: (401) 273-1111
          Facsimile: (401) 621-2225
          E-mail: Peter330350@gmail.com


QUALITY RECOVERY: Court Won't Dismiss "Higgins" FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned TABETHA-JENNIE HIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY
RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., and John Does 1-25, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, No. 1:17-cv-
2581-WSD-JSA (N.D. Ga.).

The Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff Tabetha-Jennie Higgins
to collect an alleged debt owed to Windrush Apartments, which
contracted the Defendant to collect the amount allegedly owed.
The Collection Letter was the first communication between the
Defendant and the Plaintiff regarding the amount owed to Windrush
Apartments.  The Collection Letter stated that the Plaintiff owed
$3,473.36 to Windrush.

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S.
Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation (Non-Final R&R). The
Non-Final R&R recommends that the Court deny the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

Count I of the Plaintiff's Complaint raises the issue of whether
the Collection Letter improperly states that the Plaintiff must
notify Defendant in writing to dispute the validity of the debt.

Count II raises the issue of whether the Collection Letter
violates Section 1692e(10) by falsely stating that a dispute of
her debt had to be in writing. Section 1692e of the FDCPA
provides, in relevant part: "A debt collector may not use any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the
general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
violation of this section: (10) The use of any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to
collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer."

The Magistrate Judge agrees with the Plaintiff and the Ninth,
Second, and Fourth Circuits have held that the plain language of
Section 1692g(a)(3) does not contain a requirement to dispute the
debt in writing, and that, under the Supreme Court's approach to
statutory interpretation, when the plain language of a statute
does not render the statute absurd, it must be enforced. After
analyzing each of the circuit opinions and considering the weight
of the authority, the Magistrate Judge determined that the
Plaintiff may state a claim for violations of Section 1692g(a)(3)
and Section 1692e(10) on the basis of her allegations that the
Defendant's Collection Letter required her to dispute her debt in
writing, and that she was misled into believing that only a
written dispute would be valid.

The Court finds no plain error in these findings.

The Magistrate Judge also disagreed with the Defendant's argument
that the Plaintiff failed to plead that the Collection Letter was
confusing to the least sophisticated consumer. The Magistrate
Judge found that the Plaintiff specifically pleaded that because
of the Collection Letter, she, 'as would any least sophisticated
consumer,' believed that she could only dispute her debt in
writing.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report
and Recommendation is adopted, and the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdr4xgs from
Leagle.com.

Tabetha-Jennie Higgins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Misty Ann Oaks, The
Oaks Firm, & Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com --
Marcus Zelman, LLC.

Quality Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brenton Sewell Bean -- bbean@fmglaw.com -- Freeman Mathis & Gary,
LLP.


RENT-A-CENTER: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05742 (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Rent-A-Center is an American public furniture and electronics
rent-to-own company based in Plano, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Doty Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned AMANDA C. DOTY, et al. v.
REV-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01723-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), seeks to certify
a class defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
     REV-1 Solutions, LLC mailed an initial written communication
     between December 21, 2017 and January 1, 2018, which lists
     "Client: MINISTRY HEALTH CARE" and states "This account has
     been listed with our office for collections."

Amanda C. Doty, Catherine A. Kreger, Thomas L. Riehle, Paul R.
Neubert, Kelly B. Betow, Bruce M. Long, George J. Zettler, Karen
K. Zettler, Michael J. Rosenberg and Brenda J. Chambers assert
claims against REV-1 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them to represent
the putative class members and to appoint their attorneys as
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r0qtlT7U

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com


ROBERT B. LOCKE: Cal. App. Affirms Striking of "Berry" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six
issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Strike Appellants' Lawsuit as a Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in the case
captioned DANA BERRY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ROBERT
B. LOCKE et al., Defendants and Respondents. 2d Civil No.
B284410. (Cal. App.)

The trial court granted Locke's motion.

Robert B. Locke served Dana and Patricia Berry with three-day
notices to pay rent and quit their space at Rivergate RV Park in
Santa Maria.  Rivergate is a client of Locke and his law firm.
Dana and Patricia Berry filed a putative class action against
Locke, alleging that the notices violated the federal and
California Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCP) Acts and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Locke moved to strike appellants' lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation (SLAPP).  The anti-SLAPP law directs
courts to strike causes of action arising from a defendant's
exercise of First Amendment rights to petition or to free speech,
unless the plaintiff shows a likelihood of prevailing on the
claim.

The trial court granted Locke's motion to strike the entire
complaint. The Appellants sought reconsideration of the ruling
and opposed Locke's request for an award of attorney fees and
sanctions. The court denied the appellants' untimely motion for
reconsideration and ordered them to pay Locke $16,240 in attorney
fees and $602 in costs.  This appeal followed.

The Cal. App. finds that the activity underlying appellants'
claim, Locke's legal representation of Rivergate in efforts to
evict holdover tenants and collect unpaid rent, is
constitutionally protected.  All communicative acts performed by
attorneys as part of their representation of a client in a
judicial proceeding or other petitioning context are per se
protected as petitioning activity by the anti-SLAPP statute.
To show that an attorney is a debt collector, the plaintiff in a
FDCP action must prove that that the attorney's debt collection
practice is steady, usual, and customary, encompassing a pattern
of collection activity and personnel dedicated to it. This
showing is not made if the attorney handled six to eight debt
collection cases in 10 years.

The Appellants did not make a prima facie showing that Locke is a
debt collector. Sending five eviction notices in four years does
not make Locke a debt collector, when there is no evidence that
collecting debts is a steady, customary part of his practice. The
Appellants unavailingly rely on a factually distinguishable case
in which an attorney's dunning letter stated that he is acting as
a debt collector; this admission showed that the attorney fell
within the FDCP Acts.

The Appellants' cause of action based on the CLRA lacks merit.
The law proscribes unfair competition and deceptive acts in a
transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or
lease of goods or services to any consumer. Locke did not sell or
lease goods or services to appellants, nor did he provide the
well known package of goods and services, heat, ventilation,
plumbing, windows, doors, etc., that constitutes residential
housing, contrary to appellants' argument.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and Locke is entitled to
recover his costs and attorney fees on appeal from the
appellants.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s April 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yanork2p from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Ron Bochner and Ron Bochner -- robolaw@justice.com
-- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sumalpong & Sumalpong and Joanne S. Sumalpong --
joannesumalpong@sumalponglaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


SALON INC: Phillips Sues over Minimum & OT Pay, Tip Skimming
------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN PHILLIPS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. @THE SALON INC d/b/a @THESALON and
JAMES FONG, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05154 (S.D.N.Y., June
8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay
under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants did not provide notice to
Plaintiff that Defendants would be taking tip-credit for tips
received by Plaintiff. During the course of Plaintiff's
employment, Plaintiff's wages and salary fell far below the
minimum wage rate for the New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374 0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374 9931


SAM ASH MUSIC: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in "Lane" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Lane asks the Court to certify the action styled CARL LANE
v. SAM ASH MUSIC CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00403-LPL (W.D.
Pa.), to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as class representative and
for the appointment of a class counsel.

The Plaintiff, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ULI96ZU7

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas Lucchesi, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON STEVEN & YOUNG
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 507-6401
          E-mail: tlucchesi@stradley.com


SANFORD LP: Spacone's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andre Birotte, Jr., has taken under submission the
motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the
lawsuit entitled David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

"The Court having carefully considered the papers and the
evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral
arguments of counsel, hereby takes the motion under submission,"
according to the Order.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Elaine Allen Pike, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant Sanford, LP, is represented by:

          Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 901-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
          E-mail: jcart@schiffhardin.com


SAKS & COMPANY: Failed to Secure Customer Data, Rudolph Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAKS & COMPANY LLC d/b/a
SAKS OFF 5TH, a Delaware limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05107-JFW-SS (C.D. Cal., June 8,
2018), alleges that Saks failed to secure and safeguard its
customers' credit and debit card numbers, which Saks collected at
the time Plaintiff and other Class members made purchases at
Defendant's Saks OFF 5TH stores, and failed to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class members that
their customer data had been stolen, as well as precisely what
types of information were stolen.

According to the complaint, on March 28, 2018, the notorious
hacking group known as Fin7 announced the successful data breach
of an unnamed major corporation, resulting in the unauthorized
release of over five million stolen credit and debit cards.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2018, the cyber-threat research group
Gemini Advisory, working with several large financial
institutions, confirmed that the stolen Customer Data belonged to
Hudson's Bay Company. HBC is Defendant's parent company, owning
the Saks Fifth Avenue, Saks OFF 5TH, and Lord & Taylor
stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexandria Rudolph:

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


SARBANAND FARMS: Bid to Serve CSI in "Rosas" Granted
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUPE TAPIA, as individuals
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGERBROS., LLC., NIDIA
PEREZ, and CSI VISA PROCESSING S.C., Defendants, Case No. C18-
0112-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to serve Defendant CSI S.C.
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).

The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action on behalf of
approximately 600 Mexican farm workers for alleged labor law
violations during the 2017 blueberry harvest in Sumas,
Washington.  They have personally served both grower Defendants
and seek Court leave to serve Defendant  CSI S.C., a Mexican farm
labor contractor, by mail to  CSI S.C.'s employee based in
Olympia, Washington and by service on U.S. counsel.  The
Plaintiffs assert that the alternative option -- service through
the Hague Convention -- would involve a year's delay and
approximately $3,000 in costs.  No Defendant opposed or otherwise
responded to the Plaintiffs' present motion.

Judge Coughenour finds that the particularities of the case
require alternate service under Rule 4(f)(3).  The Plaintiffs'
initial complaint named CSI USA, a company with the same
personnel as CSI, S.C., but registered in the state of
Washington.  The Plaintiffs made repeated attempts to serve CSI
USA at its Washington address before CSI USA's counsel, Adam
Belzberg, agreed to accept service.

Upon consulting with Mr. Belzberg, the Plaintiffs amended their
complaint to substitute CSI S.C. for CSI USA.  Mr. Belzberg
declined to accept or waive service on behalf of CSI S.C.,
stating that he represented only CSI USA.  The Plaintiffs
represent that effecting service of process on CSI S.C. in Mexico
will take approximately one year and cost approximately $3,000.

Given Plaintiffs' attempts to effect service in the U.S., the
close relationship between CSI S.C. and CSI USA, and the Court's
interest in efficiently advancing the class action litigation,
the Judge finds alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) necessary.
This result is not precluded by the Hague Convention, which does
not come into force where valid service can occur in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs' proposed means of alternative service are
reasonably calculated to provide notice to CSI S.C. and to it
provide an opportunity to present objections.  They propose
service on Mr. Belzberg, attorney for CSI USA, and Roxana Macias,
employee of CSI USA and CSI S.C.

Service on Mr. Belzberg and Ms. Macias is reasonably certain to
inform CSI S.C. of the pending lawsuit.  Mr. Belzberg has stated
that he represents only CSI, USA, which has never been used for
anything.  However, he has communicated with CSI S.C. about the
pending lawsuit, he knows CSI's legal position regarding waiver
or authorization of service, and he has provided CSI S.C. with a
copy of the amended complaint.  Mr. Belzberg has further
represented that CSI S.C. and CSI USA are "the same owners; the
same people."  This is reflected in the Ms. Macias paperwork
filed to form CSI Visa Processing, USA, LLC.

The filing lists Guillermo Mathus and Tania de la Fuente as the
two other executors of the company.  Mr. Mathus is also the
president of CSI S.C. and de la Fuente is the general manager for
the company, which has been active in Washington since at least
2012.  the Judge finds that service on Mr. Belzberg and Ms.
Macias is reasonably calculated under these circumstances, to
apprise CSI S.C. of the pendency of the action and to afford a
full and fair opportunity to respond.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service.  The Plaintiffs may
serve CSI S.C.'s Washington-based employee, Roxana Macias, by
first-class U.S. mail at her address in Olympia and attorney Adam
Belzberg at his law office in Seattle.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SjAGEb from Leagle.com.

Barbaro Rosas & Guadalupe Tapia, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Joachim Morrison -- joe.morrison@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA
LEGAL SERVICES, Bernardo Rafael Cruz --
bernardo.cruz@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES,
Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Lori Isley -- lori.isley@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL
SERVICES & Tony Gonzalez -- tony.gonzalez@columbialegal.org --
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES.

Sarbanand Farms LLC, Munger Bros LLC & Nidia Perez, Defendants,
represented by Coby Cohen -- ccohen@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT BRUCE &
WILLEY LLP, David Nelson Bruce -- dbruce@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT
BRUCE & WILLEY LLP & Miles Aaron Yanick -- myanick@sbwllp.com --
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP.


SCOTT JEWELERS: Faces "Harland" Suit in New York State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott Jewelers,
Ltd. The lawsuit is captioned as HARLAND, JACK AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SCOTT
JEWELERS, LTD., MARK UDELL JEWELERS, LTD. AND UDELL JEWELERS,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 604944/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June
8, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Ste.347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Robinson, Esq.
          HARPER GREY LLP
          Telephone: (604) 895 2902
          E-mail: mrobinson@harpergrey.com


SEASONS HOSPICE: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Rodriguez and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Seasons Hospice &
Palliative Care of Southern Florida, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 18-013298-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami) on June 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-22299-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

Seasons Hospice offers skilled nursing, assisted living,
rehabilitation and pain management services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 885 6697
          Facsimile: (404) 724 1697
          E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com


SERVPRO INDUSTRIES: Delta Dawgs Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DELTA DAWGS CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, a California corporation, TAMMY WOLOSKI, an
individual; PAUL WOLOSKI, an individual v. SERVPRO INDUSTRIES,
INC., a Nevada corporation; RICHARD CONNER, aka RICKY CONNER, an
individual, Case No. 2:18-cv-02907-JAK-JC (C.D. Cal.), move the
Court for an order granting class certification and declaring
that the Third Claim for Relief of the First Amended Complaint be
maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class consists of:

     All persons and entities who have entered into an Franchise
     License Agreement (FLA) with SERVPRO Industries, Inc. for
     the operation of a SERVPRO franchise in the State of
     California, and who as of the date of the filing of this
     action up to and including the rendition of judgment herein
     operate a SERVPRO franchise in the State of California,
     which FLA contains a forum selection/venue clause that
     provides for litigation of disputes between franchisees and
     SERVPRO in the State of Tennessee in violation of California
     Business & Professions Code section 20020.5

The Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of Ernest J. Franceschi,
Jr., Esq., of Franceschi Law Corporation as class counsel, in
light of his substantial class action experience, competency and
capability of effectively representing the interests of the
Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 23, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1NC53l9W

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq.
          FRANCESCHI LAW CORPORATION
          800 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-0835
          Facsimile: (213) 622-0837
          E-mail: ejf@franceschilaw.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Craft"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Beaufort Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned Jacqueline L. Craft, Trustee
of the Jacqueline L. Craft Trust U/T/D June 30 1998, and
Jacqueline L. Craft, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. South Carolina
State Plastering, LLC, Peter Conley, Del Webb Communities, Inc.,
and Pulte Homes, Inc., Defendants, C.A. No. 9:15-cv-5080-PMD (D.
S. C.).

The action arises out of construction defects related to the
stucco applied to the homes in Sun City Hilton Head.

They propose that the Court certify the class under the following
definition:

     All individuals, corporations, unincorporated associations,
or other entities who purchased stucco-clad homes in Sun City
Hilton Head from anyone other than Del Webb Communities, Inc.,
and/or Pulte Homes, Inc. to which South Carolina State Plastering
applied the exterior stucco in-whole or in-part prior to July 31,
2007 which exhibits any one of the following:

     (a) The lack of through-wall head flashing above doors
and/or windows;

     (b) The lack of stucco control joints at the corners of
windows and/or doors; and/or

     (c) The lack of an appropriate gap between the stucco
exterior and the structure slab.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class
actions. It states: (a) One or more members of a class may sue or
be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
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; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

Here, the relevant sub-part is Rule 23(b)(3), which requires
that:
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The Plaintiffs allege three defects: lack of through wall head
flashing above doors and windows, lack of stucco control joints
at the corners of doors and windows, and lack of an appropriate
gap between the stucco exterior and the structure slab. The
Defendants contend that there is no connection between these
alleged defects, and that the repairs necessary for each alleged
defect would be completely different.

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs state that they need only
allege common defects and provide some evidence that those
defects exist in order to warrant class certification. They
contend that they have provided such evidence in the form of
expert testimony from the Defendants' subcontractors that the
defects do exist.

Here, the Court believes that the predominance inquiry is fatal
to the Plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class. Predominance is an
even more stringent inquiry than commonality and the Court must
conclude that the individual determinations in this case far
outweigh the common. The first, and best, example of this is
Defendants' statute of limitations argument.2 In support of their
contention that individualized determinations predominate, the
Defendants cite Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops,
Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 342 (4th Cir. 1998).

In Broussard, the Fourth Circuit stated that when the defendant's
affirmative defenses (such as the statute of limitations) may
depend on facts peculiar to each plaintiff's case, class
certification is erroneous. Rather than attempting to distinguish
or even address Broussard, the Plaintiffs contend that any
statute of limitations issues could be dealt with in post-verdict
proceedings. The Plaintiffs offer no further explanation of what
those proceedings would entail, and fail to cite any authority
supporting that concept.

Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to explain why
the Defendants should be required to undergo a trial before being
able to adjudicate an affirmative defense that might otherwise
bar a trial. As the Plaintiffs have the burden at this stage, the
Court concludes that they have failed to show that the
individualized statute of limitations issues here can be resolved
on a class-wide basis and that those questions do not
predominate.
The Plaintiffs requested that the Court remand this case in the
event that it denied their motion for class certification. The
Court declines to do so. Every circuit that has addressed the
question has held that post-removal events do not oust Class
Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is denied,
and the Plaintiffs' request that the Court remand this case is
also denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxvtudf from Leagle.com.

Jacqueline L Craft, Trustee of the Jacqueline L. Craft Trust
u/t/d June 30, 1998 and individually, Plaintiff, represented by
John T. Chakeris -- john@chakerislawfirm.com -- Chakeris Law
Firm, Michael S. Seekings -- mseekings@leathbouchlaw.com -- Leath
Bouch and Seekings, Phillip W. Segui, Jr., Segui Law Firm, &
William Jefferson Leath, Jr., Leath Bouch and Seekings.

South Carolina State Plastering LLC & Peter Conley, Defendants,
represented by Christy E. Mahon -- cem@swblaw.com -- Sweeny
Wingate and Barrow & Everett Augustus Kendall, II --
eak@swblaw.com -- Sweeny Wingate and Barrow.

Del Webb Communities Inc & Pulte Homes Inc, Defendants,
represented by A. Victor Rawl Jr -- vrawl@grsm.com -- Gordon and
Rees LLP, Celeste Tiller Jones -- cjones@mcnair.com -- McNair Law
Firm-Cola & Henry Wilkins Frampton, IV -- hframpton@grsm.com --
Gordon and Rees LLP.


STEINWAY TOWING: Tow Truck Drivers to Be Notified of "Singh" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Steven Tiscione entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
DEVON SINGH v. STEINWAY TOWING, INC. a/k/a 1-2-3 Towing, and
VINCENT D'AMATO, Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01387-MKB-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), ruling that on or before 45 days after entry of the
Order, the Plaintiffs or their designated representatives shall
cause a copy of the Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Join Form in
English to be mailed by first class mail to:

     All current and former employees of the Defendants who
     worked in the capacity of tow truck drivers and performed
     all work incidental thereto, from May 20, 2015, through the
     present. Corporate officers, shareholders, directors,
     administrative employees shall not be part of the proposed
     collective.

Within 10 days from the entry of this Order, the Defendants shall
post the Notice of Lawsuit in a conspicuous location at its
primary place of business, which is believed to be located in
Astoria, County of Queens, New York.

The Court approves the form of the Notice of Lawsuit and Consent
to Join Lawsuit form, and finds that the mailing of such Notice
and Consent to Join Lawsuit form will constitute the best notice
practicable under the circumstances to members of the collective.
Within 10 days after entry of this Order, the Defendants shall
furnish to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list containing the full
name and other information for each of the current and former tow
truck drivers, however titled, who provided services for one or
more weeks in furtherance of the business of the Defendants at
any time from May 20, 2015, to the present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5yrpr5G



STONEHENGE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stonehenge
Management LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Stonehenge Management LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05794 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2018).

Stonehenge Management LLC provides investment management,
property management, development, design, construction, and
leasing services. The company, together with its investment
partners, owns a portfolio of properties that include apartments
in Mahattan. Stonehenge Management LLC is based in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SWISSPORT USA: Fails to Pay Wages, Vinasco Claims
-------------------------------------------------
INGRID L. VINASCO, Individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01902 (S.D. Tex., June 8, 2018),
alleges that Defendant did not pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, wages for work performed by its employees, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant automatically deducted
30 minutes from each shift worked by its employees for meal
breaks regardless of whether the employee actually had an
uninterrupted meal break. The Defendant did not pay its
employees, including the Plaintiff, for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. As
such, Defendant denied wages to Plaintiff and Defendant's
employees, failed to pay overtime and failed to pay overtime at a
rate of one and one half of regular rate.

Swissport International is a Swiss aviation services company
providing airport ground and cargo handling services,
headquartered in Opfikon, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
                  service@tranlawllp.com


TAHOE RESOURCES: "Sanders" Suit Moved to District of Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TYLER SANDERS, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
TAHOE RESOURCES INC., C. KEVIN MCARTHUR, RONALD W. CLAYTON, MARK
SADLER, and ELIZABETH MCGREGOR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04052, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (Las Vegas) on June 8, 2018. The Nevada
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01041-RFB-GWF to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard F.
Boulware, II.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Tahoe from March 12, 2015 through July 5,
2017, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Tahoe Resources is a mining company and intermediate precious
metals producer with silver and gold mines in Canada, Guatemala
and Peru. It was founded in Vancouver, BC by Kevin McArthur,
former CEO of Glamis Gold and Goldcorp.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King Of Prussia Road
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1201 Third Ave., 20th Flr.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur G. Jakoby, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN, L.L.P.
          2 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 592 1438
          Facsimile: (212) 545 3340


TESLA INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Shareholder Suit Refused
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELON MUSK, BRAD W. BUSS, ROBYN M. DENHOLM, IRA
EHRENPREIS, ANTONIO J. GRACIAS, STEPHEN T. JURVETSON, and KIMBAL
MUSK, Defendants Below, Appellants, and TESLA, INC., Nominal
Defendant Below, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ROOFERS LOCAL 149 PENSION FUND,
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, KBC ASSET
MANAGEMENT NV, ERSTE-SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT M.B.H.,
STICHTING BLUE SKY ACTIVE LARGE CAP EQUITY FUND USA, and AARON
ROCKE, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, Case No. 221, 2018,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12711 (Del.), Judge James T. Vaughn, Jr. of
the Supreme Court of Delaware refused the Defendants-Appellants'
appeal from Court of Chancery March 28, 2018 interlocutory order.

The Defendants-Appellants seek interlocutory review of the Court
of Chancery's opinion of March 28, 2018, denying their motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs-Appellees' second amended verified class
action and derivative complaint under Court of Chancery Rule
12(b)(6).

The Court of Chancery refused the application for certification
in a detailed order dated April 27, 2018, explaining why
interlocutory review was not warranted under the principles and
criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  Interlocutory review is
addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.

In the exercise of his discretion, Judge Vaughn concludes that
the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict
standards for certification under Rule 42(b).  Accordingly, he
refused the interlocutory appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TbF35N from Leagle.com.


THUMBS UP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Zhang Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN ZHANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHONGQING LIUYISHOU GOURMET NJ INC d/b/a Thumbs Up
Chinese Restaurant, WEIBAINIAN GOURMET INC d/b/a Thumbs Up
Chinese Restaurant, YUE MA, and MENG DOE, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10359 (D.N.J., June 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants
willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, the statutory minimum wage and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Thumbs Up restaurant in New Jersey offers Chinese
cuisine.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class Plaintiffs:

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


TOMORROW PCS: Blank's Bid to Proceed as Collective Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered an order in the lawsuit
styled LYNDSAY BLANK v. TOMORROW PCS, LLC AND JONG PARK, Case No.
2:16-cv-11092-MVL-DEK (E.D. La.):

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed as a Collective
      Action and for Judicial Notice to Potential Opt-In
      Plaintiffs;

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the United States
      Magistrate Judge's April 20, 2018, Order Pursuant to Rule
      72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   -- denying the Defendants' Motion to Strike Declarations; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial and
      Discovery Deadline.

On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the action alleging that
TPCS violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay her and other similarly situated employees
one-and-one-half times of their regular rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.  The Plaintiffs' complaint stated
that she sought to proceed as a collective action under Section
216(b) the FLSA.

Judge Lemmon opines, among other things, that general fairness
and procedural considerations weigh against certification.  After
the original class was certified and notice provided to potential
plaintiffs, there are currently only three opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=al17coXO


TRADEMARK CONSTRUCTION: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jose Garcia, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Trademark Construction Co., Inc., an Arizona Corporation;
Trademark Construction Co., Inc., an Arizona Corporation; which
will do Business in California as J.M.W. Truss and Components;
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-
02018-00016180-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on June 8, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01214-JLS-WVG
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis
L. Sammartino.

Trademark Construction Co, Inc. was founded in 1978. The
Company's line of business includes manufacturing engine
electrical equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652 3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652 3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Meyrov" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Yoseph Meyrov, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03709 (E.D. N.Y., June 26,
2018).

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. It offers accelerator, profit recovery,
messenger, dental collection, demand/direct deposit account
recovery plus, outsourcing, medical collection, education
collection, and commercial/business-to-business collections
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses "Rosenzweig" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted in the case captioned ARON ROSENZWEIG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-227
(JMV)(MF) (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff alleges that on a date better known to the
Defendant, he drove through a toll plaza but the toll was not
paid. Afterward, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter, requesting a total of $55.00: $5.00 for the unpaid toll
and $50.00 for an administrative fee. The collection letter did
not specify the date of the violation. The Defendant's collection
letter indicated the Plaintiff's Current Balance Due as $55.00,
and further stated that "your account balance may be periodically
increased due to the addition of accrued interest or other
changes as provided in the agreement with the original creditor
or as otherwise provided for state law."  The Plaintiff claims
these two statements are false, deceptive, and misleading.

To succeed on an claim pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she
is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the
defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a
debt as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a
provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.

The Court discussed the Plaintiff's allegations with regard to
the FDCPA in great detail in its July 14, 2017 Opinion, and
ultimately dismissed the FDCPA claim because it determined the
delinquent toll and fee are not debts. The analysis in that
Opinion relied heavily on a case out of this District, which held
that an obligation arising from non-payment of a toll does not
constitute a debt under the FDCPA.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to remedy
the deficiencies the Court addressed in its July 14, 2017
Opinion. The Plaintiff, in essence, repeats the same legal
arguments with which the Court has already disagreed.

The Plaintiff also now attaches the E-ZPass Individual Agreement
Terms and Conditions as Exhibit A to the SAC. As the Court noted
in its original Opinion, the Terms and Conditions directly
contradict the Plaintiff's allegation that the E-ZPass contract
extended him a line of credit. The Plaintiff's attorney
nevertheless states in his declaration that he called MTA Bridges
and Tunnels E-ZPass regarding the policies and procedures, and
during that call a representative from E-ZPass told him that
although it is not written in the contract, it is E-ZPass's
policy to extend credit to consumers. The written document,
however, controls, the Court says.

Moreover, even if the Court were to credit the declaration (which
would essentially mean that the Plaintiff's attorney is acting as
a fact witness in a case that he is litigating), it does not
indicate that E-ZPass extended credit to users during the time
alleged in the SAC. The collection letter was sent on June 29,
2015, meaning that the Plaintiff's alleged violation had to occur
before that date.

Regardless of the contract between the Plaintiff and E-ZPass, the
Plaintiff has failed to show that the delinquent toll and the
administrative fee are debts under the FDCPA instead he has
rehashed arguments he made in opposition to the first motion to
dismiss. For the reasons stated in the Court's July 14, 2017
Opinion, the Court disagrees with the Plaintiff's arguments.
Thus, the Court has no legal basis to deny this second motion to
dismiss.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycsrwh87 from Leagle.com.

ARON ROSENZWEIG, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ZEMEL, Zemel
Law LLC & FRED M. ZEMEL, THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM.

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by AARON RAPHAEL
EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions.legal.com -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN
& ISRAEL, LLC.


TRI-STATE WINDOW: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-State Window
Factory Corp. The case is styled as Kathy Wu, on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tri-State Window
Factory Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03655-SJF-ARL (E.D.
N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Tri-State Window Factory Corp. manufactures plastics products.
The Company offers injection molding, tooling, product
development, and secondary operations services. Tri-State Window
Factory serves automotive, medical, electronics, and packaging
industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 879-0240
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 879-0240
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Park Moves for Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sungsoo Park, Tremaine K. Watkins, Elizabeth E. Jun and Georgina
Sandoval, Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit styled IN RE
UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01306-CLW
(D.N.J.), moves for final approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action and granting Final Approval of the
Parties' class settlement agreement.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1BW3c3Mr

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net

               - and -

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

Defendant United Collection Bureau, Inc., is represented by:

          Amanda L. Genovese, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, New York 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6227
          E-mail: amanda.genovese@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7541
          Facsimile: (757) 687-1541
          E-mail: ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          David N. Anthony, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410
          Facsimile: (804) 698-5118
          E-mail: david.anthony@troutman.com


UNITED STATES: Marshall's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied
without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action
Certification, request for appointment of counsel to represent
the class, and Motion to Expedite the Proceedings filed in the
lawsuit captioned MICHELLE RENEE MARSHALL v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01258-UNA (D.D.C.).

The Plaintiff is a federal prisoner challenging Federal Bureau of
Prisons policies, which allow "male inmates who allege they are
women" to be housed in facilities "with natural born, biological
females[.]" She purports to bring this action on behalf of "All
Similarly Situated Federal Female Prisoners[,] to include
heterosexual, lesbian, Christian, Jewish, [and] Muslim women
currently in federal prisons nationwide."

The Court opines that it does not appear that the Plaintiff, who
is proceeding pro se, has had legal training, and, therefore, she
cannot represent adequately the interests of the proposed class
of inmates.  The Court also adds that the case can proceed no
further at this time because the Plaintiff has not yet paid the
filing fee or been granted in forma pauperis status.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0AvRxmJG



UNITED STATES: Class of LGUs Entitled to PILT Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned KANE COUNTY,
UTAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant,
Nos. 17-739C; 17-1991C (Consolidated) (Fed. Cl.).

Kane County, Utah, is one of a number of units of local
government entitled to certain payments from the federal
government known as Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Kane County
then brought these consolidated cases, alleging that the federal
government's failure to pay the full formula amounts was a breach
of the statute's money-mandating obligation. It moved for summary
judgment as to liability in both cases and the Court granted its
motions.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
(RCFC), the Court may certify a class action 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; (3) The
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) The representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

Additionally, the Court must find that the United States has
acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
class, that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
and that a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Numerosity

It is clear in this case that the numerosity requirement is met.
RCFC 23(a)(1) requires that the potential class be so numerous
that joinder is impractical.

Here, the potential class includes approximately 1,900 local
government entities across the United States. These entities
include counties in all fifty states, as well as governmental
units in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands. The Court finds that this nationwide potential
class of nearly 2,000 plaintiffs renders joinder impractical and
satisfies RCFC 23's numerosity requirement.

Commonality

The second requirement for class certification, commonality, is
also met in this case. RCFC 23(a)(2) requires that there be
questions of law or fact common to the class.

Here, a single, common question of law predominates over all
other issues in this case: whether the federal government was
required to pay each eligible unit of local government its full
formula amount in FYs 2015 through 2017, notwithstanding
Congress' insufficient appropriations. Moreover, the government
acted uniformly as to all eligible units of local government in
each of those fiscal years by proportionally reducing each unit's
formula amount based on the insufficient appropriations.

Accordingly, commonality is satisfied in this case.

Typicality

Kane County's claims in these cases also satisfy the typicality
requirement. For this factor, RCFC 23(a)(3) requires that the
claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of
the claims or defenses of the class.

Kane County's claims share the same essential characteristics of
the class at large. It asserts that the federal government failed
to pay it the full amounts it was owed under the PILT formulas in
FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017. Each potential class member's claim is
identical, other than the specific dollar amount involved, as the
government proportionally reduced every eligible unit of local
government's PILT payment in FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017 based on
insufficient appropriations.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Kane County's claims
demonstrate sufficient typicality.

Adequacy

The fourth factor for class certification requires a finding that
the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Here, the parties do not appear to have any antagonistic
interests and the government does not point to any. Each eligible
unit of local government has the same legal claim, unaffected by
the claims of other potential class members. And as to class
counsel, Kane County asserts that Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP
have experience in handling class actions and litigating before
this court. The government does not dispute these assertions.
Moreover, Kane County's lead attorney, Mr. Saltman, has been
handling PILT litigation since at least 2005.

Therefore, the Court finds adequate representation of the
interests of the class.

Superiority

Finally, the rules require that a class action be superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy in order to certify a class.

Here, a common question of law predominates over all other
questions in this case, reducing the remainder to essentially
mathematical calculations. Therefore, a class action would
certainly achieve economies of time, effort and expenses while
promoting uniformity. In the absence of class action
certification, the Court of Federal Claims could be inundated
with nearly 2,000 separate cases presenting the same question of
law.
No party points to any particular difficulties in managing this
class action, and the Court does not foresee any, particularly as
all that remains in the case is for the parties to make
mathematical calculations with respect to damages. Accordingly,
because of the predominance of the legal question, the number of
potential plaintiffs, and the relatively small amounts involved
with respect to each potential class member, the Court concludes
that a class action is a superior method of adjudication here.

Based on this, Kane County's motion for class certification in
these consolidated cases is granted. The Court certifies a class
for the consolidated cases. That class is defined as follows:

   All 'unit[s] of general local government, as defined in 31
U.S.C. Section 6901(2), that received payment under 31 U.S.C.
Section 6902(a) of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act in fiscal
years 2015, 2016 and/or 2017.

The class claim is for the amounts the federal government owes to
each class member for the underpayment of their PILT
entitlements. Pursuant to RCFC 23(g), and the Court appoints Alan
I. Saltman, of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP as class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' April 26, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tj9qkl
from Leagle.com.

KANE COUNTY, UTAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan I. Saltman --
aisaltman@smithcurrie.com -- Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Mark Edward Porada, U.S.
Department of Justice-Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
John/Jane Does Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo, Plaintiffs
in the lawsuit styled AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES UNDER SERIOUS
THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES, ON
THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MICHAEL
R. POMPEO, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC (D.D.C.), ask the
Court to issue an order:

   (1) certifying a class of all people who have applied for an
       Afghan or Iraqi SIV pursuant to the Afghan Allies
       Protection Act of 2009, Pub. 1. 111-8, 123 Stat. 807, or
       the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007, Pub. 1. 110-181,
       122 Stat. 395, by submitting an application for COM
       Approval and whose applications have been in government-
       controlled steps for longer than nine months (Plaintiff
       Class);

   (2) appointing Plaintiffs John/Jane Does Alpha, Bravo,
       Charlie, Delta, and Echo as class representatives for the
       Plaintiff Class; and

   (3) appointing Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP and the
       International Refugee Assistance Project as Counsel for
       the Plaintiff Class

Michael R. Pompeo is the U.S. Secretary of State.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E88VZA9A

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda H. Martin, Esq.
          David Y. Livshiz, Esq.
          Shannon M. Leitner, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Curwin, Esq.
          Allison C. Wilson, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277-4001
          E-mail: linda.martin@freshfields.com
                  david.livshiz@freshfields.com
                  shannon.leitner@freshfields.com
                  rebecca.curwin@freshfields.com
                  allie.wilson@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Deepa Alagesan, Esq.
          Mariko Hirose, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
          40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 602-5639
          E-mail: dalagesan@refugeerights.org
                  mhirose@refugeerights.org


UPS SUPPLY: Class Certification in "Hughes" Wage Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.; UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE, INC.; and JOHN DOE 1-10, Appellants, v. MARION E.
HUGHES; RAYMOND S. BATTS; JAMES A. CRUME; TERRI A. ROGERS; and
PHILLIP L. WESTERN, individually, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Appellees, Case No. 2014-CA-001496-ME (Ky.
App.), Judge Sara Walter Combs of the Court of Appeals of
Kentucky vacated the order and opinion of the Jefferson Circuit
Court entered on Aug. 26, 2014 denying its motion for judgment on
the pleadings and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Kentucky's Wages and Hours Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS")
Chapter 337, allows a plaintiff who is not compensated by his or
her employer for performing tasks which are compensable to
recover payment for the time spent performing such tasks -- along
with liquidated damages and attorney's fees.

In 2007, the Appellees filed a putative class action against UPS.
In their complaint, they alleged that they and other employees of
UPS were required to enter workplace facilities through mandatory
security checkpoints before clocking in and to exit through the
security checkpoints after clocking out each day.  They alleged
that they were not paid wages for time spent at the security
checkpoints and that UPS violated Kentucky's Wages and Hours Act
by failing to compensate employees for work time.

The Appellees filed a motion for class certification.  The
proposed class was defined as consisting of all nonexempt UPS
employees employed in the Commonwealth during the applicable
limitations period.  By order entered July 27, 2012, the circuit
court denied the purported class representatives' motion for
class certification.  They filed a notice of appeal.

Thereafter, the purported class representatives filed a motion to
amend, seeking to certify a more limited class.  The new putative
class was defined as all nonexempt UPS employees who worked at
the following locations: Elizabethtown, Louisville, Technical &
Logistics Center, and Worldport during the applicable limitations
period.  By opinion and order entered Oct. 9, 2012, the circuit
court concluded that the more limited class also failed to meet
the prerequisites and conditions of the rules of procedure
governing class actions.  Consequently, the court declined to
certify the limited class.  A second notice of appeal was filed.
The appeals were consolidated by an order of the Court entered on
Nov. 27, 2012.

In an unpublished opinion rendered on Sept. 6, 2013, the Court
held that the circuit court had not erred by denying class
certification in its order concerning the more broadly defined
class and concluded that class certification was improper.  It
affirmed the circuit court's opinion and order with respect to
that appeal.  With respect to the more limited putative class,
the Court concluded that the circuit court had erred by
concluding that two prerequisites of CR 23.01 (commonality and
typicality) of class certification had not been met.

From the Court's review of the record, it rejected the circuit
court's conclusions that the putative class failed to meet the
commonality prerequisite of class certification, and that the
more limited putative class failed to meet the typicality
prerequisite for class action certification.

Upon remand, UPS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
contending that the unpaid wages claims of the proposed class
members could not be pursued through a class action because the
provisions of Kentucky's Wages and Hours law did not permit such
actions.

Following a hearing conducted on Aug. 15, 2014, the Jefferson
Circuit Court denied the motion of UPS for judgment on the
pleadings.  Pursuant to the Court's instructions, the circuit
court proceeded to consider whether the proposed limited class
satisfied the numerosity and adequacy of representation
prerequisites for class certification.

With respect to the numerosity requirement, the circuit court
concluded that the proposed class plainly met the numerosity
prerequisite of CR 23.01.  With respect to whether the adequacy
of representation requirement was met, it concluded that the
adequacy of representation prerequisite of CR 23.01 had been
satisfied.  The circuit court next considered whether the
proposed limited class fulfilled any one of three conditions
established by the provisions of CR 23.02.  Having determined
that the proposed limited class satisfied one of the three
conditions provided by CR 23.02, the circuit court certified the
putative class.  The appeal followed.

On Nov. 17, 2015, UPS filed a motion to hold the appeal in
abeyance pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky in
McCann v. Sullivan Univ. Systems Inc.  In an order entered on
Feb. 10, 2016, the Court granted the motion of UPS to hold the
matter in abeyance.

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky in McCann was
rendered on Aug. 24, 2017.  The abatement was lifted, and this
appeal has now proceeded to the merits panel.

The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly granted
the motion for class certification.  Judge Combs explains that
several months after the opinion and order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court were entered after the Court's remand, the Supreme
Court of the United States decided the case of Integrity Staffing
Solutions, Inc, v. Busk.  Because the Court interpretes its wages
and hours law consistently with the federal Fair Labor Standard
Act and its amendments, it is persuaded that the Court's decision
in Integrity Staffing now requires the Jefferson Circuit Court to
revisit its findings certifying the putative class.
Consequently, the Court is compelled to remand the matter once
more.

On appeal, UPS contends that the holding of Integrity Staffing
means that the representative members of the putative class have
not suffered a compensable injury.  Thus, it argues that the
purported class cannot be certified upon the same bases as
announced by the circuit court following the Court's remand.

Accordingly, the Judge vacated and remanded the order of the
circuit court.  On remand, the trial court will apply the
decision of the Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing as it
analyzes the requirements of CR 23 in conjunction with the claims
asserted by the putative claims representatives arising under our
Wages and Hours Act.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/NIn0fE from Leagle.com.

C. Laurence Woods III -- lwoods@fbtlaw.com -- Tony C. Coleman --
tcoleman@fbtlaw.com -- Griffin Terry Sumner -- gsumner@fbtlaw.com
-- Kyle D. Johnson -- kjohnson@fbtlaw.com -- Louisville,
Kentucky, Brief for Appellants.

Griffin Terry Sumner, Louisville, Kentucky, Oral Argument for
Appellants.

Michael D. Grabhorn, Kevin C. Burke, Andrew J. Horne --
ahorne@msapc.net -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for Appellees.

Kevin Burke, Louisville, Kentucky, Oral Argument for Appellees.


USA: Faces "Tippins" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA in the
Court of Federal Claims on June 27, 2018. The case is styled as
Tonia Tippins, Derrik Magnuson and George Holloway for themselves
and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00923-LAS.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known
for influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nathan Scott Mammen, Esq.
   Kirkland & Ellis LLP (DC)
   655 Fifteenth Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 879-5949
   Email: nathan.mammen@kirkland.com


USC TRUSTEES: O'Conner Sues over Sexual Assault
-----------------------------------------------
SHANNON LEE O'CONNER on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, and GEORGE TYNDALL, M.D., the Defendants, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05125 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2018),
alleges that Dr. Tyndall caused lasting damage to Plaintiff and
other women who sought medical services while attending USC,
through conduct that included sexually assaulting them while
conducting gynecological examinations, requiring them to disrobe
unnecessarily, and making lewd, sexually offensive remarks during
the examinations.

Shannon O'Conner is one of many women who visited Dr. Tyndall for
a gynecological examination at USC's student health center. USC
breached its duties to Ms. O'Conner and other female students by
keeping Tyndall on staff from 1989 to 2016 despite receiving
repeated and continuous complaints about his conduct towards
patients. USC nurses and medical assistants attended Tyndall's
examinations and observed his predatory behavior, but did nothing
to stop it. USC supervisors and administrators learned of
Tyndall's misconduct, including from numerous student complaints,
yet took no action to protect its female students from him. A
recent USC investigation concluded that "[s]everal of the
complaints were concerning enough that it is not clear today why
the former health center director permitted Tyndall to remain in
his position." On May 25, 2018, USC's president resigned, and its
Board of Trustees acknowledged that "something is broken" in
regard to the University's response to Tyndall's wrongdoing.

USC is a private research university in Los Angeles, California.
Founded in 1880, it is the oldest private research university in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com
                  eak@girardgibbs.com


USAA GENERAL: Weber Sues over Motor Vehicle Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
STUART WEBER, an individual, on his own behalf, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 72947246 (Fla. Cir.
Ct. of the 13th Jud. Cir in and for Hillsborough Cty., June 1,
2018), seeks contractual and declaratory relief against USAA,
seeking redress for their routine and systematic violations of
Florida Statute 627.7288 and USAA's motor vehicle insurance
contracts.

According to the complaint, USAA routinely and systematically
fails to pay for the cost of repairing or replacing damaged
windshields without application of their insureds' deductible
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes and
the terms of their own automobile policies, including
circumstances where other property damage to the vehicle does not
exceed the deductible amount. This improper and illegal conduct
has resulted in USAA shifting some or all of the cost of
windshield repairs and replacements to its insureds in direct
contradiction of its insuring agreements and the Florida
Statutes. In turn, this conduct forms the basis of declaratory
and injunctive relief claims.

USAA General Indemnity Co operates as a subsidiary of United
Services Automobile Association.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          HARMON PARKER, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 864 1762
          Facsimile: (813) 222 3616
          E-mail: service.clc@harmonparkerlaw.com
                  clc@harmonparkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard W. Weber, Esq.
          DANAHY & MURRAY, P.A.
          901 West Swann Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 258 3600
          Facsimile: (813) 258 3321
          E-mail: firm@danahyandmurray.com


VAN RU: Faces "Horowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Ru Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Usher Horowitz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Van Ru
Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03707 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 26, 2018).

Van Ru Credit Corporation provides accounts receivable management
solutions for education, energy, financial services, government,
healthcare, and telecommunications industries. It offers
collection and call center solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


VAN RU CREDIT: Court Won't Dismiss "Al" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
DEBORAH AL, Plaintiff, v. VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 17-CV-1738-JPS (E.D. Wis.).

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for sending her, and members of
the putative class, allegedly misleading debt collection letters.
The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6). That
Rule provides for dismissal of complaints which fail to state a
viable claim for relief. In reviewing the Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Court is required to accept as true all of the well-pleaded
facts in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in her
favor.

The Defendant asserts that the request to act promptly does not
impose a settlement deadline but is instead mere puffery. In the
Defendant's view, phrases which urge payment but do not set a
payment deadline cannot mislead a consumer. The Defendant claims
that the only rational interpretation of the letter is that the
Plaintiff had a reasonable amount of time to accept the offer
contained in the letter.

The Defendant's contentions lack merit, the Court says.  The
cases it cites regarding puffery relate to alleged violations of
15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, which prohibits collectors from
overshadowing a consumer's right to dispute a debt for a
statutorily prescribed validation period. The Defendant cites no
precedent addressing whether language pressing for speedy
payment, but which does not set a firm payment deadline, may be
excused from Section 1692e liability as puffery.

Further, the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff had a
reasonable time to accept the settlement offer relies on the
default time for acceptance as provided by Wisconsin contract
law. The Court cannot assume that the average consumer, much less
an unsophisticated one, would have any familiarity with the
principles of contract law.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dunxst from Leagle.com.

Deborah Al, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky --
bslatky@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin -
- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A.
Eldridge -- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Van Ru Credit Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole M.
Strickler -- nstrickler@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler
Ltd & Stephanie A. Strickler -- sstrickler@messerstrickler.com --
Messer Strickler Ltd.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroof Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JONATHAN
DAVID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, VOLKSWAGEN AG, a foreign corporation, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-11301-SDW-CLW (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff was driving the car, its panoramic sunroof
shattered. The Plaintiff filed a five-count class action
complaint against VolkswagenGOA and its parent company,
Volkswagen AG, alleging that Volkswagen's panoramic sunroofs are
defective across a variety of Volkswagen models and asserting
claims for: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA); (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violation of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act (CCPA); (4) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach of express warranty.

In the context of putative class actions arising out of products
liability actions, this Court has previously held that a
plaintiff has standing only for claims related to products he
purchased or used. Consequently, this Court will only consider
the Plaintiff's allegations pertaining to the 2014 Volkswagen
Touareg. Claims relating to other Volkswagen models or model
years are dismissed.

Counts I & V -- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Express Warranty

To state a claim for express warranty under Colorado law, a
plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a warranty, (2) breach
of the warranty, (3) the breach proximately caused the losses
claim[ed] as damages, and (4) defendant received timely notice of
the breach.  Under Colorado law, the statute of limitations for a
breach of express warranty claim is three years.

The Plaintiff discovered the alleged defect in January, 2016,
giving him over a year to file suit before the three-year period
ran. To invoke a claim for equitable tolling, the Plaintiff must
show that defendant's wrongful conduct prevented him from
asserting his claims in a timely manner or that circumstances
made his timely filing impossible.  The Court finds that the
Plaintiff does not plead that the Defendants concealed facts from
him that prevented him from filing his claim, nor does he plead
extraordinary circumstances that made it impossible for him to
timely file.

Therefore, this Court finds no basis upon which to toll the
three-year statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's breach of
express warranty claim. The Plaintiff purchased his car in
February, 2014, but did not bring suit until November, 2017.
Consequently, his claim is time-barred and Count Five must be
dismissed.

The Plaintiff's Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim must
also be dismissed. To state a claim under the MMWA, the Plaintiff
must first adequately plead a claim for breach of express
warranty. Since Plaintiff's express warranty claim fails, so too
must his MMWA claim. Therefore, Count One will be dismissed.

Count IV -- Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Count Four of the Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. This claim is
subject to the same three-year statute of limitations as
Plaintiff's express warranty claim, and must be dismissed.

Count II -- Unjust Enrichment

To successfully plead a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff
must show that (1) the defendant received a benefit (2) at the
plaintiff's expense (3) under circumstances that would make it
unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without
commensurate compensation.

Here, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant liable for the
costs associated with repairing and replacing the allegedly
defective sunroofs, and claims that by refusing to pay for those
costs, the Defendant obtained monies that rightfully belong to
Plaintiff and Class Members. However, the NVLW is a valid
enforceable contract between the parties that establishes the
warranty on the sunroofs and also serves as the basis for
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, Count Two will be
dismissed.

Count III -- Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA)

To bring an action under the CCPA, a plaintiff must show:
(1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade
practice; (2) that the challenged practice occurred in the course
of defendant's business, vocation, or occupation; (3) that it
significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers
of the defendant's goods, services, or property; (4) that the
plaintiff suffered injury in fact to a legally protected
interest; and (5) that the challenged practice caused the
plaintiff's injury.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint does not provide
this level of specificity. First, the Plaintiff does not plead
facts that show that any action taken by the Defendant affected
his decision to purchase his car. Although the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented
material facts regarding the Class Vehicles with intent to
mislead the Plaintiff and the Colorado Class, he does not include
any specific statements made to him prior to February 2014.

Nor does the Plaintiff sufficiently plead that the Defendant had
knowledge of any alleged defect in the panoramic sunroofs
installed in Volkswagen vehicles on or before February, 2014.
The Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant was on notice of
defects because of consumer complaints, a letter to the National
Highway and Transportation and Safety Administration, and a
recall of the Volkswagen Beetle, fail to support his claim
because these events do not involve the 2014 Touareg and/or
occurred after Plaintiff made his purchase. As a result, Count
Three of the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed.

For these reasons, Defendant VolkswagenGOA's Motion to Dismiss is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 26, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybb84noz from Leagle.com.

JONATHAN DAVID, Plaintiff, represented by MITCHELL MARK BREIT --
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by
JEFFREY L. CHASE, CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC & HOMER B.
RAMSEY, HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC.

VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE, CHASE
KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC.


WAL-MART STORES: Attorneys' Fees Award in "Braun" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MICHELLE BRAUN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, AND SAM'S CLUB, AN OPERATING SEGMENT OF WAL-MART
STORES, INC. Appellants, DOLORES HUMMEL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND SAM'S CLUB, AN OPERATING SEGMENT OF
WAL-MART STORES, INC. Appellants. MICHELLE BRAUN, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Appellant, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION AND SAM'S CLUB, AN OPERATING
SEGMENT OF WAL-MART STORES, INC. DOLORES HUMMEL, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Appellant, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND SAM'S CLUB, AN
OPERATING SEGMENT OF WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case Nos. 3361 EDA
2016, 3633 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super.), Judge Paula Francisco Ott of
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County's award of attorneys' fees.

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County's order was a
product of a 2011 remand ordered by a prior panel of the Court.
That remand directed the trial court to explain its reasoning in
awarding both the lodestar and a 3.7 contingency multiplier.  In
this timely appeal, the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel argues the
trial court erred in failing to apply a 33% contingency fee
rather than the lodestar method.

Wal-Mart raises two issues.  First, it claims the Class Counsel's
argument regarding use of a contingency award was not before the
trial court on remand, and is therefore waived.  Second, it
argues that the trial court failed to explain its reasoning in
applying a 3.7 contingency multiplier, and that no multiplier is
required under the facts of the case.

After a thorough review of the certified record, relevant law and
the submissions by the parties, Judge Ott finds agrees with Wal-
Mart that the Class Counsel is not entitled to a contingency fee.
She also agrees with Wal-Mart that the trial court did not follow
the instructions issued on remand, and failed to explain its
reasoning for applying a 3.7 contingency multiplier.

The Judge holds that the trial court must explain its actions and
decision making process.  Regarding the application of a
multiplier, the trial court is to consider the factors mentioned,
including those found in Rule 1717.  Additionally, the trial
court is directed to consider the application of a contingency
multiplier in light of the Polselli decision.  While the Judge
regrets the inevitable delay the second remand produces, without
the proper and thorough explanation, she cannot provide a
reasoned analysis of the issues.

Accordingly, Judge Ott reversed the award of counsel fees and
remanded for a detailed explanation regarding the application of
the contingency multiplier.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QAVeCv from Leagle.com.

Maureen Murphy McBride -- mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com -- William H.
Lamb -- wlamb@lambmcerlane.com -- James C. Sargent, Jr. --
jsargent@lambmcerlane.com -- John J. Cunningham, IV --
jcunningham@lambmcerlane.com -- Lamb McErlane, P.C., Daniel Segal
-- dsegal@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller, Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com --
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
Alexander K. Mircheff -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, LLP, for Appellant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Sam's
Club.

Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Litigation Group, LLC, Judith L.
Spanier -- jspanier@abbeyspanier.com -- Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams
& Paradis, LLP, for Designated Appellant, Michelle Braun, et al.


WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Decertify Class of Cashiers Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NISHA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-03339-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied Wal-Mart's
motion to decertify.

In July 2009, Wal-Mart removed to federal court the class action
brought by Williamson and Brown, an action which alleges that
Wal-Mart has violated Section 14 of California Wage Order 7-2001
by failing to provide seats for its cashier employees.

In August 2012, the Court certified a class of all persons who,
during the applicable statute of limitations, were employed by
Wal-Mart in the State of California in the position of Cashier.

Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), Wal-Mart sought
to appeal the order granting certification to the Ninth Circuit.
In mid-November 2012, the Court stayed the proceedings pending
resolution of the Rule 23(f) proceeding, and, later that month,
the Ninth Circuit granted Wal-Mart's petition for permission to
appeal the certification order.

Two other appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit presented
similar issues to those presented in Wal-Mart's appeal.  In those
appeals, the Ninth Circuit certified questions to the California
Supreme Court about the appropriate construction of the Wage
Order.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit sat tight on Wal-Mart's
appeal until the California Supreme Court acted.

The California Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and
rendered a decision on April 4, 2016 in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy,
Inc.  With Kilby in hand, the Ninth Circuit resubmitted Wal-
Mart's appeal and issued a decision affirming this Court's
certification order in June 2016.  Importantly, the Ninth Circuit
held that even if the California Supreme Court's decision in
Kilby changed the law, it did not undermine the district court's
class certification decision, because the California Supreme
Court's interpretation of the Wage Order appears to be more
beneficial for the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit ultimately
concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
certifying the class.

After the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in August 2016, the
proceedings resumed in the Court.  Fact discovery closed at the
end of 2017.  Then, on Jan. 4, 2018, Wal-Mart filed its motion to
decertify the class.  The Plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb.
16, 2018, and Wal-Mart filed a reply on Feb. 26, 2018.

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, to establish standing, a plaintiff
must show a concrete injury in fact that can be traced to the
defendant's conduct and redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.  Wal-Mart asserts that neither Williamson nor the class
has suffered an injury in fact based on the U.S. Supreme Court's
pronouncement in Spokeo that a bare procedural violation,
divorced from any concrete harm, does not satisfy the injury-in-
fact requirement of Article III.  But, Judge Davila finds that
Wal-Mart fails to note the Ninth Circuit's post-Spokeo
recognition of the difference between a violation of a procedural
requirement, which does not necessarily affect the plaintiff's
concrete interest, and a violation of a substantive provision,
which does.  The Wage Order at issue here clearly sits in the
latter group.

As the California Supreme Court explained in Kilby, the Wage
Order is a descendant of orders promulgated to provide a minimum
level of protection for workers.  Specifically, the California
labor commission decided that humane consideration for the
welfare of employees requires that they be allowed to sit at
their work or between operations when it is feasible for them to
do so.  In other words, as with a range of other labor
protections, the Wage Order does not prescribe a procedure that
businesses must follow but instead protects an employee's
concrete interest in her own well-being.  In this way, Wal-Mart's
failure to provide a seat causes the precise concrete harm sought
to be remedied by the Wage Order.  Accordingly, he concludes,
neither Williamson nor the class need demonstrate any further
harm to have standing.

For these reasons, Judge Davila denied Wal-Mart's motion to
decertify.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aFkgNS from Leagle.com.

Nisha Brown & Kathy Williamson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
Aubrey Jones -- cosmo-89511@yahoo.com -- Jones Law Firm, James F.
Clapp -- jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp Legal APC, Kevin J.
McInerney  -- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones,
Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C.

Wal-Mart Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Humphrey Hu -- alex.hu@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP,
Anthony David Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@ltlattorneys.com
-- LTL Attorneys LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lisa Yumi
Mitchell, LTL ATTORNEYS LLP, Patricia Anne Kinaga --
patricia.kinaga@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Steven
Christoper Gonzalez -- steven.gonzalez@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL
Attorneys LLP, Amber Jene Sayle, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Brian Lee
Duffy, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, James Milton Nelson
-- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi Beer --
beern@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.


WAL-MART STORES: Partly Sanctioned for Exclusion in "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NISHA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-03339-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for exclusion sanctions
against Wal-Mart.

The class action was originally filed in California Superior
Court in June 2009 and removed to federal court by Wal-Mart in
July 2009.  The Plaintiffs contend that Wal-Mart has violated
Section 14 of California Wage Order 7-2001 by failing to provide
seats for its cashier employees.

In August 2012, the Court certified a class of all persons who,
during the applicable statute of limitations, were employed by
Wal-Mart in the State of California in the position of Cashier.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification order.
Thereafter, proceedings continued before the Court.

Of particular relevance here is the timing of discovery.  With
the case back in full swing, the Court set a fact discovery
cutoff of Dec. 31, 2017 and an expert discovery cutoff of March
30, 2018, with opening expert reports due on Feb. 28, 2018 and
rebuttal expert reports due on March 14, 2018.

On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs served Wal-Mart with document
requests, which sought, among other things, all documents
supporting its contention that the nature of cashiers' work at
the front-end checkout lanes does not reasonably permit the use
of a seat. By the end of fact discovery, Wal-Mart produced just
over 87 hours' worth of video footage of California and non-
California cashiers.

Additionally, on Oct. 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs served another
document request asking Wal-Mart to produce daily productivity
reports (known as SWAS reports) for all cashier class members.
By the close of fact discovery on Dec. 31, 2017, Wal-Mart
produced approximately 600 SWAS reports to the Plaintiffs.

In reliance on Wal-Mart's disclosures, the Plaintiffs filed their
motion for summary judgment on Jan. 2, 2018.  The parties also
fully briefed the issue whether the Court should decertify the
class in January and February 2018.  Then, on March 1, 2018 (one
day after the February 28, 2018 deadline), Wal-Mart uploaded
three expert reports to its file-sharing site.  When the
Plaintiffs began reviewing the reports, they noticed that Wal-
Mart's experts had relied on a large amount of information that
had never been disclosed or otherwise made available to the
Plaintiffs.  During the ensuing phone call, Wal-Mart's counsel
confirmed that Wal-Mart had provided information to its experts
that had not been produced to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs sought to remedy the situation quickly in light of
the upcoming March 14, 2018 deadline to file rebuttal expert
reports and the March 30, 2018 close of expert discovery.  But
Wal-Mart had difficulty transmitting all of the data to the
Plaintiffs.  On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs received a large
chunk of the evidence from Wal-Mart.  However, information
continued to trickle in throughout the month of March, with the
last of the information becoming fully available to the
Plaintiffs on March 28, 2018.  The volume of information that had
not been produced was staggering.

In the midst of these revelations, the Plaintiffs filed their
motion for sanctions on March 9, 2018.  To facilitate ongoing
expert discovery, the Court moved the deadline for rebuttal
reports to May 14, 2018 and the close of expert discovery to May
18, 2018.  The Court also set a briefing schedule for the
sanctions motion.  Wal-Mart filed its opposition on March 30,
2018, Dkt. No. 224 ("Opp."), and Plaintiffs filed their reply on
April 6, 2018.  The Court held a hearing on April 26, 2018.

The Plaintiffs move for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) on the
basis that Wal-Mart provided certain information to three experts
-- Dr. Jeffrey Fernandez, Dr. Deborah Foster, and Dr. Yoram Wind
-- but did not disclose the information to the Plaintiffs until
months after the close of fact discovery.  They request that the
Court prohibits Wal-Mart from using the information, strike the
three expert reports that rely in large part on that information,
and order Wal-Mart to pay $65,275 in expenses incurred because of
Wal-Mart's untimely production.

Judge Davila finds that Wal-Mart withheld a substantial amount of
information that bears on the Plaintiffs' case while
simultaneously providing that same information to its own expert,
Dr. Fernandez.  A lesser sanction would not be appropriate.  By
producing the videos and register pull data after the close of
fact discovery, Wal-Mart has prevented the Plaintiffs from
conducting further fact discovery related to that information and
from incorporating those findings into their opening expert
report.  The only way to restore both parties to equal footing
with respect to the videos and register pull data is to exclude
them.  The Judge also notes that exclusion of this evidence (and
striking of the related expert report) does not eviscerate Wal-
Mart's case, as Wal-Mart still has other evidence and arguments
that it may proceed with.  Accordingly, he precludes Wal-Mart
from using the videos and register pull data and strikes Dr.
Fernandez's expert report to the extent that it relies on the
excluded videos and register pull data.

As with Dr. Fernandez, the Judge finds it appropriate to follow
the usual course that violations of Rule 26 may warrant evidence
preclusion.  Wal-Mart's actions are particularly egregious
because the Plaintiffs expressly requested the SWAS reports, but
Wal-Mart produced a very small fraction without informing the
Plaintiffs that production was incomplete. Then, Wal-Mart turned
around and retrieved the SWAS reports for itself, giving them to
its own expert, Dr. Foster, but still holding them back from the
Plaintiffs.  Wal-Mart thus stripped Plaintiffs of the opportunity
to engage in further fact discovery and have their expert
consider this evidence in his opening expert report. Exclusion is
commensurate with the harm caused by Wal-Mart's failure to timely
disclose and has been endorsed in previous cases presenting
similar circumstances.  Because Dr. Foster's report relies almost
exclusively on the SWAS reports, the Court also strikes her
expert report in its entirety.  The Judge reiterates that this
sanction does not actually or practically eliminate Wal-Mart's
ability to defend against the suit.

As with Dr. Wind, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have until
May 14, 2018 to file a rebuttal to Dr. Wind's report and until
May 18, 2018 to conduct expert discovery.  Those dates provide
ample time and opportunity for Plaintiffs to poke and prod Dr.
Wind's survey methodology for weaknesses and flaws.  The
Plaintiffs are not at a disadvantage for not having the video
footage before the opening expert report deadline because the
footage does not form part of the underlying factual landscape.
Instead, the footage was created specifically for Dr. Wind's
survey, which seeks to reach broad conclusions about consumers'
preferences for seated or standing cashiers.  Courts commonly
find that the ability to take expert discovery and respond to an
expert's testimony is sufficient to cure an expert-specific
deficiency.  Thus, the Judge denies the Plaintiffs' request for
exclusion of Dr. Wind's opening expert report and the underlying
video footage.

For these reasons, Judge Davila granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.  Wal-Mart is precluded
from using the videos and register pull data provided to Dr.
Fernandez, and Dr. Fernandez's report is stricken to the extent
that it relies on that information.  Wal-Mart is precluded from
using the additional 356,850 SWAS reports provided to Dr. Foster,
and Dr. Foster's report is stricken in its entirety because it
relies almost exclusively on the SWAS reports.  Wal-Mart may use
the video footage provided to Dr. Wind, and Dr. Wind's report is
not stricken.  The Judge also denied as excessive the Plaintiffs'
further request for expenses incurred because of Wal-Mart's
untimely disclosure of evidence.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/suweSV from Leagle.com.

Nisha Brown & Kathy Williamson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
Aubrey Jones -- cosmo-89511@yahoo.com -- Jones Law Firm, James F.
Clapp -- jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp Legal APC, Kevin J.
McInerney  -- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones,
Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C.

Wal-Mart Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Humphrey Hu -- alex.hu@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP,
Anthony David Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@ltlattorneys.com
-- LTL Attorneys LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lisa Yumi
Mitchell, LTL ATTORNEYS LLP, Patricia Anne Kinaga --
patricia.kinaga@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Steven
Christoper Gonzalez -- steven.gonzalez@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL
Attorneys LLP, Amber Jene Sayle, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Brian Lee
Duffy, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, James Milton Nelson
-- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi Beer --
beern@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.


WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: $6.5MM Deal in "Little" Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICK LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON
METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Civil
No. 14-1289 (RMC), Consolidated with No. 15-98, No. 15-114., 15-
1298, 17-16 (D. D.C.), Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted both the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action
Settlement, and Motion for Approval of Service Payments.

The Plaintiffs brought a class-action suit on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq. and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, alleging that
a criminal background check used by WMATA to screen candidates
and employees, was facially neutral but had a disparate impact on
African Americans.

WMATA's Policy 7.2.3 governed how and when individuals with
criminal convictions could obtain or continue employment with
WMATA and its contractors and subcontractors.  WMATA at all
points has argued that it adopted Policy 7.2.3 as a business
necessity and that it did not have a discriminatory impact on
African Americans.  Policy 7.2.3 included four appendices which
specified the background check criteria for different types of
positions.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification and on March 31,
2017, the Court certified three classes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2): Appendix A Class, Appendix C Class, and Appendix F
Class/MetroAccess Class.  The Court did not certify a damages
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

Following class certification the parties began merits discovery
and also engaged in extensive settlement negotiations.  On Nov.
22, 2017, the parties memorialized the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement provides that WMATA will pay
$6.5 million into a Class Settlement Fund to be distributed to
the Class Counsel for payment of fees and costs, a Claims
Administrator for its work in administering the Fund, eligible
class members that submit short or long claims forms, and the
Class Representatives for their assistance in the litigation.
Additionally, WMATA agreed to maintain a new policy (2017
Policy), adopted in 2017, which provides for individualized
assessments after an applicant fails the background check rather
than presumptive disqualification, for at least one year after
the date of the Court's final order approving the Settlement
Agreement.

On Dec. 7, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed class-action Settlement between the Class
Representatives and WMATA.  The Preliminary Approval Order
ordered that notice of the proposed Settlement to a Settlement
Class consisting of individuals, determined by Class Counsel from
records provided by third party First Choice Background
Screening, Inc. who: (i) failed a criminal background screening
under the Background Screening Policy since Feb. 23, 2012; (ii)
were denied employment, terminated, or otherwise permanently
separated from their position, suspended from employment with or
without pay, and/or denied employment with WMATA or a contractor
or subcontractor of WMATA as a result of the Background Screening
Policy; and (iii) either were identified in the First Choice
records as African American or had not been identified in the
First Choice records as having a particular race.  The notice was
sent in this manner to ensure that all members of the Settlement
Class were notified.

On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final
Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement and a Motion for
Approval of Service Payments.  WMATA also filed a Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Lawsuit
Settlement Agreement.  The Court also received objections from
six individuals and reviewed and considered each objection
despite some untimely filing.

On April 18, 2018, the Court held a formal fairness hearing to
consider whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.  It
heard and considered argument from the parties and the following
individuals who elected to appear to voice their support for, or
objection to, the Settlement: Galen Pendergrass, Bernhard Levi,
Thomas Hall, Tiffany Burke, Kaye Lawton, and Sterling Pickett.

The Class Counsel request an award of 25% of the Class Settlement
Fund, or $1.625 million, to cover attorneys' fees and costs.  Of
this amount, $950,000 will go toward covering the costs paid by
Class Counsel to litigate the case, including fees paid to
experts during class certification.  The remaining $675,000 (11%
of the Class Settlement Fund) will be awarded as attorneys' fees.
A "percentage of the fund" methodology is preferred in this
Circuit because it discourages attorneys from inflating hours and
promotes

The Plaintiffs move to award $70,000 in service payments to the
eight Class Representatives -- Erick Little, Timothy McClough,
Gerald Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil,
Leon McKenzie, and Louia McKenzie -- and Sidney Davis and Joyce
Short.  Each of the Class Representatives would receive $7,500
and Mr. Davis and D.W., through Ms. Short, would receive $5,000.

Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed with the
Court in support of final approval of the Settlement, including
any declarations submitted, oral arguments of counsel, the
Settlement Agreement, and the pleadings filed in the action;
having conducted a fairness hearing with regard to the Settlement
and approval thereof; being fully informed regarding the facts
surrounding the proposed Settlement; and based upon this
information and the record as a whole; Judge Collyer granted
final approval of the $6.5 million Settlement, attorneys' fees,
and service awards.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/qJWCnN from Leagle.com.

ERNEST FORD, Non-Party Respondent, pro se.

ERICK LITTLE, TIMOTHY MCCLOUGH, GERALD TUCKER, LEROY QUARLES,
FITZGERALD STONEY, MARCELLO VIRGIL, LEON MCKENZIE & LOUIA
MCKENZIE, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi, NAACP
LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., Brett E. Marston , ARNOLD
& PORTER LLP, Dennis A. Corkery -- dennis_corkery@washlaw.org --
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS,
Matthew K. Handley -- matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- WASHINGTON
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, Peter Thomas
Grossi, Jr. -- peter.grossi@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Whitney Allyn Moore --
whitney.moore@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
LLP, Brittany Erin McClure -- brittany.mcclure@arnoldporter.com -
- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Coty R. Montag, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE &
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., Katherine E. Clemons --
katherine.clemons@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP,
Kristian L. Hinson -- khinson@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER, LLP, Michael Duane Harris -- mharris@nasonyeager.com -
- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Rachel M. Kleinman, NAACP
LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., pro hac vice & John Arak
Freedman -- john.freedman@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
SCHOLER LLP.

SIDNEY DAVIS, Plaintiff, represented by Ajmel A. Quereshi, NAACP
LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., Brett E. Marston, ARNOLD
& PORTER LLP, Dennis A. Corkery, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, John Arak Freedman, ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Peter Thomas Grossi, Jr., ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Whitney Allyn Moore, ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Brittany Erin McClure, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP,
Coty R. Montag, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.,
Katherine E. Clemons, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Kristian L. Hinson,
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP & Michael Duane Harris, ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP.

D. W., a minor child, as successors to the claims of Lawrence
Whitted, Plaintiff, represented by John Arak Freedman, ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Peter Thomas Grossi, Jr., ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP & Kristian L. Hinson, WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER, LLP.

JOYCE SHORT, next friend to her son D.W., as successors to the
claims of Lawrence Whitted, Plaintiff, represented by John Arak
Freedman, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Peter Thomas Grossi,
Jr., ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Kristian L. Hinson,
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP & Whitney Allyn Moore, ARNOLD &
PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP.

BERNARD S. LEVI, Plaintiff, pro se.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant,
represented by Kathleen E. Kraft -- kkraft@thompsoncoburn.com --
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Charles M. Poplstein --
cpoplstein@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Kelly Guss, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT
AUTHORITY Office of General Counsel, Robert J. Wagner --
rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP & Tabitha G.
Davisson -- tdavisson@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP,
pro hac vice.

DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
Michael Nicholas Petkovich -- Michael.Petkovich@jacksonlewis.com
-- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro, JACKSON LEWIS
P.C.

EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
Melissa E. Hoppmeyer, CARR MALONEY PC, Nat Peter Calamis --
npc@carrmaloney.com -- CARR MALONEY, P.C., Bernard G. Dennis, III
-- bgd@carrmaloney.com -- CARR MALONEY, P.C. & Matthew D.
Berkowitz -- mb@carrmaloney.com -- CARR MALONEY, P.C.

FIRST TRANSIT, Defendant, represented by Richard William Black --
rblack@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & William Simmons -
- wsimmons@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., pro hac vice.


WASTE PRO USA: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
ALFRED W. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF
FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-02254-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), seek
entry of an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective of and permitting Court-supervised notice to:

     all Helpers nationwide who work or worked for Defendants
     Waste Pro USA, Inc. ("WP USA") and Waste Pro of Florida,
     Inc. (collectively, "Waste Pro") at any time since
     September 27, 2014 (the date of filing of the Complaint) to
     the present (the "FLSA Collective Period") who are or were
     paid via the day rate method for at least one workweek
     during the FLSA Collective Period (the "Proposed FLSA
     Collective") and also worked at a location that had a policy
     or practice to either pay a half-day rate or pay
     non-discretionary bonuses.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order: (a)
requiring Waste Pro to produce in an electronic or computer-
readable format the full name, address(es), telephone numbers, e-
mail address(es), and dates and locations of employment for each
of the collective members; (b) authorizing notice to the members
of the Proposed FLSA Collective; and (c) approving their proposed
reminder notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ERbm23VN

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St., NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy S. Tingley, Esq.
          Matthew J. Pearce, Esq.
          STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, P.A.
          The VUE at Lake Eola
          220 North Rosalind Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 316-0393
          E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com
                  mpearce@sctlaw.com


WAUKEGAN, IL: Stewart Seeks to Certify Poe Manor Residents Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOHN STEWART, TIMOTHY
PHILLIPS, GILBERTO COLON, GUSSIE M. DOSSIE, CHANDRA THOMAS, KEVIN
DUTY, JAMES HOWARD, CARLTON STEWART, TROY THOMPSON, DENNIS
HALTER, PEARLINE WRIGHT, SHONDIS ADAMS, MARITA SMITH, DENNIS
TINDALL, JAMES BUTLER, SHIMON MERRIWEATHER, CEDRIC REAMS, JOHN
HARVEY, TY BROWN, LANIQUA KUYKENDALL, CHARLOTTE A. DAVIS, WILLIE
C. BANKS, JR., ALICIA ROSS, CARYN E. PRICE, LATASHA GATLIN,
JARVIS LEFLORE, CHRISTOPHER SEALS, STARR NUTALL, RONALD ANDERSON,
JANIE E. WILLIAMS, BERNELL FORD, FELECIA BROWN, BLANCHE FERGUSON
BROWN, AL HUTCHENS, TONYA ESKILSON, VINCENT DAVIS, UNIQUEKA
SCOTT, ALVIN ARREAGA, WALTER ORI, and CAROL WILL, individually
and on behalf of the class of all persons who currently reside in
Harry Poe Manor or formerly resided therein at any time from
January 2011 to date v. WAUKEGAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body
politic and corporate; CHARLES CHAMBERS, individually and as
Executive Director of WAUKEGAN HOUSING AUTHORITY; RENWICK
CORNELIOUS, individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe
Manor; and TARA DANIEL, individually and as Property Manager of
Harry Poe Manor, Case No. 1:13-cv-08444 (N.D. Ill.), ask the
Court to certify this class:

     All persons who currently reside in Harry Poe Manor ("Poe
     Manor") or formerly resided therein at any time from January
     2011 to date.

Poe Manor is a ten-story multifamily apartment building in
Waukegan, Illinois, which is funded in part via the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is owned and
managed by the Defendants, a public housing authority and its
officers.  The former and current residents are low-income,
elderly and/or physically or mentally disabled individuals, all
with limited economic means.

The action arises out of an alleged severe bedbug infestation at
Poe Manor and the Defendants' failure to use the best practices
and most effective methods to eradicate the infestation.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Class and to appoint their as counsel for
the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PNVov9eU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Lynn Lonergan, Esq.
          FINN & FINN, LTD.
          128 N. West Street
          Waukegan, IL 60085
          Telephone: (847) 599-0202
          E-mail: LonerganAmy@waukegan.com

               - and -

          Jed H. Stone, Esq.
          STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          415 West Washington Street, Suite 107
          Waukegan, IL 60085
          Telephone: (847) 336-7888
          E-mail: jstone@jedstone.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          2501 Grand Avenue, Suite B
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Lipman, Esq.
          LIPMAN LAW FIRM P.C.
          1454 30th Street, Suite 205
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 276-3411
          E-mail: jeff@lipmanlawfirm.com


WEBSTAURANT STORE: Certification of Class Sought in "Rogers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BRITTANY ROGERS, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly-situated v. THE WEBSTAURANT
STORE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00074-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky.), moves the
Court to conditionally certify a class composed of:

     all current and former employees of The WEBstaurant Store,
     Inc. who were employed at any time in the three years
     preceding the notice to be approved by the Court as (A) a
     Customer Solutions Specialist or (B) a Logistics Liaison or
     (C) in any other non-exempt position, if in such non-exempt
     position such employee was scheduled to work shifts totaling
     forty hours per workweek but during said workweek(s) did not
     use a time clock to track actual hours worked.

Ms. Rogers also asks the Court to require the Defendant to
produce to her counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the full
names, last known addresses, last known e-mail addresses, last
known phone numbers (including cell phone numbers), and dates of
employment of all employees, who are covered by the scope of the
proposed class within 10 days of the Court's Order.  She also
seeks approval of her proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2m0QFMoZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          MARK N. FOSTER - ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com


WINMARK CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winmark
Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Winmark
Corporation doing business as: Play It Again Sports, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05744 (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018).

Winmark Corporation is an American franchisor of five retail
businesses that specialize in buying and selling used goods. The
company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


XINOS CONSTRUCTION: Leons Seek Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JAIME LEON and JOSE ARTURO LEON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. XINOS CONSTRUCTION
CORP. d/b/a XINOS CONSTRUCTION and ANTHONY KSINOS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03376-LDH-JO (E.D.N.Y., June 8,
2018), seeks to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Leons are former painters, wall and fixture installers, and
demolition workers at Xinos.  According to the complaint, they
regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek but were always paid
a per-shift wage rate. Defendants failed to furnish the Leons
with wage notices and with accurate wage statements at the end of
every pay period.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective:

          Lillian M. Marquez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  marquez@pechmanlaw.com





                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *