---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, November 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 219



                            Headlines

AFS GENERAL: Bobo's Drugs Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
AIRBNB INC: Yaletown Council Mulls Suit Over Rental Listings
AMERICAN HONDA: "Grodzitsky" Renewed Class Cert. Bid Denied
ANZ BANKING: Settles Suit Over Bank Bill Swap Rate Rigging
APEX BEHAVIORAL: Court Denies Approval of Class Notice

ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Talmadge" Suit in District of New Jersey
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: "Moody" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
AUTOLAND LLC: "Wells" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Calif. Labor Code
AVEO: Faces Class Action Amid ACCC Probe Into Fair Housing Fees

BOW TIE: Faces Class Action Over Uncompleted Roofing Jobs
BRANCH BANKING: Gillam Sues over Payday Debt Traps
CABELA'S INC: Court Denies Move to Dismiss TCPA Suit
CAMINO HOSPITAL: "Caudill" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
CBSI COLLECTION: Faces "Humphrey" Suit in Middle Dist. of Alabama

CEDARS-SINAI: Denied "Dhembi" Wages Statements, Rest Periods
DELAWARE: Class Action Mulled Over Inadequate Prison Healthcare
DR. PEPPER: Faces "Becerra" Suit in Northern District of Florida
DUNBAR ARMORED: "Solis" Suit Moved to S.D. California
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Barone" Suit over Consumer Data Breach

FACEBOOK INC: "Bigger" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
FCA US LLC: Williams Sues Over Denied Warranty for Jeep Defects
FORD MOTOR: Explorer Owners Await Decision on Settlement Appeal
FOX NEWS: Former Host Settles Sexual Harassment Allegations
GENESCO INC: "Shumate" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio

GIMEGA CORP: "Barona" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
HADLEY COLLISION: Fails to Pay Wages, "Tair" Suit Says
HENDRICK CO: "Castaing" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
HIGG'S PAINTING: "Francoeur" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
HILTON GRAND: "Glasser" Case Stayed Pending Dec. 7 Mediation

HOGAN TRANSPO: Fleet Managers Win Conditional Certification
ILLINOIS: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to Central District of Illinois
IMPAX LABORATORIES: $4.8MM TCPA Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
INTUIT INC: Can Compel Arbitration of 4 Claims in TurboTax Suit
INTUIT INC: Court Narrows Claims in TurboTax Suit

IRELAND: In Violation of European Social Charter, ECSR Declares
ISLE OF CAPRI: Court Denied Certification of Settlement Class
JACOBY & MEYERS: Court Denied Motion for Class Certification
JAY PEAK: Receivership Sought for Vermont EB-5 Regional Center
KATZKIN LEATHER: Medina Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

LE BOULANGER: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Final Pay
LIFE TIME: Violates Biometric Information Laws, Marshall Claims
LIPARI TRUCKING: "Crum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
LYNN DONUTS: Moran Sues over Butter Substitute in Baked Products
MACY'S RETAIL: "Davis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

MAGMA DESIGN: Nat'l Union Wins Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
MCDONALDS: Tel Aviv Court Allows Labor Class Action to Proceed
MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MENARD INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit over Illegal Wage Deductions
MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit

MYHOMECENTERS.NET: Menichiello Sues over Do-Not-Call Registry
NATIONAL GENERAL: "Jacob" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Baker" Suit over Robocalls
NEILMED PHARMA: Court Denies Move to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit
NFL: Buffalo Jill Cheerleading Squad Class Certification Affirmed

NIGERIA: Class Action Mulled Over Monies Not Linked to BVN
NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: FCRA Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
ORBITAL ATK: Ayzin Balks at Northrup Grumman Merger Deal
ORBITAL ATK: "Berg" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Northrop Grumman Merger

OTG EXPERIENCE: "Wadud" Suit Alleges Workplace Harassment
PARAMOUNT OF OAK: Faces Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans
PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK: Faces "Ragsdale" Suit over Biometric Info
PEPSICO INC: Faces "Becerra" Suit in N.D. California
PERCHERON PROFESSIONAL: "Nash" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

PLUS FAMILY: "Cuellar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PLUS500: Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over CFD Markets Rigging
POP WARNER: Must Face Class Action Over Lack of Safety Protocols
PURDUE PHARMA: Children's Services Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
QUALITY HARDWORD: "Acuna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

RAMIREZ SERVICES: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RELAX IN STYLE: Styles Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 16
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
SANTINI FOODS: Hernandez Sues for Rest Periods, Wages Statements

SDG PROPERTIES: Andon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Villanueva Says
SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Poor Sales, Share Price Drop Prompt "Cadle" Suit
STANLEY STEEMER: "Arensdorff" Suit Seeks OT Wages

STARBUCKS CORP: "Strumlauf" Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Classes
STURM & RUGER: Faces "Palmer" Suit over 10/22 Target Rifles
SUNCORP: Faces Litigation Threat Over Add-on Car Insurance
SUNSHINE BANCORP: Law Firm Investigates Securities Violations
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Cheam" Suit Moved to C.D. California

SYNERMED: "Munoz" Worked through Rest Breaks, Claims Overtime
TEZOS: ICO Investor Class Actions Hit Futures Price
TEZOS: Nothing Secret About Acquisition, Tim Draper Says
TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Suit Moved to N.D. California
TOTAL PHARMACY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks to Certify TCPA Class

TRANSPORTATION REPAIRS: Gaca Sues over Biometric Information
TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
TWITTER INC: Ex-Engineer Seeks to Lead Gender Bias Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Violates Equal Pay Act, "Lopez" Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Safer Rides Feature

ULTIMATE CLASS: "Korcz" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
UNITED STATES: Chhoeun & Neth Sue over Immigrant Detention
VEGE-MIST INC: "Ortiz" Suit Claimed Unpaid Overtime
VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: "Jones" Disputes Traffic Light Violation
VOCUS: To Sell New Zealand Assets Amid Shareholder Class Action

WESTAR ENERGY: "Reese" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to Great Plains

* BETTER FINANCE Calls for EU-Wide Collective Redress Framework
* Fianna Fail Calls for Class Action Legislation Against Banks




                            *********


AFS GENERAL: Bobo's Drugs Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS
PHARMACY, a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. AFS GENERAL CONTRACTING, LLC, CSG CONSOLIDATED
SERVICE GROUP, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-02552-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for entry of an order certifying a class of:

   "Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages after October 30, 2013 offering
   seal coating, building maintenance, facilities management,
   janitorial, or general contracting services by calling 1-866-
   793-3735 that did not inform the fax recipient that he or she
   may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to
   send any future facsimile advertisements and that failure to
   comply with the request within 30 days in unlawful."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jGuYy46k

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


AIRBNB INC: Yaletown Council Mulls Suit Over Rental Listings
------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Bula, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
Yaletown strata council has developed an aggressive new strategy
to try to keep Airbnb rentals out of its building.

It's given up on going after condo owners themselves. Instead, it
is targeting the online vacation-rental service itself.

The Parkview Gardens strata has had a lawyer send demand letters
to the offices of Airbnb in Ireland and San Francisco, as well as
the e-mail address for customer relations, listing all the
apartments suspected of being rented out and telling the company
to order hosts to stop listing them.

Even though Airbnb has responded by saying only that it will pass
the message on to the hosts, many of those hosts do remove their
listing, says a representative for the strata.

"It's a very novel approach," said Polina Furtula, a lawyer who is
also on the Parkview Gardens strata council.

The council turned to that strategy because, she said, "if you
follow the current regulations for stratas, it's almost impossible
to catch someone.  It's very frustrating."

Now, Ms. Furtula says, the council is so encouraged by the results
that it is planning a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb to get
rid of the remaining holdouts in the building.

The 91-unit Parkview building has become a prime spot for rentals
because it is directly opposite the Yaletown Canada Line station,
making it very attractive for visitors.

"We're constantly seeing people coming and going with their little
suitcases," she said.

The council has been trying to crack down on the short-term
rentals for at least a couple of years.

At first, people would use their real names and so the council
could try to go after owners that way.

Then people stopped using real names and started being more
cautious about the pictures they posted to make it harder to
identify where the unit was.  But strata-council members could
still spot photos of common areas and views from inside the
apartments looking out.

However, when they tried using strata rules to notify owners that
they were in violation of those rules and would be fined, owners
would declare vehemently that the apartment wasn't theirs.

"We've considered renting those units [to get evidence], but it's
very expensive," Ms. Furtula said.

The Parkview Gardens council is in the same situation as hundreds
of other strata councils in Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto, where
short-term vacation rentals are extremely popular and vacancy
rates are low.

But their efforts have been unco-ordinated and "somewhat
piecemeal," said Octavian Cadabeschi, a researcher with the
Vancouver hotel workers' union UNITE HERE Local 40.  It is a
member of a group called Fairbnb that has been highlighting
problems with short-term vacation rentals and cities' efforts to
regulate them.

Some condo boards in Toronto have started lawsuits against hosts
in their buildings. Others have tried levying fines. Some are
hiring investigators to find rule-breaking owners.

Fairbnb has advocated that cities such as Vancouver insist that
Airbnb take some responsibility for policing listings, instead of
leaving it up to city officials to try to figure out who is
operating illegally.

Vancouver plans to begin its regulation of short-term rentals next
April, limiting them to people who are renting out a room in the
house where they live or the whole house while they are away on
vacation.

Commercial operations that treat an apartment like a year-round
hotel room won't be allowed.

The past count of listings found about 6,000 in the Vancouver area
just from Airbnb.  There are about a dozen companies that provide
short-term-rental platforms.

Airbnb and HomeAway have been in discussions with the city and
promised to co-operate, but not to the extent of monitoring hosts
for business licences or legality.

Airbnb's Canadian press secretary, Lindsey Scully, said the
company does have a "neighbour tool" -- a place on the site where
neighbours can write in to complain about noise, damage or any
other problem so that Airbnb can let the host know.

She said that, when the company gets complaints from neighbours,
Airbnb passes those messages on to the hosts.

"We remind them they are supposed to abide by local rules and
regulations.  It's up to the host to decide how they handle that."

Airbnb has been under pressure from cities around the world, as
local residents have complained that affordable rentals are
disappearing for them and as municipal politicians move to
regulate them.

It has led to lawsuits in cities such as San Francisco and New
York.

Ms. Scully said the company, besides working with cities, has
started a new program to work directly with whole buildings.

In about two-dozen buildings around the United States, the strata
council gets access to a dashboard that allows them to see exactly
what is being rented out by whom and when and has control over
rules about pets or parking or numbers of nights a unit can be
rented.

Most important, Airbnb is giving those buildings between 5 per
cent and 15 per cent of the booking cost to cover the higher cost
of maintenance and repairs. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: "Grodzitsky" Renewed Class Cert. Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Grodzitsky, the Plaintiff, v. American Honda
Motors Co., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-01142-SVW-PLA
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's renewed motion for Class Certification
      with prejudice; and

   2. granting Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert.

The Plaintiffs allege that Honda sold cars with defective window
regulators.  In March 2017, Plaintiffs filed a new motion for
class certification and indicated to the Court that they have
retained a new export, Glenn Akhevein, and narrowed their proposed
class to the 2003-2008 Honda Pilot models.

The trial court notes it has "broad discretion" in deciding
whether to certify a class, but that discretion must be exercised
within the framework Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23. The class may only be
certified if the trial court determines, after a rigorous analysis
that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. In order to
make this determination, the Court must also examine any issues
that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the
Plaintiff's cause of action.

In denying Plaintiffs' expert, the court called Mr. Akhavein's
testimony "half-baked, warmed-over conclusions" that are
insufficient to survive a Daubert motion.  The court noted, "In
essence, Akhavein relies only on his own personal belief that
window regulators should last indefinitely."

According to the court, the exclusion of Mr. Akhavein's testimony
is fatal to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Without
this testimony Plaintiffs are unable to meet the requirements of
Rule 23 -- they have no way of demonstrating the commonality
required by Rule 23.

"All they have is a series of window regulators that may or may
not have broken before they were supposed to, and these breakages
may or may not have been caused by a common defect which may or
may not exist.  This is manifestly inadequate to satisfy Rule 23,"
the court says.

The court declined to rule on Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
Defendant's expert at this time.

A copy of the October 30 Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LqydrVrz


ANZ BANKING: Settles Suit Over Bank Bill Swap Rate Rigging
----------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Duran, writing for Reuters, reports that Australia and New
Zealand Banking Group Ltd has reached a last-minute agreement to
settle a case brought by the country's securities regulator
accusing it of manipulating the bank bill swap rate.

Australia's third-largest lender, which had previously said it
would defend itself against the allegations, did not give a reason
for its decision to settle or disclose financial terms.  It said
it would make a more detailed statement in two days time after
more progress had been made on the agreement.

The deal could open ANZ to possible class action lawsuits from
shareholders and also throws the spotlight on Westpac Banking
Corporation and National Australia Bank which are facing similar
allegations that they rigged a benchmark rate used to price
financial products.

"Any settlement was likely premised on them admitting that they've
done the wrong thing, which does open the way up for class
actions," said CLSA banking analyst Brian Johnson, although he
added that the settlement sum with ASIC was likely to be
immaterial in size.

ANZ said the financial impact would be reflected in the bank's
annual earnings due on Thursday.

The court hearings had been due to start on Oct. 23 but had now
been adjourned until Oct. 25 at the request of the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Westpac spokesman David Lording, in an emailed statement, declined
to say whether the bank was also likely to settle, but added:
"ASIC's case against each of the banks and the underpinning facts
are all different."

NAB spokesman Mark Alexander said the bank continued to be in
discussions with the regulator but declined further comment. Both
banks have previously said they would dispute the claims in court.

ASIC's allegations that the three lenders were involved in rigging
the bank bill swap reference rate (BBSW) is only one of several
scandals engulfing Australia's banking sector in which lenders
have also been accused of widespread abuses at their financial
advice and insurance units.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the nation's No. 1 lender, is not
part of ASIC's lawsuit.

But it has been taken to court by anti-money-laundering agency
AUSTRAC which has accused it of more 50,000 breaches of anti-money
laundering rules. ASIC has also launched its own investigation
into the matter.

CBA has not disputed that it processed tens of thousands of
illicit transfers but argues the breaches were largely caused by a
software glitch and contests its level of responsibility.

The BBSW is the primary interest rate benchmark used in Australian
markets to price home loans, credit cards and other financial
products. ASIC, which filed the lawsuits last year, has alleged
that rate-rigging at the lenders took place between 2010 and 2012.
The method used to calculate the BBSW was changed in 2013.

Australia's four major lenders control 80 percent of the country's
lending market and have posted record profits for years.

Moody's Investors Service on Oct. 23 improved its outlook on the
banking system to 'stable' from 'negative', noting Australia's
favorable economic trends, the banks' strong capital positions and
stable profitability. [GN]


APEX BEHAVIORAL: Court Denies Approval of Class Notice
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Evansville Division, issued an Order denying the parties'
Agreed Motion for Approval and to Facilitate Notice to Collective
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the case
captioned CHARLOTTE FARRAR, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APEX BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, LLP,
Defendant, Cause No. 3:17-cv-79-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind.).

The Court notes, among other things, that the notice states that
it is addressed to the following groups:

     All current and former Apex Behavioral Services, LLP
employees who held hourly non-exempt positions as Direct Support
Professionals or other functionally equivalent positions who
worked from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and

   All current and former Apex Behavioral Services, LLP employees
who held hourly non-exempt positions as Home Manager and/or Lead
or other functionally equivalent positions who worked from January
1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

The Court said it does not know what other functionally equivalent
positions means in this context and, more importantly, suspects
that those receiving the Notice also would not know.  In their
motion, the parties state that the notice will be sent to people
who held the titles of 'Home Manager' and/or 'Lead' from January
1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and/or Only held the title of
'Direct Support Professional' from January 1, 2015 through
September 30, 2015.  The Notice should be consistent with this
agreement by the parties and all references to functionally
equivalent positions should be removed throughout.

The Court held that if counsel agree with the changes set forth
above, they should include them in the Notice submitted with any
amended motion for approval. If they do not, they should include
an explanation of their position in any amended motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7n3gfuhfrom Leagle.com.

CHARLOTTE FARRAR, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle Frederick
Biesecker, BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC, 317 3rd St
Evansville, IN, 47713-1236

CHARLOTTE FARRAR, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Elizabeth
Berger, BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER LLC, 317 3rd St
Evansville, IN, 47713-1236

APEX BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, LLP, Defendant, represented by Clifford
R. Whitehead -- CWhitehead@zsws.com --  ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL &
SHOULDERS LLP & James P. Casey -- JCasey@zsws.com -
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Talmadge" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as WILLELLA TALMADGE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC; GALAXY INTERNATIONAL
PURCHASING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-08358-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Oct. 15, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez.[BN]

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: "Moody" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
De'on Moody, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10290 (E.D. La., October 7, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages and statutorily authorized liquidated and penalty damages as
well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) is a cooperative food
wholesaler to independently-owned supermarkets, where Moody worked
as a supervisor at a distribution center in Pearl River,
Louisiana. AWG did not pay him overtime even though he regularly
worked significant hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
     DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC
     212 Park Place
     Covington, LA 70433
     Phone: (985) 590-5026
     Fax: (985) 605-0525
     Email: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com

            - and -

     Dale E. Williams, Esq.
     212 Park Place
     Covington, LA 70433
     Telephone: (985) 898-6368
     Facsimile: (985) 892-2640
     Email: dale@daleslaw.com


ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Piazza, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10289 (E.D. La., October 7, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages and statutorily authorized liquidated and penalty damages as
well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) is a cooperative food
wholesaler to independently-owned supermarkets, where Piazza
worked as a supervisor at a distribution center in Pearl River,
Louisiana. AWG did not pay him overtime even though he worked more
regularly worked significant hours in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
     DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC
     212 Park Place
     Covington, LA 70433
     Phone: (985) 590-5026
     Fax: (985) 605-0525
     Email: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com

            - and -

     Dale E. Williams, Esq.
     212 Park Place
     Covington, LA 70433
     Telephone: (985) 898-6368
     Facsimile: (985) 892-2640
     Email: dale@daleslaw.com


AUTOLAND LLC: "Wells" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Calif. Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARLENE TORRES WELLS, SELWYN WARD, CARL LEUNG, and CARRlE SINAI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AUTOLAND, LLC, and DOES I to 25, the Defendant,
Case No. RG17880284 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime pay under California Labor Code.

Under the provisions of the applicable Wage Order No. 4,
Plaintiffs and class members should have received overtime pay
from defendants in amounts according to proof. Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiffs and class members overtime pay. Defendants'
failure to pay overtime pay violates Wage Order No. 4 and Labor
Code, the lawsuit asserts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Farinaro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES FARINARO
          852 East 14th Street
          San Leandro, CA 94577
          Telephone: (510) 553-1200
          E-mail: jfarinaro@aol.com


AVEO: Faces Class Action Amid ACCC Probe Into Fair Housing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Argese, writing for The West Australian, reports that
thousands of Australian seniors and their families are allegedly
being taken advantage of by some retirement housing providers,
according to a leading law firm.

Understandably generating a high level of concern for people who
may be physically or mentally vulnerable and are looking to enjoy
their retirement, these people are reportedly being exploited via
unscrupulous business models.

In the wake of an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) investigation and extensive news coverage of potential
breaches of Australian consumer law, a class action case was
recently filed against property and investment group Aveo by
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, following an ongoing investigation into
reports of unfair and unconscionable contracts.

In light of this recent case, some of Western Australia's leading
aged care providers provided comment on the importance of fair
retirement housing contracts.

Seniors Own Real Estate Managing Director Mike Graebner said it
was crucial people carefully read and understood any agreement
they entered into.

"The retirement villages legislation in Western Australia is very
specific about the information which must be provided to people
before they enter into a contract and it is probably the best in
Australia, having undergone significant changes in recent times to
improve consumer protection," he told West Real Estate.

The current legislation allows people at least 10 business days to
review an agreement.  This provides the purchaser with the
opportunity to ask questions, talk to family members and seek
legal and financial advice.

There is a further seven business days -- or 'cooling off' period
-- after they sign the contract.

"Fees should be fair for all parties and transparent to the
resident," Mr Graebner said.

"It is true that there are fees to be paid both during occupation
and when leaving.

"There are reasons for these fees; the most important being that
there are costs to building and maintaining accommodation and
lifestyle facilities, as well as employing staff to provide
services."

Mr Graebner said retirement village living was not necessarily a
real estate investment but more an investment in lifestyle that,
if done right and fairly, could positively change a life.

"I can speak from experience as my mother lived very happily in a
retirement village for a number of years in the location she
preferred close to her social and family network," he said.

"There was a cost but the benefits for her far outweighed this. My
experience is that most people are very pleased with the
decision and many say to me they should have done it sooner."

Bethanie Chief Executive Officer Christopher How said moving into
a retirement village should be seen as starting an exciting new
chapter of life.

"Like any major decision in life, the most important tip is to
make sure you feel comfortable and are fully informed before
proceeding," he said.

"A good retirement village provider will take the time to explain
all aspects of village life to you including the contract and
fees."

While much of what is included in a contract is required by the
Retirement Villages Act, this doesn't mean the contract should be
complicated and hard to understand, according to Mr How.
"Make sure the provider explains the contract and fees to you in a
way that is easily understood," he said.

"Ask plenty of questions and feel free to seek independent advice.

"If the provider can't answer your questions clearly or there
appears to be hidden or unreasonable costs, you may want to
consider another provider.

"Plan early and do your research.  There are very good for-profit
and not-for-profit providers; however, there are varying fees and
amenities depending on the provider.

"You need to make sure the fees being charged are reasonable for
the amenities and services being offered." [GN]


BOW TIE: Faces Class Action Over Uncompleted Roofing Jobs
---------------------------------------------------------
Arezow Doost, writing for KXAN, reports that a New Braunfels
roofing company is hit with dozens of complaints after not
completing work.  Customers said Bow Tie Roofing Systems signed
contracts after some hail storms going back to more than a year,
but work never started.

Cynthia and Kenny Felton's roof was damaged after a hail storm in
April of 2016.  The couple made a deal with Bow Tie to get it
repaired several months later.  "I put my faith in some people
that knocked on my door," said Cynthia Felton.

Her husband researched the company and said he didn't come across
any red flags.  "I checked on their status with the Better
Business Bureau and they had an A+ and I thought that was good
enough," said Kenny Felton.

The Feltons' are among a growing group who believe that ownership
changes have cost them thousands of dollars, and they're not
alone.  The Better Business Bureau has gotten 82 complaints
against Bow Tie, investigators have confirmed at least 37
consumers have yet to get refunds or have the work completed.

A BBB spokesperson said they got an increase in complaints against
Bow Tie in early 2016 following a series of hailstorms that
impacted Central Texas.  The BBB said consumers allegedly paid
upfront fees for services without any work being done months
later.  Customers also had trouble reaching anyone with the
company.  The BBB said, "Bow Tie's response to complaints
typically consisted of an apology and an explanation that the
delay and customer service issues were due to a backlog of
contracts as a result of the hail storms and severe weather."  BBB
investigators discovered that Bow Tie continued to take on new
clients who paid upfront fees.

Bow Tie was sold in April to some of its employees.  In a lawsuit
filed against the original owners Jason and June Roberts, the new
owners Jasmine Norris and her husband Joshua said, the sale of the
business was a sham.  The lawsuit said tens of thousands of
dollars which the Roberts' promised would remain in company
accounts -- disappeared.  The suit goes on to say that money was
being spent on personal things.

In a statement, the Roberts' attorney says the Ms. Norris'
abandoned the backlog of roofs -- and instead completed newer
contracts, ultimately taking the money and walked away from the
business.  The statement also said, "They are greatly saddened by
the situation of the homeowners and regret that the sale of the
business allowed such a thing to occur.  The sale was intended to
help the homeowners by providing a more present management team
but instead caused harm.  Neither of the Roberts were aware at any
time (either during or after the sale of the business) of any
fraud or underhanded tactics being utilized by Bow Tie employee."

Jeffrey Kelly, who represents the Mr. Norris' said, "Since there
is pending litigation naming the true party at fault, we cannot
comment any further than to say that we maintain our client's
innocence, believe that the Norris's will be exonerated of any
wrongdoing, and hope for expeditious resolution for all parties
involved."

KXAN requested to speak with the previous and current Bow Tie
business owners, but attorneys declined.

The BBB says just recently Joshua Norris started a new roofing
company also in New Braunfels named R & R Company, LLC. and was
looking for work after Hurricane Harvey.  Their Facebook page has
been taken down, but the BBB said it stated, "We are new to the
area but not the roofing and restoration business!"

"I need to stop it," said Cynthia Felton "I don't want them to do
this to anybody else."  The Felton's are now hoping and pushing
for criminal charges and are working with investigators in Bexar
County.  The BBB said victims have gotten an attorney and are
filing a large class action lawsuit against Bow Tie.

The BBB has these tips to help consumers:

Do your homework. Check with BBB before choosing a roofing
contractor. Get referrals, compare price quotes, and confirm the
contact information of the contractor you choose.

Work closely with your insurance company on repairs. Make sure you
understand how your homeowner's insurance company will reimburse
your repair costs.  Before spending money, call your insurance
company first to make sure all necessary procedures are followed
according to your policy.  If you do not follow your insurance
company's guidelines, you may be stuck with the entire bill.

Ask about warranties. Warranties and workmanship are only as good
as the company that stands behind them.  Trustworthy businesses
will offer information about how they plan to handle any repairs
covered under their warranty, particularly if they are coming in
from another area.

Get everything in writing. Make sure all work is explained in the
contract, including cleanup, waste disposal and start and
completion dates.  Any verbal agreements that were made should be
included in the contract.  Pay close attention to the payment
terms, estimated price of materials, labor and any guarantees. You
should also get a copy of the contractor's insurance.  Any changes
to your contract should be done in the form of a change order. Be
sure the contract includes a physical address and phone number of
the contractor.  If you can, visit the address.

Beware of rogue contractors. In the wake of a storm, dishonest
roofing repair businesses will solicit work, often going door-to-
door in unmarked trucks.  They may require advance payment or make
big promises they won't deliver on.  A common sales tactic is to
tell the homeowner that their roof is severely damaged from the
storm, but that their insurance company will likely cover the
cost.  The homeowner is then required to sign a contract and make
an advance payment.  In many of these cases, BBB hears that the
job is never completed and the insurance company does not cover
the cost.

To check out a company and find trustworthy businesses, go to
bbb.org. [GN]


BRANCH BANKING: Gillam Sues over Payday Debt Traps
--------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTINE J. GILLAM, RONNIE GILLAM, and ELWOOD RODNEY
BUMBRAY on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY OF
VIRGINIA d/b/a BB&T, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00722-JAG
(E.D. Va., Oct. 27, 2017), challenges BB&T's practice of refusing
to acknowledge its customers' revocation of authorization for pre-
authorized electronic funds transfers and misrepresenting its
customers' liability for the subsequent unauthorized transfers.
Plaintiffs are Virginia consumers who were the victims of illegal
predatory lending schemes. After learning of the illegality of
their loans, Plaintiffs revoked their authorization for electronic
funds transfers from their BB&T bank accounts and notified BB&T
that the lenders were no longer authorized to make withdrawals
from their accounts. BB&T refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs'
notifications that the transfers were no longer authorized and
attempted to pass off liability for any subsequent unauthorized
transfers onto Plaintiffs. Even worse, with respect to Plaintiffs
Christine and Ronnie Gillam, BB&T assessed unnecessary "stop-
payment" fees to stop the unauthorized transfers and then also
assessed overdraft fees after it failed to stop the unauthorized
electronic funds transfers.  BB&T assessed an unnecessary $35
stop-payment fee on Plaintiff Bumbray's existing account while
simultaneously convincing him to open a new account.

The lawsuit contends that BB&T is in violation of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act.

The lawsuit notes that payday loans and high-cost installment
loans trap consumers in debt they cannot afford. Typically, the
lenders of these "payday debt traps" require consumers to provide
their bank account information and a pre-authorization to
electronically debit future payments from the consumer's bank
account. These payday debt traps are illegal in many states,
including in Virginia, which prohibits high interest loans with
annual interest rates in excess of 12% by unlicensed lenders. The
12% interest cap set forth in the Virginia Code is a codification
of Virginia's long standing intolerance for usurious lending. See
Radford v. Cmty. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 226 Va. 596, 601, 312 S.E.2d
282, 285 (1984). Despite the illegality of these payday debt traps
in many states, predatory lenders are able to evade state
licensing and usury laws through internet lending and the use of
electronic funds transfers withdrawn directly from consumers' bank
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James W. Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 E. Main Street, Suite 610
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782 9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649 0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org


CABELA'S INC: Court Denies Move to Dismiss TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANKLIN ELDRIDGE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CABELA'S
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-536-DJH (W.D.
Ky.), Plaintiff Franklin Eldridge brings this suit under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, alleging that Defendant
Cabela's Incorporated, through its wholly owned subsidiary World's
Foremost Bank, placed telephone calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide, without the consumers' prior
express consent.

Eldridge obtained a new cellular telephone number from Cricket
Wireless. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving autodialed and
prerecorded calls to his cellular telephone number from Cabela's,
all seeking to collect an outstanding debt allegedly owed by the
prior owner of Eldridge's cellular telephone number.  Eldridge is
not a Cabela's customer and never provided his consent for
Cabela's to contact him.

Cabela's moved to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of a
case currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit, ACA International v. Federal Communication
Commission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir.). Cabela's has also moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and to strike
three of the four classes identified in Eldridge's complaint.

Cabela's fails to adequately address the fact that even following
a published opinion in ACA Int'l, the Court may draw from various
other appellate-court interpretations of the term called party, at
least until the FCC rules on the matter again.  Ultimately,
Cabela's cannot support its motion to stay on judicial-efficiency
grounds alone, especially given that prejudice to the non-movant
is the most important consideration.  Finding that the balance of
hardships weighs against granting a stay, the Court will deny
Cabela's motion to stay these proceedings.

Cabela's raises two arguments in support of its motion to dismiss.
First, Cabela's argues that Eldridge has failed to plead facts
establishing direct or vicarious liability on the part of
Cabela's.  Specifically, Cabela's asserts that it cannot be held
liable for the acts of its subsidiary WFB. Cabela's also argues
that Eldridge lacks standing to sue because he has not alleged any
concrete injury that is fairly traceable to any party's use of an
ATDS or pre-recorded voice message.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Cabela's first argues that Eldridge has failed to plead facts
establishing that it is directly or vicariously liable for WFB's
actions.

An agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of taking
action that has legal consequences for the principal, the agent
reasonably believes, in accordance with the principal's
manifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent
so to act. Specifically, actual, implied agency exists when an
agent's acts are "necessary and incidental to achieving the
principal's objectives, as the agent reasonably understands the
principal's manifestations and objectives when the agent
determines how to act.

The complaint raises a plausible inference that Cabela's ratified
the conduct in question. Ratification is the affirmance of a prior
act done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done by
an agent acting with actual authority. A principal can ratify an
act by "manifesting assent that the act shall affect the person's
legal relations," or by "conduct that justifies a reasonable
assumption that the person so consents."

Here, Eldridge raises a plausible theory that Cabela's affirmed
WFB's calling practices. WFB allegedly made the calls at issue for
the purpose of collecting balances owed on Cabela's credit cards.
The complaint further alleges that Cabela's knew of WFB's calling
practices, as evidenced by its SEC filings. On its SEC Forms,
Cabela's discusses its CLUB Visa credit card collection and
recovery processes with a first-person pronoun: "We employ a
cradle to grave collection approach . We employ an autodialer."

Moreover, Eldridge alleges that despite receiving numerous
complaints alerting it to WFB's autodialing methods, Cabela's did
nothing to halt the calls.  Again, given that the Court must take
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Eldridge has pleaded
sufficient facts to raise a reasonable inference that Cabela's
ratified the conduct at issue.

Eldridge has satisfied this standard by pleading facts that
plausibly suggest an agency relationship between Cabela's and WFB.

Cabela's additionally argues that Eldridge lacks standing to sue
because he has not alleged any concrete injury that is fairly
traceable to any party's use of an ATDS or pre-recorded voice
message.

Cabela's argues that even if Eldridge experienced the alleged
injuries, his claim fails because he cannot show that the use of
an ATDS or prerecorded voice caused him to incur a charge that he
would not have incurred had Cabela's manually dialed his number,
which would not have violated the TCPA.  This argument ignores the
reason Congress enacted the TCPA in the first place.  When
Congress established the TCPA in 1991, it did so to protect
consumers from the nuisance, invasion of privacy, cost, and
inconvenience that autodialed and pre-recorded calls generate.
The arguments raised by Cabela's in support of its motion to
dismiss fail. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss.

Cabela's also moves to strike three of the four putative classes:
the two so-called Stop classes and the Autodialed No Consent
Class.

A defendant may move to strike class allegations even before a
plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification.

Stop Classes

Eldridge's Autodialed Stop Class is defined as:

     All persons in the United States from the last four years to
the present who (1) Cabela's (or a third person acting on behalf
of Cabela's) called using an ATDS, (2) on the person's cellular
telephone number, (3) after the person informed Cabela's that s/he
no longer wished to receive calls from Cabela's, and (4) for whom
Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same
manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express
consent to call the Plaintiff."

Even under Eldridge's interpretation, the Stop classes cannot
survive the motion to strike. Section 227(b) does not distinguish
between consumers who have requested to stop receiving calls and
consumers who never consented in the first place. Rather, the key
distinction is between those who have consented and those who have
not the latter group consisting of both consumers who never
consented and consumers who revoked their previous consent
Accordingly, Cabela's would be equally liable to those who have
passively not consented to receive calls and to those who have
taken affirmative steps to inform Cabela's they do not wish to
receive calls.

It is clear, then, that if Eldridge's Stop classes consist solely
of those persons who have taken such affirmative steps, they are
superfluous in light of Eldridge's No Consent classes.3 In other
words, Cabela's had no consent from those persons who told it to
stop calling them. If the facts are as Eldridge has alleged, these
same individuals are already included in the No Consent classes.
The Stop classes are therefore redundant and should be stricken.

The Court will therefore strike from the complaint Eldridge's Stop
classes.

Autodialed No Consent Class

Eldridge's Autodialed No Consent Class is defined as:

     All persons in the United States from the last four years to
the present who (1) Cabela's (or a third person acting on behalf
of Cabela's) called using an ATDS, (2) on the person's cellular
telephone number, (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant's
products and services, and (4) for whom Defendant claims it
obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant
claims it supposedly obtained prior express consent to call the
Plaintiff.

Cabela's argues that since this definition is limited to calls
made for the 'purpose of selling Defendant's products and services
and since Eldridge claims to have received debt collection calls
only, Eldridge is not a typical class member. Ordinarily, Cabela's
would be correct. But Eldridge maintains that this problem is the
result of a drafting error.

The Court notes that Eldridge's Pre-recorded No Consent Class
contains no products and services language.  Absent the products
and services language in the Autodialed No Consent Class, the
Autodialed No Consent Class definition appears adequate.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Eldridge fourteen days within
which to file an amended complaint in order to remedy the drafting
error.

Accordingly, the Court denied Cabela's motion to stay proceedings;
granted in part and denied in part Cabela's motion to dismiss and
to strike class allegations; and denied the motion to dismiss. The
motion to strike is denied without prejudice as to Eldridge's
Autodialed No Consent Class. The motion to strike is granted as to
Eldridge's Autodialed Stop Class and Pre-recorded Stop Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y8kgrdm5from Leagle.com.

Franklin Eldridge, Plaintiff, represented by Elisabeth S. Gray --
egray@middletonlaw.com -- Middleton Reutlinger.

Franklin Eldridge, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick H. Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Stefan L.
Coleman -- law@stefancoleman.com -- Law Offices of Stefan Coleman,
P.A. & Steven L. Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow
& Peluso, LLC.

Cabela's Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Edward H. Stopher
-- estopher@bsg-law.com -- Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP, Gregory N.
Blase -- gregory.blazse@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, Joseph C.
Wylie, II -- joseph.wylie@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Nicole C.
Mueller -- Nicole.Mueller.klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.


CAMINO HOSPITAL: "Caudill" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY CAUDILL and KIMBERLY CALDWEU TURNER, individuals, on behalf
of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EL CAMINO HOSPITAL, a California Corporation;
and Does l through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
17CV317606 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

El Camino Hospital is a hospital with 420 beds based in Mountain
View, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


CBSI COLLECTION: Faces "Humphrey" Suit in Middle Dist. of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBSI Collection
Services. The case is captioned as Robert Earl Humphrey, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CBSI Collection Services, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00696-
WC (M.D. Ala., Oct. 13, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Credit Bureau is a national provider of information and operation
services, background screening, and revenue cycle management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          10 N. Section No. 122
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 928 1423
          E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


CEDARS-SINAI: Denied "Dhembi" Wages Statements, Rest Periods
------------------------------------------------------------
Kylan Dhembi, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants, Plaintiff, v.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, profit public corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC678563 (Cal. Super.,
October 5, 2017), seeks redress for failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and
accurate wage statements and reimbursement of necessary business
expenses resulting from unfair business practices and for
violation of the California Labor Laws of the Business and
Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a non-profit, tertiary 958-bed
hospital and multi-specialty academic health science center
located in the Beverly Grove neighborhood of Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      Thomas S. Campbell, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Tel: (310) 961-9600
      Fax: (310) 961-9094


DELAWARE: Class Action Mulled Over Inadequate Prison Healthcare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Gronau, writing for Delaware State News, reports that a
recently released prison healthcare report noted that Delaware may
lack cost and quality information required to build a "high-
performing" prison healthcare system.

The report says that Delaware spends the eighth highest amount of
money per inmate -- $8,408 as of FY 2105 -- for medical services
in the country.  This is well below the top spender, California,
which spent $19,796 per inmate in the same time period. Louisiana
spent the least at $2,173 per head.

The 135-page report, using data collected from two 50-state
surveys administered by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Vera
Institute of Justice, along with interviews with more than 75
state officials, updates previous Pew research on spending trends
in prison healthcare.

The crux of the report, however, rested on how states defined and
monitored what sort of return on investment they were seeing
rather than how much money they were spending.

The report reads:

"Well-run, forward-thinking prison health care systems are vital
to state aims of providing care to incarcerated individuals,
protecting communities, strengthening public health and spending
money wisely.  Likewise, poorly performing systems threaten to
make states less safe, less healthy and less fiscally prudent. Put
simply: The stakes extend far beyond the confines of prison
gates."

According to the report, Delaware is one of 12 states lacking a
prison healthcare quality monitoring system in place because it's
not required by legislation, executive order or regulation.  There
are no federal regulations to keep such a system in place.

Although the Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) has a
"continuous quality improvement policy" and collects mortality
data, it doesn't routinely share that or other "healthcare
quality" data with the Legislature or public, claimed the report.

Twenty states (the majority) deliver healthcare services to
inmates through a contracted third party.  According to the DOC,
their current medical provider is Connections Community Support
Programs, Inc. (CCSP).  They've held a four-year contract with the
prison system since June 2014.

The Pew report said that as of 2016, Delaware's DOC was one of
only five states that don't include "quality metrics" in their
contract requirements and one of 10 that don't include financial
penalties.

"Delaware may lack both some of the cost and quality information
we think is required to build and maintain a high-performing
prison healthcare system," said Maria Schiff, director of Pew's
States' Health Care Spending Project.  "It is certainly advisable
to know how much money is being spent on what services and why,
what benefits are achieved for those dollars and whether these
benefits are preserved post-prison through well-coordinated
prison-to-community transitions. While the Delaware DOC does have
certain quality oversight pieces in place, other features we
identified as necessary are missing."

Ms. Schiff said the report's criteria for a sound prison
healthcare monitoring system were:

   * The system is overseen by one or more state agencies.

   * The system is distinct from systems overseen by contracted
vendors, though it may interact with them (e.g., incorporate or
audit data on particular measures that are collected by a
contracted vendor).

   * The system is applied to more than half of state prison
facilities.

   * More than half of the measures used across facilities are
identical.

The DOC feels the report mischaracterizes its quality assurance
practices.

"A lot of the survey questions were a simple yes or no," said DOC
spokeswoman Jayme Gravell.  "If our answer was no, because it
didn't fit exactly with what was asked, it doesn't mean that we
didn't have quality control measures in place."

Ms. Gravell pointed out several "controls" that she said ensures
the DOC delivers quality healthcare services to inmates.

"We do actually provide a quarterly report to the General Assembly
that goes over all the services delivered and their costs," she
said.  "Every medical and mental health service provided to
inmates is also included in a monthly report which is reviewed by
our quality assurance administrator.  Additionally, the DOC and
CCSP meet for monthly continuous quality improvement meetings to
review data internally."

Ms. Gravell also pointed to the Adult Correctional Healthcare
Review Committee (ACHRC), which consists of appointed healthcare
professionals tasked with identifying, analyzing and correcting
any problems that may impede quality.

"They provide us with a neutral, educated opinion on what we're
doing well, what needs improvement and steps to take to move
forward," she said.

The committee meets six times per year.

"Also, the DOC is accredited by the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and National Commission on Correctional Health
Care (NCCHC)," added Ms. Gravell.  "As part of the accreditation
process, there is a comprehensive review of medical and behavioral
health services to include interviewing of provider staff,
correctional staff, bureau staff, inmates and in-depth chart
review.  Our continuous quality improvement committee meets
regularly and addresses service provision, corrective action plans
and the like."

The treatment provided to each inmate is individualized so there
is no scale or grading system to measure quality, Ms. Gravell
said.  In addition to the controls in place, each facility holds
monthly Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings to review
healthcare contracts to include medical, behavioral health, and
dental.  The MAC members consist of Connections staff and DOC
staff from the Bureau of Correctional Healthcare Services and
Bureau of Prisons.

Advocates' opinions

The speed and quality of DOC-provided healthcare has come under
frequent fire by prisoner advocates.

Dover attorney Stephen Hampton, of the law firm Grady & Hampton,
LLC, said back in June that he'd been contacted by more than 230
inmates through letters or family members since the Feb. 1 inmate
uprising at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center that left Lt.
Steven Floyd dead.  He said complaints of inadequate healthcare
increased in the wake of the incident.  Many inmates were
requesting a class action lawsuit be filed on their behalf.

As of Oct. 17, Mr. Hampton said that some of the poor prison
conditions have "eased up." But he still described the medical
care as "abysmal."

He says he'll be considering representing inmates' legal claims
stemming from "mistreatment" and poor medical care in the wake of
the Feb. 1 incident.

"I am moving forward on civil claims for a large number of
inmates, but this involves thousands of pages of documentation and
I have not filed anything yet," he said.

Lori Alberts, the chairman of Link of Love, said the DOC is more
interested in cutting costs than providing the most basic medical
care. Link of Love is a support group for inmates' families.

"Since as long as I can remember, the only thing that changes is
the name of the healthcare contractor," said Ms. Alberts.  "One of
my concerns is for the elderly, if a treatment is too costly, they
seem to just postpone it until the inmate dies.  They have even
cut chronic care back to only life and death situations. Physical
therapists come in once or twice a month and by the time you get
scheduled, whatever was broken has healed wrong and there is
nothing that can be done."

Because Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) protects inmates' medical information, verifying vague
claims of poor healthcare is difficult.

Ms. Gravell said that family members and loved ones of inmates may
contact the DOC with questions about medical treatment, plans and
diagnoses. As long as the inmate provides written consent, the DOC
will share relevant healthcare information with the requester.

Admitting that healthcare can often be delayed when a specialist
is needed, she notes that inmates are often limited by
participating physicians' schedules.

"There are not a large number of specialists who've agreed to see
inmates," she said.  "When we find a provide that does, there can
sometimes be long waiting periods.  Obviously, if the conditions
are dire and an inmate needs to go to the emergency room, we take
that route, but if not, we have to wait until an appointment with
a specialist becomes available."

According to Ms. Gravell, the following is the number of inmates
who died of natural causes in the past four years:

   2014 - 7
   2015 - 14
   2016 - 13
   2017 - 1

The full Pew report can be seen at
pewtrusts.org/correctionalhealth. [GN]


DR. PEPPER: Faces "Becerra" Suit in Northern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc.  The case is captioned as Ms. Shana Becerra on behalf
of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-05921-WHO (N.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. is an American soft drink company,
based in Plano, Texas. Formerly called Cadbury Schweppes Americas
Beverages, on May 5, 2008, it was spun off from Britain's Cadbury
Schweppes, with trading in its shares starting on May 7, 2008.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Sacks, Esq.
          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 764 3008
          E-mail: asacks@sackslaw.com
                  jweston@sackslaw.com


DUNBAR ARMORED: "Solis" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Solis, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. Dunbar Armored, Inc. and DOES 1-100, the
Defendant, Case No. 31-02017-00028098-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on
Oct. 26, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San Diego
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-02193-DMS-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Dunbar Armored provides cash management, logistics, and loss
prevention solutions worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William D. Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 573 4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573 4901
          E-mail: guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Barone" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BARONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-05958-KAW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17,
2017), seeks to remedy damages as a result of Defendant's
violation of state consumer protection laws and violation of state
data breach statutes.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced one of the largest and
most severe data breaches in history, admitting that the personal
and/or confidential information of as many as 143 million
Americans had been compromised or disclosed to unauthorized third
parties between mid-May and July 2017. The information accessed
included names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses
and, in some instances, driver's license numbers (personally
identifiable information ("PII")). In addition, credit card
numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers, and certain
dispute documents with PII for approximately 182,000 U.S.
consumers, were accessed.

This is a consumer class action suit brought by Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf all other similarly situated persons
whose PII and credit account information was made accessible to
thieves or other third parties after being entrusted to, and while
in the possession, custody, and control of, Defendant Equifax.
This information is private and sensitive in nature, and Equifax
failed to adequately protect it. Equifax did not obtain consent or
permission from Plaintiff or any of the Class members to disclose
their PII, credit account, or other personal and confidential
information to any other person or entity, as would be required
for such disclosure by applicable law and industry standards prior
to any such disclosure.

Equifax discovered the data breach in July 2017, but failed to
publicly report it or otherwise alert those affected until
September 7, 2017, when it finally issued a press release. In its
press release, Defendant Equifax failed (or refused) to provide
any substantive information as to how the breach actually
occurred, choosing instead to attribute it to an unspecified
"application vulnerability." Attempting to downplay its
significance, Equifax Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard
Smith dismissively described the Data Breach as "a disappointing
event for our company." The Data Breach is even more
"disappointing" for those, including Plaintiff and the Class
members, who are among the 143 million Americans who have had
their most sensitive PII and credit account information exposed by
reason of Equifax's conduct in: (a) failing to adequately protect
that information; (b) failing to inform Plaintiff and the Class
members that it did not have adequate systems or security
processes, protocols, or practices in place to safeguard that
information; (c) failing to prevent the Data Breach from
occurring; (d) failing to mitigate the effects of the Data Bread;
and (e) failing to provide timely notice of the Data Breach after
its occurrence.

Ultimately, Equifax intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or
negligently failed to protect the PII and credit account
information of Plaintiff and the Class members from unauthorized
disclosure. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have been
damaged and remain at substantial and continuing likelihood for
identity theft/fraud. Indeed, financial experts have opined that
victims of a data breach are 9.5 times more likely to be a victim
of identity fraud that are members of the general public. As a
direct and proximate result of Equifax's intentional, willful,
reckless and/or negligent acts and omissions, of its violation of
state and federal statutes, and of the resulting Data Breach, over
143 million individuals in the United States -- including
Plaintiff and the Class members -- have had their PII and credit
account information exposed to fraud and identity theft, and have
suffered injuries.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class and Subclass:

          Benjamin Blakeman, Esq.
          BLAKEMAN LAW
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1208
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629 9922
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3230
          E-mail: ben@lifeinsurance-law.com


FACEBOOK INC: "Bigger" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSIE BIGGER, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07753 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This action arises out of Defendant's alleged systematic,
companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Client Solutions Managers, Customer Solutions
Managers, Account Managers, or other similarly titled positions,
as exempt from overtime compensation.

Facebook is an American for-profit corporation and an online
social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan
          James B. Zouras
          Teresa M. Becvar
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


FCA US LLC: Williams Sues Over Denied Warranty for Jeep Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Williams and James Jobe, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-00844 (W.D. Mo., October 6, 2017), seeks damages
and other relief under statutory or common law; attorney's fees
and costs; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief; and such other relief resulting
from negligence, breach of express and implied warranties and in
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

Chrysler refuses to honor its warranty and cover the cost of
repairing a manufacturing defect in the engines of Chrysler's Jeep
Wrangler model years 2012-2017, says the complaint. Casting sand
from the engine, radiators and oil coolers form a sludge-like
residue that damages and ultimately destroys these and other
components.

Both Williams and Jobe purchased Jeep Wranglers. Its defroster and
vents only emitted cold air and could not be adjusted by manual
settings. It was discovered that a sludge-like residue was found
in the radiator and oil cooler and had caused the problems by
restricting air flow through the cooling and heating system, notes
the complaint.

FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned by
holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch
corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA's
principal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah S. Burns, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      One Court Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Tel. (618) 259-2222
      Fax: (618) 259-2251
      Email: sburns@simmonsfirm.com

             - and -

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016

             - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON &MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Tel: (919) 600-5000
      Fax: (919) 600-5035
      Email: dan@wbmllp.com
             hunter@wbmllp.com

             - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      Fax: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Explorer Owners Await Decision on Settlement Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
Explorer class-action settlement was approved by a court a few
months ago, but the settlement was appealed by a Ford owner who
objected to the settlement terms.

Affected Ford Explorer owners now wait for a decision from the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, so the settlement won't be
effective until the appeal is resolved.

The class-action lawsuit settlement includes all entities and
consumers in the U.S. who currently own or lease (or who in the
past owned or leased) a 2011-2015 Ford Explorer that was sold or
leased in the U.S.

The class-action lawsuit has been a legal soap opera that started
in 2014 when Angela Sanchez-Knutson claimed her 2013 Explorer
leaked exhaust odors into the cabin when the SUV was accelerated
hard and while the air conditioning was on recirculate.

The original class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all
Florida 2011-2013 Explorer owners and lessees, but the suit was
later expanded to model years 2011-2015 on a nationwide basis.

The Florida court initially denied Ford's motion to dismiss, then
granted in part Ford's motion to dismiss Ms. Sanchez-Knutson's
second amended complaint.  Following that, the judge granted in
part Ms. Sanchez-Knutson's motion for class-action certification,
but denied in part Ford's motions and further ruled on other
pretrial motions.

The plaintiffs and Ford had two formal mediations and several
informal ones.  The final informal negotiation was less than 72
hours before the trial was set to begin and the settlement was
preliminarily approved on November 21, 2016, but even that was
later amended.

As part of the preliminary approval, a total of 1,210,675 class-
action notices were mailed to owners and lessees in March 2017,
but at least three persons, represented by two sets of law firms,
filed objections to the settlement and approximately 86 owners
(representing 399 Ford Explorers) have opted out.

The events in Florida kicked off Ford Explorer exhaust lawsuits
just about everywhere, including Ohio, Louisiana, California,
New York, North Carolina, Texas and New Jersey.  However, those
never really made it anywhere, as can be seen in a suit filed in
Illinois that was dismissed by the judge over a lack of evidence.

The approved settlement requires Ford to issue a technical service
bulletin (TSB) to update previous bulletins issued about Explorer
exhaust odors.  The TSB includes two service phases, one in which
dealers will recalibrate the air conditioning system and seal any
gaps in the passenger compartments.

Secondly, if Ford and the dealer determines the air conditioning
and sealing job didn't get rid of exhaust odors, additional
services may be performed, including installation of a modified
exhaust system.  In addition, Ford may issue a future exhaust odor
TSB that supersedes the current TSB, but the automaker is not
required to do that.

Based on the settlement agreement in Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor
Company, Explorer owners whose warranties have expired but who can
prove they attempted to fix a diagnosed exhaust smell at an
authorized Ford dealer during the warranty period will be entitled
to a subsidized post-warranty repair if they are still
experiencing exhaust odors.

The maximum permitted reimbursement for this repair is $175 for
the first half of the TSB and $500 for the second half of the TSB.

Owners will have the later of 4 years/48,000 miles after their
vehicle was placed into service or 60 days beyond the effective
date of the settlement to take their vehicles to an authorized
Ford dealer for repair.  The settlement provides reimbursement for
up to two such repairs.

For Explorer owners and lessees who did not complain about exhaust
smells within warranty but who are now experiencing exhaust odors
will be entitled to a subsidized post-warranty repair with a
reimbursement capped at $175 for each of the two repairs described
in the TSB.

Owners will have the later of 60 days after the effective date of
settlement or 60 days after the expiration of the warranty period
to get their SUVs to a Ford dealer for repair.  The settlement
provides reimbursement for up to two such repairs.

But what if all of that still leaves owners with exhaust odors?
Those who received an exhaust odor repair under warranty and are
still experiencing exhaust odors after the repairs will have the
right to a free appellate procedure.

They will be eligible to present their claim before a
mediator/arbitrator selected by the Better Business Bureau and
will be entitled to request all of their unreimbursed TSB repair
costs at the BBB, or possibly a buyback of their Explorer.

As part of the settlement agreement, Ford has waived certain
statute of limitations defenses and its defense that the exhaust
odor is allegedly caused by a design defect which is not covered
by its warranty.

Ford denies all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle the
lawsuit to put an end to expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Based on court documents, attorneys for the owners and lessees may
receive up to $5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses.

As mentioned earlier, the settlement will not become effective
until the appeal is fully resolve, so claim forms aren't yet
available.  Affected Explorer owners with questions may call 855-
581-1279.

The Ford Explorer exhaust fumes lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida -- Sanchez-
Knutson v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan Lewis, P.A., and Kelley
Uustal PLC. [GN]


FOX NEWS: Former Host Settles Sexual Harassment Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Ware, writing for WTMJ, reports that Fox News knew
former host Bill O'Reilly had just reached a settlement over
sexual harassment allegations when it decided to renew his
contract for an additional $7 million.

In January, O'Reilly paid a former Fox News analyst $32 million to
settle allegations of repeated harassment, including the sending
of sexually explicit material and a "nonconsensual sexual
relationship."  That's according to a New York Times report
published on Oct. 22.

Mr. O'Reilly left Fox News in April after a different Times
investigation uncovered settlements with five women who had
accused him of misconduct.  They were reportedly paid a combined
total of about $13 million in exchange for their silence.

A sexual harassment lawyer told the Los Angeles Times the $32
million payout is "tantamount to a class-action suit."

Fox News' parent company, 21st Century Fox, says it knew about the
settlement, but not how much it was worth.  But knowing about the
settlement and still deciding to renew Mr. O'Reilly's contract
isn't helping the company's attempts to clean up its image.

Others with the network have left under similar circumstances: CEO
Roger Ailes resigned just months before Mr. O'Reilly amid mounting
sexual harassment allegations.  And 21st Century Fox said
O'Reilly's most recent contract contained a clause that allowed
the company to fire him if more allegations came to light.

The company is also reportedly under federal investigation for
potentially misleading investors about payments related to sexual
harassment cases, among other things.

Mr. O'Reilly denies all allegations of wrongdoing. [GN]


GENESCO INC: "Shumate" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Julia E. Shumate, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Genesco, Inc. and Hat
World, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00157 (S.D. Ohio, October
4, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on October 5, 2017 under Case No.
1:17-cv-03574.

Shumate was employed by Defendants as non-exempt, salaried, store
manager at their "Lids" Store located at Polaris Fashion Place,
1500 Polaris Park, Columbus, Ohio 43240. Genesco, Inc., and is a
retailer and wholesaler of stores engaged in selling headwear in
retail stores in Ohio and across the United States. She claims
unpaid overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Patrick Kasson, Esq.
     REMINGER CO. LPA
     200 South Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
     Columbus, Oh 43215
     Tel: (614) 232-2418
     Fax: (614) 232-2410

            - and -

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity Lynn Christy, Esq.
     REMINGER CO. LPA
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216) 696-5000
     Fax: (216) 696-7005

            - and -

     Kari Hehmeyer, Esq.
     REMINGER CO., L.P.A.
     200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Tel: (614) 232-2422
     Fax: (614) 232-2410

            - and -

     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     614 W. Superior Avenue, Ste. 920
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216) 696-5000
     Fax: (216) 696-7005

            - and -

     Tyler G. Tarney, Esq.
     REMINGER CO. LPA
     Capitol Square Office Building
     65 East State St., 4th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215-4227
     Tel: (614) 232-2704
     Fax: (614) 232-2410
     Email: ttarney@reminger.com

Genesco, Inc. and Hat World Inc. are represented by:

     Lauren Marie Hilsheimer, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
     200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Tel: (614) 462-4775
     Fax: (614) 462-2616
     Email: lhilsheimer@bakerlaw.com

            - and -

     Bonnie Keane Del Gobbo, Esq.
     BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
     191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 416-6200
     Fax: (312) 461-6201
     Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

            - and -

     Joel Griswold, Esq.
     BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
     191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 416-6200
     Fax: (312) 461-6201
     Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


GIMEGA CORP: "Barona" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
LINA MARIA BARONA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. GIMEGA CORP. d/b/a LA
PEQUENA COLOMBIA, HENRY GARCIA, and MARIA ELENA OCHOA, the
Defendants, Case No. 714284/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wages due to an invalid tip credit, unpaid wages due to time
shaving, portions of tips earned on credit card order illegally
retained by Defendants, unreimbursed uniform expenses, improper
meal credit deductions, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, all the Class members were subject to
the same corporate practices of Defendants. The Class members and
Plaintiff allege that Defendants failed to pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, failed
to pay them compensation for all hours worked, failed to reimburse
them for uniform expenses, improperly claiming a meal credit
allowance, failed to pay spread-of-hours premium for each shift
exceeding 10 hours in duration, and failed to provide them wage
notice at the beginning of their employment and provide them wage
statements. The Plaintiff and other Class members sustained
similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same
unlawful policies, practices and procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


HADLEY COLLISION: Fails to Pay Wages, "Tair" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
DANY TAIR and SARGON MANSOOR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HADLEY COLLISION
CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all
benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, at least one year prior to the filing
of this lawsuit, and continuing to the present, Defendants have
consistently failed to provide Employees with timely, accurate,
and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required by
California wage-and-hour laws. The Defendants consistently failed
to pay Employees' wages on a timely semi-monthly basis, as
required by Labor Code and failed to pay all wages owed to
Employees at the time of their termination of within 72 hours of
their resignation, as required by California wage-and-hour
laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 00
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  davidk@yeremianlaw.com


HENDRICK CO: "Castaing" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CASTAING, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HENDRICK CO AUTOMOTIVE, LLC,
a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, EAST BAY AUTOMOTIVE
COMPANY, a California General Partnership, and DOES l thru 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17879115 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants often failed to pay
"Commission Employees" overtime at the proper rate. Specifically,
Defendants failed to include the separate hourly compensation for
the non-productive time associated with rest periods that
Plaintiff and the other "Commission Employees" were required to
take when calculating Plaintiff and the other "Commission
Employees" regular rate of pay used to calculate and pay
overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  ak@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          David S. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (424) 288 4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532 4062
          E-mail: david@ernploymentlitigators.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824 3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862 6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


HIGG'S PAINTING: "Francoeur" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FRANCOEUR, JOSEPH FRANCOEUR, AND SHAYNE GUILLEMETTE on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. HIGG'S PAINTING, INC. and JEFFREY S.
HIGGINBOTTOM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00498-JJM-LDA
(D.R.I., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory, punitive,
and liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses and other equitable relief, arising out of the unlawful
failure to pay overtime compensation, prevailing wages, and
prevailing wage overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiffs in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island
Minimum Wage Act, Labor and Payment of Debts by Contractors
chapter of the Rhode Island General Laws, and Commonwealth of
Massachusetts General Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiffs,
and other similarly situated employees, to work in excess of 40
hours but failed to pay them at rates not less than one and one-
half times the regular rates at which they were employed. The
Defendants paid Plaintiffs the same regular hourly rate for all
hours worked over 40 in any given work week in a separate line
item in the same paycheck.  Utilizing a separate line item for all
hours worked over 40 demonstrates Defendant's willful failure to
pay overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Mancini, Esq.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739 9692
          Facsimile: (401) 739 9040
          E-mail: gmancinilaw@gmail.com


HILTON GRAND: "Glasser" Case Stayed Pending Dec. 7 Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELANIE GLASSER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HILTON GRAND
VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00952-JDW-
AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore entered an
order granting joint motion to stay the action pending Second
Mediation.

The court said, "This action is stayed pending mediation on
December 7, 2017. The Parties are directed to notify the Court of
the outcome of the mediation on or before December 14, 2017. The
Clerk is directed to administratively close this case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gJ0EeTmg


HOGAN TRANSPO: Fleet Managers Win Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in the case
captioned DON FAIRFAX, Plaintiff, v. HOGAN TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-680 (S.D.
Ohio), and denying in part and granting in part Defendant's Motion
to Strike.

Plaintiff has brought the present collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4111 (Fair Wage Act).
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Hogan for
all of Defendants' current or former Fleet Managers and other
dispatcher employees during the past three years before this
Complaint was filed to the present.

Plaintiff moves for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Plaintiff alleges that all Fleet Managers and other dispatcher
employees employed by Defendants perform the same general job
duties, are subject to the same wage and hour policies, and are
not paid overtime. Defendants oppose the Motion arguing primarily
that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his minimal burden of proof
in showing that others in the Putative Class are similarly
situated to him. In addition, Defendants oppose the scope of the
Putative Class, the content of the Notice, and the manner in which
the Notice will be distributed to Putative Class members.

Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed order is overbroad as
to geographic scope, job title, and time. As to geographic scope,
Defendants contend that there is insufficient admissible evidence
to support a nationwide class.

Plaintiff attached several exhibits to his Motion for Conditional
Certification that purport to show that other Hogan employees are
similarly situated to Plaintiff. Defendants' primary basis for
arguing against conditional certification is the insufficiency of
the evidence presented by Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants
claim that job postings and personal LinkedIn profiles are
unpersuasive to show that other Putative Class members are
similarly situated, he has no personal knowledge of the primary
job responsibilities of other Hogan Fleet Managers, and
Plaintiff's allegations contained in his affidavit are undermined
by his own deposition testimony in this case.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that evidence showing that
Defendants employ other people with the same job title as
Plaintiff is relevant though not determinative to the question of
whether other members of the putative class are similarly situated
to Plaintiff. The Court's position is strengthened by the fact
that Defendants do not deny that all Fleet Managers were
classified as salary exempt and were subject to the same
compensation structure.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the minute differences in
daily job responsibilities are overemphasized by Defendants. As
stated earlier, Plaintiff must only make a modest factual showing
that his position is similar, not identical, to the positions held
by the putative class members. Plaintiff has made the modest
factual showing to the Court that Fleet Managers and possibly
other dispatcher employees shared the same primary job functions
even if their respective locations demanded unique or slightly
different responsibilities that were not demanded of Plaintiff in
Zanesville.

Therefore, there is testimonial evidence albeit somewhat vague
that Plaintiff has spoken to other Fleet Managers about their jobs
and his job in general. Nuanced differences in Fleet Managers'
daily responsibilities are not sufficient to defeat conditional
certification at this stage.

Plaintiff's affidavit states that he has personal knowledge, based
at least in part on conversations with other Fleet Managers and
dispatcher employees, that the following is true of other Hogan
Fleet Managers and dispatcher employees: (1) they have the
same/similar job duties as Plaintiff; (2) they were treated as
exempt under the FLSA and were not paid time and a half for hours
worked over forty hours per week; (3) they are on call at all
hours; and (4) they worked long hours outside of the office and
were paid a fixed salary that did not include overtime or straight
time for hours worked over forty hours per week.

Thus, Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted.

Plaintiff has made the following request for expedited discovery
relating to the Putative Class members: The Court should order
Defendants to produce the names, all known addresses, all phone
numbers, dates of birth, all known email addresses and dates of
employment for all the Collective Class members employed at any
time during the three years preceding the granting of the Motion
to the Present.

Defendants do not oppose any of these requests, with the exception
that they generally oppose sending the Notice by both regular and
electronic mail. For these reasons, Defendants' argument is well-
taken and Defendants need not provide electronic mailing addresses
to Plaintiffs.

The remainder of Plaintiff's unopposed requests for expedited
discovery are granted.

Here, Plaintiff has made no attempt to show that there are any
factual circumstances that would render service by ordinary mail
only ineffective. Accordingly, Plaintiff is only permitted to send
a single notice to the Putative class with the exception that a
second mailing may be attempted if the first attempt is returned
undeliverable.

The parties have agreed to add a sentence to the Plaintiff's
proposed Notice indicating that defendant denies Plaintiff's
allegations in the underlying case. Further, Defendant does not
object to Plaintiff hiring a third party class action
administration company if they deem appropriate or to a ninety day
opt-in period. The Court approves each of these requests.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybnus928
from Leagle.com.

Don Fairfax, Plaintiff, represented by Lance Chapin --
lchapin@chapinlegal.com -- Chapin Legal Group, LLC.

Don Fairfax, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Charles Babin, Jr.,
Chapin Legal Group LLC. 580 S High St Ste 330, Columbus, OH,
43215-5644

Hogan Transports, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy Young --
jyoung@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress LPA, Emma R. Schuering --
eschuering@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, pro hac vice & Robert
John Hingula -- rhingula@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, pro hac
vice.

Hogan Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy Young,
Roetzel & Andress LPA.

Hogan Dedicated Services, Defendant, represented by Jeremy Young,
Roetzel & Andress LPA.


ILLINOIS: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to Central District of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Vasquez, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Petitioners, v. Warden Marvin Reed, Warden; Orr, Warden; and
Burtle, Lt., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04051, was
transferred on Oct. 26, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois (Springfield). The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-03242-JES-JEH to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge James E.
Shadid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deidre Baumann, Esq.
          BAUMANN & SHULDINER
          20 S Clark Street, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 558 3119
          Facsimile: (312) 372 7076
          E-mail: baumannesq@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emma Dorothy Steimel, Esq.
          ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814 2035
          E-mail: esteimel@atg.state.il.us


IMPAX LABORATORIES: $4.8MM TCPA Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class in the case
captioned FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-0053-WS-MU
(S.D. Ala.).

Plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, brought this putative
class action against defendant, Impax Laboratories, Inc., alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (TCPA).

In particular, Family Medicine maintained that it had received an
unsolicited "junk fax" advertising the commercial availability and
qualities of Impax's epinephrine auto-injector device, in
violation of the TCPA's prohibition on transmission of unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile machine, computer, or other device.

Plaintiff further alleged that this fax transmission violated the
TCPA by failing to provide the recipient with a cost-free
mechanism to opt out of receiving such transmissions in the
future. By its terms, the TCPA provides for a private right of
action, and authorizes recovery of the greater of actual damages
or statutory damages of $500, or up to treble that amount for
willful or knowing violations.

Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a settlement class
(the "Settlement Class") whose parameters would be defined as
follows:

     All individuals and/or entities who or which received one or
more unsolicited advertisements via facsimile from Defendant
between December 1, 2013 and the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order.

With respect to the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity requirement, the
parties have identified approximately 48,157 class members within
the scope of the proposed class definition. That volume of class
members is plainly so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, so as to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

Family Medicine identifies as common issues of fact or law the
following, among others: whether Impax is subject to the TCPA,
whether Impax's facsimile transmissions violated the TCPA, whether
the subject faxes were informational or commercial in nature,
whether class members consented to receive fax advertisements or
were in an established business relationship with Impax, and
whether class members are entitled to statutory damages and
injunctive relief. Under the circumstances, the Court agrees with
plaintiff that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality has been adequately
established.

The Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement turns on whether "the
claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise
from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the
same legal theory."

Here, Family Medicine and all proposed class members are alleged
to have been harmed in the same manner (i.e., receipt of
unsolicited junk faxes occupying their fax machines for a brief
period of time) by the same course of conduct by the same
defendant in the same time period, with the same legal remedy
(i.e., statutory damages for violation of the TCPA).

Family Medicine's claims appear unremarkable and facially
indistinguishable from those of other putative class members;
therefore, the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is
satisfied.

The last of the Rule 23(a) factors is found at Rule 23(a)(4),
which imposes an adequacy of representation requirement. This
adequacy of representation analysis encompasses two separate
inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist
between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the
representatives will adequately prosecute the action.

Family Medicine has established a proven track record in this case
of prosecuting its claims vigorously, and there is no reason to
believe it will not continue to do so on behalf of the class
following conditional certification. The same holds true for
Family Medicine's counsel of record, who are well qualified to
represent classwide interests here.

On this showing, the Court concludes that Family Medicine will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as
required by Rule 23(a).

In order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must show (in
addition to the Rule 23(a) factors discussed previously)  (1) that
common questions of law or fact predominate over questions
affecting only individual class members (predominance); and (2)
that a class action is superior to other available methods for
adjudicating the controversy (superiority).

Here, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact
predominate. Common fact questions include whether Impax sent the
subject faxes and whether those faxes were unsolicited. Common
legal questions include whether Impax is subject to the TCPA and
whether the fax transmissions in question violate the TCPA.
Resolution of those common questions will directly impact every
class member's effort to establish liability and a right to
relief.

Thus, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is properly found here.
Moreover, class treatment is superior to other available means of
adjudicating the controversy given the sheer volume of potential
class members, the identity or near-identity of factual and legal
issues implicated by their claims, and the administrative
simplicity of identifying and notifying potential class members
using available fax records. Plaintiff has thus met its burden of
showing that conditional certification is appropriate pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Terms of Settlement

The settlement contemplates that class members will receive cash,
with defendant also contributing limited additional funds for
notice and claims administration. The cash component of the
settlement would entail Impax making a payment of $4,815,700 to be
distributed on a pro rata basis to those class members who submit
timely claims, with such pro rata share not to exceed $500 per
compensable fax.

Before distribution, this gross settlement fund will be reduced by
the following amounts: (i) a deduction for notice and claims
administration costs in excess of $75,000; (ii) a deduction for
class counsel's attorney's fees and litigation expenses, up to a
maximum of one-third of the gross settlement fund less
administration costs; and (iii) a deduction for an incentive award
to the class representative, Family Medicine, of up to $20,000.
Additionally, defendant would make a separate $75,000 payment
toward notice and claims administration costs, with the remaining
such costs to be deducted from the gross settlement fund.

Notice

Prior to final approval of a class action settlement, the court
must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who
would be bound by the proposal.

The Court is preliminarily satisfied that the proposed notice
constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances
and that it comports with Rule 23 and due process. Notice by
facsimile transmission, which other federal courts have approved
in TCPA class action settlements, appears particularly appropriate
here, given that (i) all class members, by definition, received
facsimile transmissions from Impax during the relevant period;
(ii) Impax and its agent have maintained records showing the
facsimile numbers to which such transmissions were sent; and (iii)
it can be reasonably expected that businesses and individuals
change their facsimile numbers infrequently.

Thus, the vast majority of class members should be reachable via
those same fax numbers to which the offending faxes giving rise to
their claims were sent. Presumably, as to most class members whose
fax numbers have changed in the interim, the settlement
administrator's efforts to send faxed notice will result in failed
transmissions, thus prompting the administrator to locate valid
mailing addresses for them.

The Court perceives no obvious flaws in this notice plan;
therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted as to
both the manner and content of notice

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc4dfb3lfrom Leagle.com.

Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra
S. Debrosse fuli@zarzaur.com

Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by James H.
McFerrin, The McFerrin Law Firm, 3117 Manitou Ln, Vestavia, AL
35216-4244

Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anush
Emelianova -- aemelianova@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro
hac vice, Sidney Stewart Haskins, II -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- King
& Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice & M.
Warren Butler, Starnes Davis Florie LLP, RSA- Battle House Tower,
20th Floor, 11 North Water Street, Mobile, AL 36602.


INTUIT INC: Can Compel Arbitration of 4 Claims in TurboTax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
CHRISTINE DIAZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action suit, six individual Plaintiffs
allege that Intuit knowingly allowed fraudsters to open fake
accounts and file fraudulent federal and state tax returns through
Intuit's TurboTax tax preparation software. Intuit moves to compel
four of the named plaintiffs, Carol Knoch, James Lebinski, David
Stock, and Marilyn Williams, to arbitrate their claims pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and to stay these Plaintiffs'
cases pending resolution of their respective arbitrations.

Plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of SIRF fraud,
meaning that Intuit allowed a fake TurboTax account to be opened
in their names and allowed fraudulent tax returns to be filed from
that account in their names. Plaintiffs assert claims for unfair
competition, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
enablement of third party imposter fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Knoch, Lebinski, Stock and Williams agreed to the
TurboTax online Terms of Service or the TurboTax desktop End User
License Agreement, both of which contain a dispute resolution and
class waiver provision.

The FAA provides that written agreements to arbitration disputes
shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, save upon grounds as
exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract.

In the present case, the parties' dispute resolution agreements
expressly provide that arbitration will be conducted by the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) before a single AAA
arbitrator under the AAA's rules. Rule 14(a) of the AAA empowers
the arbitrator to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including
any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity
of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim
or counterclaim. Virtually every circuit has determined that
incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules constitutes clear and
unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate
arbitrability.

Despite the delegation to arbitrate arbitrability, Knoch,
Lebinski, Stock and Williams next ask the Court to conduct a
limited inquiry to determine whether the assertion of
arbitrability is wholly groundless.

In the present case, the arbitration clause is broad, applying to
"ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM RELATING IN ANY WAY TO THE SERVICES OR THIS
AGREEMENT." Therefore, the Court does not find that the assertion
of arbitrability is "wholly groundless."

Accordingly, Intuit's motion to compel Plaintiffs Knoch, Lebinski,
Stock and Williams to arbitration is granted, and their cases are
stayed pending resolution of their respective arbitrations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92cct8vfrom Leagle.com.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Kook Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com --  McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, John A.
Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan,
P.A., pro hac vice, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Soffin, Morgan and
Morgan, 201 North Franklin Street, Seventh FloorTampa, FL 33602,
Roger Norton Heller --  rheller@lchb.com  -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein LLP, Joel R. Rhine, Rhine Law Firm, 1612
Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 , Wilmington, NC 28403, pro hac
vice, Joseph Jeremy Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC,
Melissa Ann Gardner -- mgardner@lchb.com --  Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group,
P.A., 2929 Plummer Cove Road, Jacksonville, FL 32223, pro hac vice
& Richard D. McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP.

David Stock, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw,
PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP,
Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice &
Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

James Lebinski, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman, Goldman
Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Carol Knoch, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler --
atadler@milberg.com  --  Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Henry J.
Kelston -- hkelston@milberg.com --  Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Richard Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A., pro hac vice.

Intuit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodger R. Cole --
rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Alexis Caloza --
acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Angel Chiang --
achiang@fenwick.com -- Carly Lee Bittman -- cbittman@fenwick.com -
- Fenwick and West & Hailey Coltra Teton -- htetton@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP.


INTUIT INC: Court Narrows Claims in TurboTax Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned CHRISTINE DIAZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01778-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), six individual Plaintiffs allege that Intuit
knowingly allowed fraudsters to open fake accounts and file
fraudulent federal and state tax returns through Intuit's TurboTax
tax preparation software.

Plaintiff Brown was never a TurboTax customer; he never used
TurboTax, never provided Intuit with personally identifiable
information or paid money to Intuit.  Plaintiff Diaz purchased the
desktop version of TurboTax in 2011 and used it to e-file her tax
year 2010 Ohio state and federal tax returns.  Since then, Diaz
has not used TurboTax.

Both Plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of SIRF fraud,
meaning that Intuit allowed a fake TurboTax account to be opened
in their names and allowed fraudulent tax returns to be filed from
that account in their names. Plaintiffs assert claims for unfair
competition, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, "negligent
enablement of third party imposter fraud," and unjust enrichment.

Intuit moves to dismiss the two remaining Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Brown's Negligence Claim

The foreseeable factor weighs against imposing a duty with respect
to Plaintiff Brown, who was not a TurboTax customer and never
provided personal identifying information to Intuit. A third-party
fraudster obtained Brown's personal identifying information
elsewhere and used it to open TurboTax accounts and to file
fraudulent returns in Brown's name. Brown has not alleged facts
explaining how Intuit could have or should have known that the
account(s) opened in Brown's name were fraudulent.

Brown has not alleged suspicious circumstances or danger signals
that would have or should have placed Intuit on notice that a
fraudster was opening a TurboTax account in his name. Therefore,
Intuit's motion to dismiss Brown's negligence is granted with
leave to amend.

Diaz's Negligence Claim

Intuit contends that Diaz's negligence claim is barred by the
economic loss doctrine. Diaz contends that the economic loss
doctrine is inapplicable because her claim arises from conduct
outside the scope of her contractual relationship with Intuit.
The Court agrees.

Diaz's negligence claim, however, is not predicated on her
installation, access or use of the licensed software. Instead, it
is based upon Intuit's allegedly lax policies that allowed a
fraudster to open an entirely separate TurboTax account and to
file fraudulent returns in Diaz's name. Therefore, Intuit's motion
to dismiss Diaz's negligence claim on the grounds that it is
barred by the economic loss doctrine is denied.

No California court has recognized a claim for negligent
enablement of third party imposter fraud. Accordingly, the claim
is dismissed with prejudice.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

Liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission
of an intentional tort if the person (a) knows the other's conduct
constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or
encouragement to the other to so act or (b) gives substantial
assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the
person's own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach
of duty to the third person.

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Intuit aided and abetting by
failing to implement adequate measures: to verify taxpayer
information when an account is created or a return is filed; to
notify taxpayers and IRS and other taxing authorities of returns
that were fraudulent or suspicious; or to timely report data
regarding suspicious filings to the IRS and state taxing agencies.
In general, failure to act does not constitute substantial
assistance for purposes of aiding and abetting liability

Accordingly, the aiding and abetting claim is dismissed with leave
to amend.

Violation of Unfair Competition Law (First Count)

Intuit seeks dismissal of the unfair competition claim, asserting
that Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show that they
were harmed as a result of the alleged unfair competition.

Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged both an economic injury
that confers UCL standing, as well as a violation of the UCL.
Plaintiffs' allegations are nevertheless sufficient at the
pleading stage. In particular, it is questionable whether any
legitimate policy considerations outweigh the gravity of harm that
was allegedly caused by Intuit's policy of allowing tax refunds to
be directed to Intuit's affiliate Santa Barbara Bank, and then
essentially converted into non-traceable forms, such as pre-loaded
debit cards.

Plaintiffs also satisfy the tethering test. Plaintiffs allege that
Intuit's conduct violates California public policy, as reflected
in numerous statutes, regulations and common law that prohibit
fraud and specifically fraudulent tax filings. Plaintiffs need not
allege a direct violation of a statute to satisfy the tethering
test.

Accordingly, Intuit's motion to dismiss the unfair competition
claim is denied.

Unjust Enrichment (Fifth Count)

California recognizes unjust enrichment as a standalone claim for
restitution. Plaintiffs have alleged that Intuit has been
conferred benefits through an unfair business practice.
Accordingly, Intuit's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claim is denied.

Intuit's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims is granted in part
and denied in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8qp9h2ofrom Leagle.com.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Kook Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, John A.
Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan,
P.A., pro hac vice, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Soffin, Morgan and
Morgan, 201 North Franklin Street, Seventh FloorTampa, FL 33602,
Roger Norton Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein LLP, Joel R. Rhine, Rhine Law Firm, 1612 Military Cutoff
Road, Suite 300 , Wilmington, NC 28403, pro hac vice, Joseph
Jeremy Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Melissa Ann
Gardner -- mgardner@lchb.com --  Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein,
LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., 2929 Plummer
Cove Road, Jacksonville, FL 32223, pro hac vice & Richard D.
McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

David Stock, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw,
PC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP,
Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice &
Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.
James Lebinski, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman, Goldman
Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Carol Knoch, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler --
atadler@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Henry J. Kelston
-- hkelston@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott
Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Richard Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A., pro hac vice.

Intuit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodger R. Cole --
rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Alexis Caloza --
acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Angel Chiang --
achiang@fenwick.com -- Carly Lee Bittman -- cbittman@fenwick.com -
- Fenwick and West & Hailey Coltra Teton -- htetton@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP.


IRELAND: In Violation of European Social Charter, ECSR Declares
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kitty Holland, writing for The Irish Times, reports that the human
rights of local-authority tenants in Ireland have been breached by
local authorities' failure to provide adequate, clean and safe
housing, the Strasbourg-based European Committee of Social Rights
(ECSR) will declare.

Ina significant judgment that could affect hundreds of thousands
of people living in council homes, the ECSR will rule that Ireland
is in violation of article 16 of the revised European Social
Charter.

Local authorities, the Council of Europe body will declare, have
failed to "ensure the right to housing of an adequate standard for
a not insignificant number of families".

Article 16 of the charter recognises that "the family as a
fundamental unit of society has the right to appropriate social,
legal and economic protection to ensure its full development".
Included is the "provision of family housing".

The ruling comes more than three years after tenants of 20 local
authority estates took a class action, alleging that poor-quality
housing was breaching their human rights.

Known as a "collective complaint", it was submitted to the
committee by the Paris-based International Federation for Human
Rights (FIDH) in July 2014, on behalf of the residents of estates
in Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

Adverse effects

Persistent damp, mould growing inside their homes, persistent bad
odours, poor plumbing, the emergence of raw sewage from pipes into
their sinks and baths, and a lack of central heating, were having
adverse effects on their families' lives and breaching rights
including of the family and children to be protected against
poverty and social exclusion, they alleged.

In addition, they had no independent body to which they could
complain about the conditions affecting them -- unlike private
tenants, who can appeal to the Residential Tenancies Board.
Instead, local-authority tenants must complain to their own
council -- ie their landlord -- about conditions that were the
responsibility of the landlord to fix, in the first instance.

The ECSR committee said it had seen evidence of "sewage invasions,
contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould" in the dwellings
that raise serious concerns about habitability and the rights of
tenants to services.

"It notes in particular the high number of residents in certain
estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions . . . years
after the problems were first identified."

It says it has "repeatedly held that the right to housing for
families encompasses housing of an adequate standard" and that
adequate housing "must be habitable . . . providing the
inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold,
damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural
hazards ad disease vectors."

It also notes "no complete statistics on the condition of local
authority housing have been collected since 2002 by the Irish
authorities and that in Ireland no national timetable exists for
the refurbishment of local authority housing stock".

Government failings

In light of these findings, "the Committee finds that the
Government has failed to take sufficient and timely measures to
ensure the right to housing of an adequate standard for a not
insignificant number of families living in local authority housing
and therefore holds that there is a violation of article 16 of the
charter".

It found four other complaints, including the lack of an
independent complaints body for local-authority tenants, had not
been proven to breach charter rights.

In a briefing note the committee says: "All member states are
obliged to take steps to address any violations found by the ECSR.

"The Committee of Ministers will now discuss this decision with a
view to adopting a formal resolution to the Irish authorities
based on the findings.  The committee will follow up on a regular
basis to see what steps are being taken to address the problems
identified".[GN]


ISLE OF CAPRI: Court Denied Certification of Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL A. BRNA, RAMON FERNANDEZ and JAMES E.
SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ISLE OF CAPRJ CASW OS INC. and
INTERBLOCK USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60144-FAM
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and for certification of the settlement
class filed on September 28, 2017.

The motion is denied "for reasons stated in open court" on October
24, Judge Moreno held.

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


JACOBY & MEYERS: Court Denied Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NANCY HARDING et al, the Plaintiffs, v.
JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-
05419-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered
an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
for the appointment of class counsel without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eQ25hGz5


JAY PEAK: Receivership Sought for Vermont EB-5 Regional Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that a group of EB-5
investors has asked a superior court judge to put the Vermont EB-5
Regional Center in receivership because the state has demonstrated
that it cannot protect investors.

The motion, filed on Oct. 20 in Lamoille County Superior Court,
says the appointment of an independent receiver is "essential" for
the protection of defrauded investors in Jay Peak Resort who have
not yet received green cards and investors in other projects.

The state is claiming a sovereign immunity defense.  TJ Donovan,
the Vermont attorney general, who is defending the state agencies
and 10 former and current state officials named in the suit, has
said state employees were acting in good faith and were simply
carrying out their duties.

The investors say the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center should be
managed by a receiver because state officials have not taken
responsibility for their failure to prevent the fraud at Jay Peak.
The plaintiffs allege that the center falsely claimed the projects
were audited by the state, actively promoted the projects to new
potential investors after state officials were made aware that
investor monies had been misused, and engaged in a coverup.

The investors say the state "directly sold" the Jay Peak projects
to investors by promising faster green card approvals, quarterly
reports and an assurance of compliance.  Legal agreements between
the state and the developers that were given to investors included
guarantees that state officials would be responsible for
oversight, management and compliance.

They cite an example of the state's alleged complicity in a new
affidavit from an EB-5 expert who claims that the state knew in
2012 about kickbacks to Jay Peak immigration attorneys.

The motion is the latest twist in a class action case brought by
investors against the state commerce agency, the Vermont EB-5
center and state financial regulators for failing to protect them
from the largest fraud in the history of the EB-5 program.

Barr Law Group of Stowe, which is representing the investors,
argues that a receivership is the logical next step in light of
the state's refusal to accept any obligation for oversight,
management or administration of the Jay Peak projects and a
decision by the federal government to close the Vermont center.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service issued a notice of
termination in August, citing a "preponderance of the evidence"
that state officials failed to properly monitor and manage the Jay
Peak projects for many years, effectively looking the other way as
the developers allegedly stole money from investors. The Vermont
Department of Financial Regulation put regulatory controls in
place in 2015 that officials say are sufficient to protect
investors.

State officials, who were supposed to be overseeing the projects
and ensuring that investor funds were protected, deflected and
ignored questions about the finances at Jay Peak raised in 2012 by
EB-5 experts, former business partners and investors, according to
documents in the public record.  The director of the Vermont EB-5
Regional Center questioned the motives of the people who raised
red flags and instead of investigating allegations of financial
improprieties, actively promoted the Jay Peak projects to
investors, communications show.

Four years later, Jay Peak's former owner Ariel Quiros and former
CEO and president Bill Stenger were accused of using investor
funds to buy the resort.  They then allegedly perpetrated a
"Ponzi-like" scheme in which they used money from new investors to
backfill the cost of projects for previous investors.  The
Securities and Exchange Commission brought 52 counts of securities
fraud against Messrs. Quiros and Stenger who are accused of
misusing $200 million in investor funds in eight projects through
the EB-5 program.  The investments were meant for massive
improvements at the Northeast Kingdom ski resort, another resort
in the region and a biomedical facility.  The projects are now
being managed through a receivership.

Green cards for about 400 out of about 900 investors have been in
jeopardy because of the fraud. Each foreign investor put up
$500,000, plus an administrative fee, in the Jay Peak projects in
exchange for U.S. residency.

The receivership motion features new allegations that the Vermont
EB-5 Regional Center promised investors fast-track approval for
green cards.  An official flier promoting the Vermont center as
the only state-run EB-5 program in the nation claims that
investors in Vermont projects "would be given priority" by U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service. (In an email communication
obtained by Barr Law Group, USCIS said it did not give
preferential treatment to investors in the Vermont regional
center.)

The investors also cite an affidavit from an EB-5 expert who says
there was "clear coordination" between Vermont EB-5 Regional
Center and Jay Peak representatives.

Michael Gibson, an EB-5 analyst from Florida who has served on
IIUSA, a trade association that sets ethical standards for the EB-
5 industry, said at every EB-5 tradeshow or convention he
attended, Jay Peak representatives shared a booth with Vermont
Regional Center officials, including former regional center
directors James Candido and Brent Raymond, commerce agency
attorney John Kessler and former commerce agency secretary
Lawrence Miller.

From the booth, Jay Peak "packets" were distributed to immigration
lawyers.  The packets included agreements for payouts to attorneys
who brought new investors to Jay Peak, Gibson says. One fill-in-
the-blank form obtained by Barr Law Group featured a kickback of
$25,000 for Shen Law.

Mr. Gibson says "there is no chance" that the Vermont Regional
Center was not aware of the referral agreements, which gave Jay
Peak an "illegitimate" competitive edge over other EB-5 projects
around the country "because the immigration lawyers who received
the financial incentive pushed investors to a project that
otherwise could not compete."

He also says that Jay Peak made representations in front of state
officials to immigration lawyers and investors that the state
audited the financials and operations at the resort.

The state auditing statements were a "pivotal" selling point, he
said.  Mr. Gibson said he had analyzed the business prospects of
Jay Peak and found that "Jay Peak's projects and plans presented
almost no chance of making money and producing a return on the
enormous amount of capital being invested.

"However, to compensate for the foundational and obvious
deficiencies in its business model, Jay Peak provided assurances
to its investors by claiming that their promises of profit were
backed up and audited by the State run Vermont Regional Center,"
Mr. Gibson said.

Mr. Gibson raised concerns about the kickbacks, Jay Peak's
business outlook and coordination between state officials and the
EB-5 developers they were supposed to be monitoring.  He sent a
series of emails in 2012 to Kessler and John Cronin, the former
head of the securities division of the Vermont Department of
Financial Regulation, alleging that Jay Peak was "systematically
engaged in unauthorized unlicensed broker-dealer conduct." His
questions were ignored.

"It was obvious then that the Jay Peak projects represented a
gravy train of travel, opportunity, lucrative fees, and
opportunity," Mr. Gibson said.  "Everyone at the booth, and
everyone who received one of those packets wanted to ride the
gravy train, but no one wanted to hear anything that I had to
say."

Investors say the receivership is necessary because the state has
not owned up to its role in the fraud and several key state
officials who were present when the fraud at Jay Peak occurred
remain involved in the state's EB-5 program.

Gov. Phil Scott and the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation
have proposed that the state retain control of the center as it
"winds down" over the course of a decade.

That's unacceptable to the investors suing the state.  They agree
the center should be closed down over time, but they believe that
from here on out the state's EB-5 program should be run by an
outside, independent securities firm in order to show USCIS that
the regional center can comply with EB-5 laws and regulations.  A
"premature" termination by USCIS, they argue, would hurt innocent
investors in other projects and "erode the public trust in
Vermont's government and expose the State to further liability."
[GN]


KATZKIN LEATHER: Medina Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KATZKIN LEATHER, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC680102 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated in California to recover, among other
things, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have increased their
profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other
things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and
overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or
compensation; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or
provide compensation; failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.

The Defendants operate a leather manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LE BOULANGER: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Final Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Juan Vasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Le Boulanger, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-316829, (Cal. Super., October 5, 2017),
seeks general, special and incidental damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief under California Labor Laws.

Defendants are accused of failing to pay all wages owed to Vasquez
at the time of his termination of within seventy-two hours of
resignation as required by California wage-and-hour laws. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     David Keledjian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 230-8380
     Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
     Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
            davidk@yeremianlaw.com


LIFE TIME: Violates Biometric Information Laws, Marshall Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., a
Minnesota Corporation, and LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a
Minnesota Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH14262
(Circuit Court Of Cook County, IL, Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to
recover damages as a result of Defendants' violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

This case concerns Life Time's practice of collecting, capturing,
storing and using Plaintiffs and other employees' biometric
identifiers and biometric information without regard to the
regulations imposed by BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and
pecuniary interests that BIPA protects.

Life Time, Inc. is a chain of health clubs in the United States
and Canada. Many of its facilities operate 24/7 and feature
personal trainers, salons, food courts, child care centers, and
indoor/outdoor pools.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive,
          9th Fl. Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com


LIPARI TRUCKING: "Crum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WILLIAMS, TAJUAN CRUM, DERRICK QUILL, and DAMIEN RICE, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. LIPARI TRUCKING, INC., FRANK LIPARI, Chief
Executive Officer and President, along with any and all agents,
subsidiaries and affiliates, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06007-LDW-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to monetary
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, to redress
Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Driver/Delivery/Helper/Install
Personnel are required, under threat of termination by Defendants,
to work many hours for which they are never paid overtime.

Lipari Trucking is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Massapequa,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rocco G. Avallone, Esq.
          Christopher F. Bellistri, Esq.
          AVALLONE & BELLISTRI, LLP
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E07
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 986 2500


LYNN DONUTS: Moran Sues over Butter Substitute in Baked Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL MORAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYNN DONUTS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2017CV6000 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2017), alleges
that Lynn Donuts has engaged in a scheme whereby the Company,
through its Dunkin' Donuts locations in the Commonwealth,
knowingly and habitually deceives its customers by supplying
margarine (or a butter substitute) when customers specifically
request butter and are charged for butter on their bagels or other
baked good products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com


MACY'S RETAIL: "Davis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., a/k/a
MACY'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01807 (D. Conn.,
Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime Pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Andrew Davis brings this action as a collective action under the
FLSA and a class action under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act
against the Defendant for the misclassification of employees with
the title of Department Manager as exempt from overtime pay, and
the consequent failure to pay those workers at time and one-half
their hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. owns and operates department stores.
It offers bed and bath products, cosmetic products, apparel,
accessories, and jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Sobelsohn, Esq.
          THE SOBELSOHN LAW FIRM
          16027 Ventura Blvd., Suite 608
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 775 0504
          Facsimile: (818) 530 4342
          E-mail: dsobelsohn@sobelsohnlaw.com


MAGMA DESIGN: Nat'l Union Wins Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose, issued an Order granting National Union's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned Division
GENESIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:06-cv-05526-EJD (N.D. Cal.).  The
motion for relief from non-dispositive pre-trial order of the
magistrate judge is denied as moot.

Presently before the court is National Union's motion for summary
judgment on Magma's cross-claims for breach of contract and breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Synopsys, Inc., filed an action against Magma alleging patent
infringement, which Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (ERII) accepted
as a notice of circumstances arising under its 2003-04 policy.
Genesis, however, declined to accept the Synopsys action as a
notice of circumstances under its first-layer excess coverage.

Magma shareholders filed a securities class action against Magma.
Magma shareholders filed a shareholder derivative action.  ERII
concluded the Syopsys action was a notice of circumstances to the
securities class action and shareholder derivative action and
covered them under its 2003-04 Policy. Genesis denied coverage, as
did National Union.

Two of Magma's cross-claims against National Union remain at issue
after rulings by the District court and the Ninth Circuit, and are
the subjects of the current motion. The first asserts breach of
contract, through which Magma alleges that National Union has
improperly denied coverage and repudiated its obligations under
the National Union policy by, among other things, asserting its
Prior Notice exclusion as a bar to coverage, claiming that the
ERII 04/06 Policy is not exhausted, raising other improper and
unfounded defenses to coverage, and refusing to reimburse Genesis
the $5 million Genesis paid towards the settlement of the
Underlying Policies.

For its first crossclaim, Magma must prove the standard elements
for breach of contract because while insurance contracts have
special features, they are still contracts.  Those elements are:
(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for non-
performance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff
there-from.

But where benefits are withheld for proper cause, there is no
breach of the implied covenant. This means that without a viable
breach of contract claim against the insurer, an insured's cause
of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing will fail as a matter of law.

A standard insurance policy generally imposes two duties on an
insurer: a duty to indemnify the insured, and a duty to defend the
insured.  A description of the differences between these duties
helps to place Magma's cross-claims in the correct context.

Magma's policy with National Union was a D&O policy. There is
generally no duty to defend clause in a D&O policy, but only a
duty to indemnify.. Thus, rather than the insurer providing and
paying for a defense to the insured in real time, defense costs
are defined as part of Damages' for which indemnification is to be
paid. The insurer reimburses defense expenditures only after the
insured selects counsel, controls the defense, and submits the
defense bill. Stated differently, the liability limits of a D&O
policy are inclusive of and depleted by the reimbursement of
defense costs.

National Union argues the court should enter judgment in its favor
because Magma cannot prove it suffered damages from the alleged
breach of contract. Since Magma would bear the evidentiary burden
on its claim, National Union need only point out a failure of
evidence on the elements. If it does so, Magma must then sustain
the burden of production.

Damages are a necessary element of the breach of contract cause of
action. In turn, a breach of contract without damage is not
actionable.

Magma has not produced any evidence to show that National Union
assumed the risk for these fees and costs at the time of contract
formation, or that the nature of the policy or the circumstances
in which it was made compel the inference that [National Union]
should have contemplated reimbursing Magma's fees and costs for
its litigation with another insurer.

But even putting aside the absence of evidence demonstrating
National Union's awareness or contemplation at the time of
contract formation, Magma's ability to recover these fees and
costs as damages for the breach of a D&O policy faces a more
fundamental problem. As explained, a D&O policy obligates an
insurer with a duty to indemnify  not a duty to defend arising
only when liability for a claim covered under the policy is
established.

Here, no matter how understandably frustrating the circumstances
were to Magma, a reasonable jury could not find that a claim
covered by the National Union policy was established at the time
Magma incurred defense fees and costs. It was not until 2017, when
the Ninth Circuit ruled on the third appeal, that National Union's
liability to indemnify Magma was, in fact, established. Only then
could ERII adjust its records to reflect exhaustion of the 2004-06
policy, thereby triggering National Union's first-layer excess
coverage.

And under the plain terms of the National Union policy, exhaustion
of ERII's 2004-06 policy was a necessary precursor to any claim
falling within its period of excess coverage. Thus, there was in
2010 a genuine issue as to National Union's liability under the
policy for the underlying actions, and "there can be no bad faith
liability imposed on the insurer for advancing its side of that
dispute.

In sum, the court concludes that Magma failed to bear its burden
in opposing National Union's motion for summary judgment. Even
when viewing the mostly undisputed record in the light most
favorable to Magma, a reasonable jury could not find that Magma
sustained any damages as a result of the breach of contract
alleged in its crossclaim. Accordingly, National Union's motion
will be granted as to the cross-claim.

Magma's cross-claim against National Union for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be maintained as a
matter of law without a viable claim for breach of contract.
Summary judgment will also be entered as to this cross-claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 16, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycb4n9g4from Leagle.com.

Genesis Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Kleiman
Loss -- lloss@ljwllp.com -- Loss, Judge & Ward, LLP.
Genesis Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Robert John
Stumpf -- rstumpf@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
Hampton LLP.

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis M.
Cusack -- dcusack@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP, John D.
Green -- jgreen@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP & Katina
Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, 1111 Franklin St Oakland, CA 9460.

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Terrence Reilly McInnis -- Terrence.mcinnis@troutmansanders.com
Troutman Sanders, LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Cross-
defendant, represented by Michael Kenneth Johnson --
Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com  -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, Glenn A. Friedman -- Glenn.Friedman@lewisbrisbois.com -
- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers --
desrochers@lbbslaw.com --  Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP.

Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-defendant, represented by
Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis
Kleiman Loss, Loss, Judge & Ward, LLP.

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented
by Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Thomas Howard
Prouty, Troutman Sanders LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party
defendant, represented by Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by
Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP.

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel.

Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-claimant, represented by Lewis
Kleiman Loss, Loss, Judge & Ward, LLP & Robert John Stumpf,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP.
Genesis Insurance Company, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert
John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis Kleiman
Loss, Loss, Judge & Ward, LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Counter-
defendant, represented by Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, Cross-
claimant, represented by Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP.

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party
plaintiff, represented by Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


MCDONALDS: Tel Aviv Court Allows Labor Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmin Gueta, writing for Haaretz, reports that the vice president
of the Tel Aviv Labor Court described McDonald's treatment of its
workers in Israel "borders on ignorance of worker rights, if not
cruelty."  Ariela Gilzer-Katz made the statement in approving the
request to hear a class action that claims the chain doesn't let
employees sit during shifts, among other offenses.

The decision allows the suit against McDonald's Israeli franchise,
held by Aloniel, to go ahead.  The plaintiffs seek 35 million
shekels ($10 million) in damages.

"McDonald's treatment of its workers borders on insensitivity to
workers' rights, if not cruelty," Ms. Gilzer-Katz said.

"McDonald's wasn't inclined to give workers a place to sit while
on the job.  Each worker is entitled to a chair, and the refusal
to offer any chairs at all is evidence of this ignorance."

The court took note of a sign hanging at the chain's Tel Hashomer
branch that states, "Each worker must stand at his workspace!
Cashier -- only at the cash register, and do not move, face the
customer and look for customers who have not ordered.  Baker --
prepare orders and take care of customers who have finished
ordering."  This reveals McDonald's attitude toward its workers,
noted the judge.

Judge Gilzer-Katz ruled that should McDonald's lose the suit, each
employee will receive 1,000 shekels in compensation. McDonald's
has 180 branches in Israel.

It has been proved to the court that McDonald's employees may not
sit while working, and workers should be given the choice of
sitting while taking orders and processing payments, she wrote.
McDonald's offer of chairs in a back room does not meet legal
obligations, she added.

The suit was filed by three employees of its Neve Savion outlet.
It includes additional allegations, including that McDonald's
didn't pay vacation days, pension, or holiday payments.

McDonald's argued that restaurants are not obliged to pay these
social benefits, but the court found otherwise.

"We received the impression that McDonald's violated the law
mandating that workers can sit on the job, and did not pay
mandatory benefits," stated the court.

The suit names as beneficiaries all McDonald's employees as of the
date it was accepted as a class action.  It calls for 2.1 million
shekels in compensation for unpaid vacation days, 22.6 million
shekels for unpaid pension contributions, and 5.8 million shekels
for unpaid holiday payments.

At this stage of the suit, McDonald's will be charged 110,000
shekels in court and legal fees.

McDonald's argued in its defense that it signed an agreement in
2008 with the Histadrut labor federation stating that it would
place one chair in a back room for workers, and as many as three
chairs for branches with 15 workers or more.  The judge countered
that the Histadrut did not represent the workers at the time, and
that it had not been proved that even this agreement was enforced.

McDonald's stated in response that the court had merely accepted
the petition to hear a class-action suit, and nothing more. T he
company believes that even this is erroneous and disproportionate,
and intends to appeal, it stated.

"We hope that the ultimate court ruling will reject this
ridiculous suit, because if not, the entire restaurant industry
and other industries will be forced to retroactively pay billion
of shekels," it stated. [GN]


MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO JEFFERSON, an individual; WAYNE LEWIS, an individual; and
GREGORY BROWN, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MEC DEVELOPMENT,
LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01394-AWI-JLT
(E.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, FLSA Collective Action Members are
similarly situated because they were subjected to the same
policies, terms and conditions of employment by Defendant, were
denied complete and/or prompt payment for hours worked pursuant to
a common policy and/or practice by Defendant, and have not been
compensated for all hours worked pursuant to a common policy
and/or practice of Defendant.

Mec Development was founded in 2006. The company's line of
business includes providing help supply and personnel supply
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey A. Feasby, Esq.
          Christopher W. Rowlett, Esq.
          PEREZ VAUGHN & FEASBY
          600 B Street, Suite 2100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 702 8044
          Facsimile: 619 460 0437
          E-mail: vaughn@pvflaw.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          KLEINBARD LLC
          One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 433 4120
          Facsimile: (215) 568 0140
          E-mail: prosenzweig@kleinbard.com


MENARD INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit over Illegal Wage Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH R. EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00478-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to recover
all unpaid wages (illegally deducted wages), and any and all
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses under the
Indiana Wage Payment Statute,

This class action claim protects all Indiana-based employees of
Menard, Inc., including those who work or worked for Menard, Inc.
at one of its Indiana retail locations, who work or worked for
Menard, Inc. at its Terre Haute, Indiana Midwest Manufacturing
facility, and/or who work or worked for Menard, Inc. at its
Indiana distribution facility.

Edwards will serve as class representative of current and former
Indiana-based employees of Menard, Inc. who were victims of
Menard, Inc.'s class-wide wage violations. Specifically, Menard,
Inc. is and has been taking illegal wage deductions from its
employees' pay checks in such a manner that every deduction
violates the mandatory requirements of the Indiana Wage Assignment
Statute. These deductions which violate the Indiana Wage
Assignment Statute, result every time in the underpayment of
wages, creating violations of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
Edwards' class action claim based upon Menard, Inc.'s illegal wage
deductions is perfect for class treatment and will be easy to
prove. All of Menard, Inc.'s wage violations will be shown on the
face of its pay stubs to employees, which show every illegal wage
deduction taken from every Indiana-based employee.[BN]

Menard, Inc. operates a chain of home improvement stores in the
Midwestern United States. It offers home appliances, bathroom
products, building materials, doors, windows, millwork products,
electrical products, flooring and rugs, grocery and pet items,
heating and cooling solutions, home decor items, kitchen products,
lighting and ceiling fans, outdoor items, paints, plumbing
equipment, storage and organization solutions, and tools and
hardware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
          HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232 9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234 2881
          E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the case captioned  D.R. ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPT.
OF ED., ET AL., ANTHONY P. PATTI, Defendants. Case No. 16-13694.
(E.D. Mich.), Plaintiffs filed a class action civil rights action
against Defendants Flint Community Schools (FCS), Genesee
Intermediate School District (GISD), and Defendant Michigan Dept.
of Ed. (MDE).  They alleged systemic violations of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), discrimination based on
disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. Section 794; Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and violations of M.C.L.
Section 380.1701.

Defendants MDE and FCS move to dismiss the complaint under Rules
12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
Court must assume the veracity of [the plaintiff's] well-pleaded
factual allegations and determine whether the plaintiff is
entitled to legal relief as a matter of law. To survive a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the
complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Defendant FCS brings a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of failure
to exhaust, asserting there is no case or controversy regarding
hearing, vision, or lead blood screenings that are already
provided through the public health department; and that there is
not a valid claim for universal preschool.

In this case, Plaintiffs seek systemic change within the School
District's policies to ensure compliance with state and federal
law. The complaint alleges four systemic violations: failure to
develop and implement child find procedures; failure to provide a
free appropriate public education that confers a meaningful
educational benefit in the least restrictive environment; failure
to protect students' procedural due process protections in the
disciplinary process; and discrimination on the basis of
disability with accompanying denial of access to educational
services.

Defendants also fail to demonstrate how the record of the
administrative proceedings would benefit the Court in this case,
yet another factor favoring a decision that these claims fall
under the systemic exception to the exhaustion requirement. At the
hearing, Defendant FCS conferred with individuals that were in the
Courtroom, including the distributor of learning support services,
and indicated that there have been two students who taken up
administrative appeals. This does not support an argument that
exhaustion is readily available, or that the system is functioning
properly, and instead points to systematic problems given the
facts alleged in the complaint surrounding the representative
Plaintiffs and the high percentage of children in FCS qualifying
under IDEA for IEPs.

It is clear from Plaintiffs' complaint that the remedy they are
seeking is a systemic change in the very way that Defendants
identify, place, and educate all children in the Flint School
District. The relief they are seeking is plainly not individual
and could not be remedied by individual exhaustion since
Plaintiffs are challenging the very efficacy of the system
employed within the Flint District. Further, the representative
Plaintiffs have emphatically illustrated that the alleged
violations are widespread across the Flint schools and repetitive
in nature. Thus, these systemic violations cannot be adequately
exhausted through the administrative procedure and the systemic
violation exception applies.

Defendant MDE argues that, as against MDE, Plaintiffs cannot
establish an injury in fact, causation, or redressability. First,
Defendant MDE argues that the claims asserted against it, i.e.
that they failed to provide the appropriate monitoring, oversight,
resources, and expertise required to help the local Defendants
comply with the IDEA, are merely procedural and therefore not
actionable under the IDEA.

Plaintiffs are not required to show that a favorable decision will
correct all of the injuries alleged, but rather, that a favorable
decision is likely to establish at least a partial redress. The
requested relief seeks an order requiring MDE to fulfill its
obligations to identify and evaluate all children requiring
special education through enhanced screening processes, and to
provide them with a FAPE, ensuring that IEPs are implemented, and
developing effective training and systems to ensure proper
disciplinary procedures.

It is clear that a favorable ruling on these claims would provide
at least a partial redress to the injuries alleged. Moreover,
since the local Defendants are parties to this case, there is no
argument that other actors, not before the Court, would affect
redressability. As for the parents, they have joined in the
lawsuit, and there is no reason to believe that their presence
would hinder redressability either.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs lack standing for the
Section  504 and ADA claims because they have failed to allege an
injury under these acts, as not every proposed member of the class
is necessarily disabled and eligible for services under the ADA or
Section 504. It is asserted that this hypothetical injury is not
sufficient to establish standing.

However, this argument ignores the many class members who are
currently disabled. There is no argument requiring a finding of a
lack of standing for these Plaintiffs, and Defendant does not
address this argument in its reply. Considering the above,
Plaintiffs have standing to bring the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504
claims against Defendant MDE.

Defendant MDE argues that it has Eleventh Amendment immunity as to
the ADA claim. Congress has expressed an unequivocal desire to
abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of the ADA.
Defendants have offered no binding or persuasive authority in
which a court has held that state immunity is not abrogated in the
context of public education. Rather, they proffer a case in which
the Court found that there was not a valid ADA claim stated, and
ended its analysis there. As a result, the court did not rule on
the issue of whether the Eleventh Amendment barred Title II
claims. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded to disregard the
significant case law abrogating 11th Amendment immunity in the
cases concerning public education.

Accordingly, 11th Amendment immunity does not apply to Plaintiffs'
ADA claim.

Defendants MDE and GISD first argue that Plaintiffs have not
stated a valid IDEA claim, asserting first that they have failed
to exhaust their claims, while also arguing that the claims are
too vague, merely containing broad, conclusory allegations.
Plaintiffs further assert that: GSID failed to address sensory and
behavioral needs of students in GISD-run schools; failed to
provide special education services and evaluation for students
with disabilities even when frequently prompted by concerned
parents; failed to apprise parents of contemplated behavior
controlling techniques nor sought their permission for such
actions; failed to assess the extent of lead exposure when
conducting re-evaluations; failed to screen and issue timely
referrals pursuant to IDEA's child-find requirements; failed to
provide procedural safeguards for students with disabilities;
engaged in a pattern of unduly harsh disciplinary measures,
including physical restraints and seclusion techniques in
violation of IDEA; failed to provide students with disabilities
the same variety of programs and services offered to non-disabled
students; and failed to provide a FAPE to Plaintiffs and similarly
situated students with disabilities.

These specific allegations put Defendants on notice as to the
factual basis for the complaint and satisfies the 12(b)(6)
standard.

Defendant MDE argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged Title II ADA
and Section 504 claims because: some of the class members are not
disabled; there is only a disagreement over the level of services
provided, not a denial of access; and there is no discriminatory
animus plead, which is fatal under Title II.

It is undisputed that there are disabled Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
also allege that children are not being properly assessed and
evaluated, so they may well be able to establish that even more
are disabled. Again, Defendants fail to show why the fact that
some of the class members may not be disabled should cause the
entire claim to be dismissed.

Defendants are correct that a mere failure to provide the FAPE as
required by the IDEA is insufficient to support a Section 504 or
Title II ADA claim. However, Plaintiffs have challenged MDE's
professional judgment in oversight of the FCS, and the allocation
of necessary resources, and asserted that this has caused
discriminatory effects. Whether this judgment rises to the level
of gross misjudgment, to qualify as discriminatory, is a question
of fact that needs to be developed and brought before a trier of
fact to determine. Therefore, as a threshold matter, Plaintiffs
have stated a valid claim under Section 504 and the ADA.

Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan ordered that Defendant MDE's Motion to Dismiss and
Defendant GISD's Motion for Judgment are denied.

The Court further ordered that Defendant FCS's Motion to Dismiss
is granted in part as to Defendant's request to dismiss the claim
for universal preschool and denied in part as to the remainder of
Defendant FCS's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb6o37uufrom Leagle.com.

DR, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, 2966 Woodward Avenue. Detroit,
Michigan 48201.

DR, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Sciarra --
dsciarra@edlawcenter.org -- Education Law Center, Jessica
Alexandra Levin, Education Law Center, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, 2966 Woodward Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan 48201,  Kristin Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC,
2442, Ramblewood Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49009, Lindsay M. Heck --
lindsay.heck@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Michael J.
Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, 2966
Woodward Avenue. Detroit, Michigan 48201 & Gregory G. Little --
glittle@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP.

Dawn Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra,
Education Law Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law
Center, Kary L. Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan, Kristin Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M.
Heck, White & Case LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and
Case LLP.

AK, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra, Education Law
Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law Center, Kary L.
Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kristin
Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M. Heck, White & Case
LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and Case LLP.

Angy Keelin, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra,
Education Law Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law
Center, Kary L. Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan, Kristin Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M.
Heck, White & Case LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and
Case LLP.

CDM, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra, Education Law
Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law Center, Kary L.
Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kristin
Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M. Heck, White & Case
LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and Case LLP.

CM, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra, Education Law
Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law Center, Kary L.
Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kristin
Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M. Heck, White & Case
LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and Case LLP.

Crystal McCadden, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, David G. Sciarra,
Education Law Center, Jessica Alexandra Levin, Education Law
Center, Kary L. Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan, Kristin Totten, Totten and Rucker, PLLC, Lindsay M.
Heck, White & Case LLP, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan & Gregory G. Little, White and
Case LLP.

Michigan Department of Education, Defendant, represented by
Katherine J. Bennett, Michigan Department of Attorney General,
Timothy J. Haynes, Michigan Department of Attorney General &
Travis M. Comstock, Michigan Attorney General.
Genesee Intermediate School District, Defendant, represented by
John L. Miller -- jmiller@gmhlaw.com -- Giarmarco, Mullins, &
Timothy J. Mullins -- tmullins@gmhlaw.com -- Giarmarco, Mullins &
Horton, P.C..

Flint Community Schools, Defendant, represented by Brett J. Miller
-- millerbr@butzel.com -- Butzel Long, Donald B. Miller --
miller@butzel.com -- Butzel Long & Frederick A. Berg, Butzel Long.


MYHOMECENTERS.NET: Menichiello Sues over Do-Not-Call Registry
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYHOMECENTERS.NET DBA TOP
CONSTRUCTION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
the Defendant Case No. 8:17-cv-01793-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 13,
2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not have an established
business relationship with Defendant during the time of the
solicitation calls from Defendant. Plaintiff did not give
Defendant prior express written consent for Defendant to call
Plaintiff's home telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes.
Despite this, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt
to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-
Call provisions of the TCPA thus violating Plaintiffs privacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL GENERAL: "Jacob" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE JACOB,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05806, was transferred on Oct. 26, 2017 from the
United States District Court for Southern District of New York, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01816-AG-KES. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

The case seeks to recover damages as a result of Wells Fargo and
National General scheme to steal hundreds millions of dollars from
unsuspecting automobile purchasers by foisting on them unwanted
and unneeded automobile insurance costs.

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214 7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  dferri@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          C. Lance Gould, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269 2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
                  Lance.Gould@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Elias, Esq.
          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          Tamara M. Spicer, Esq.
          ELIAS GUTZLER SPICER LLC
          130 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 302
          St. Louis, MI 63105
          Telephone: (314) 274 3311
          E-mail: relias@egslitigation.com
                  ggutzler@egslitigation.com
                  tspicer@egslitigation.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Baker" Suit over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------
DENISE BAKER, For herself and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, F/K/A
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., F/K/A SALLIE MAE, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01160-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to
recover damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The lawsuit cites telephone
calls made by or on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff's cell phone
number using an automatic telephone dialing system (Autodialer).
Those calls are commonly referred to as "robocalls."

Navient Solutions, LLC provides loan management services and asset
recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Downing, Esq.
          CONSUMER LEGAL SOLUTIONS, PC
          1071 Bay Breeze Drive
          Suffolk, VA 23435
          Telephone: (757) 942 2554
          E-mail: wdowninglaw@aol.com.com

               - and -

          Henry A. Turner, Esq.
          TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC
          403 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 207
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 404 378 6274
          Facsimile: 404 377 4776
          E-mail: hturner@tloffices.com


NEILMED PHARMA: Court Denies Move to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Ruth Ann Cooper,
DPM, Plaintiff, v. NeilMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16cv945 (W.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff has brought a putative class action pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA). Cooper
claims that NeilMed has sent unsolicited advertisements to Cooper
and the class via facsimile in violation of the TCPA.

NeilMed moves to dismiss Cooper's Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on the failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court must determine whether NeilMed's fax offering its
products for free constitutes advertising because it is an
indirect commercial solicitation or a pretext for a commercial
solicitation. The fax calls attention to the quality of NeilMed's
products. The fax states that NeilMed(C) Sinus Rinse(C) and
Neilmed(C) Baby Care, Ear Care, and First Aid devices have become
an acceptable line of treatment for various self care for simple
ailments.  NeilMed's products are generally commercially
available. NeilMed's website, which is listed in the fax, sells
its products directly and also provides a store locator to find
stores who carry NeilMed's products. From that standpoint,
NelMed's fax is commercial in nature. While NeilMed is not
soliciting business from Cooper, the fact that the recipient of
the fax is not the one paying for the product does not make the
proposed transaction non-commercial.

The Court notes that in Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco
Health Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218, 222, the Sixth Circuit cautioned
that the fact that the sender might gain an ancillary, remote, and
hypothetical economic benefit later on does not convert a
noncommercial, informational communication into a commercial
solicitation. Certainly there is no guarantee that Cooper's
patients will purchase NeilMed's products after being handed a
free sample, the Court said.  However, the fax from NeilMed does
not resemble the kinds of faxes that have been deemed merely
informational.

As the FCC has explained, "facsimile communications that contain
only information, such as industry news articles, legislative
updates, or employee benefit information, would not be prohibited
by the TCPA rules."

Here, the fax from NeilMed is not providing any medical
information, industry news, or like the fax in Sandusky, benefits
available to patients. Instead, the fax promotes the sale of its
products to Cooper's patients, albeit indirectly, by passing on
free samples through Cooper.  Therefore, the Court concludes that
the complaint states a plausible claim that Defendant's fax
qualifies as an advertisement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8rrchc8
from Leagle.com.

Ruth Ann Cooper, DPM, Plaintiff, represented by George Demetrios
Jonson -- gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie & Johnson.

Ruth Ann Cooper, DPM, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E. Stubbs
-- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca, pro hac
vice & Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson +
Wanca, pro hac vice.

Neilmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Helen
Marie MacMurray -- hmacmurray@mslawgroup.com -- Mac Murray
Petersen & Shuster, LLP & Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac
vice.


NFL: Buffalo Jill Cheerleading Squad Class Certification Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, issued an Opinion affirming the Order of the Supreme
Court of Erie County granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned CAITLIN FERRARI, ALYSSA U.,
MARIA P., AND MELISSA M., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. THE NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE, BUFFALO BILLS, INC., CUMULUS RADIO COMPANY,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY, Defendants-
Appellants, STEPHANIE MATECZUN AND STEJON PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION,
Defendants, 974 CA 17-00349 (N.Y. Sup.).

The Buffalo Jills was the name of a cheerleading squad that
performed at professional football games for defendant Buffalo
Bills, Inc. (Buffalo Bills), and also participated in charity and
promotional events in the community. Plaintiffs are four persons
who were members of the Buffalo Jills for varying periods.
Plaintiffs commenced the action, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, seeking to recover hundreds of hours
of wages that allegedly were not paid to them.

In their third amended and supplemental class action complaint,
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they were
deliberately misclassified as independent contractors rather than
employees, and were made to sign similarly worded contracts
misrepresenting them as such. The complaint asserts causes of
action based upon, among other things, violations of the Labor Law
and common-law fraud.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved for class certification.

The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly
granted the motion and certified the class.  Contrary to the
initial contention of the National Football League, the Buffalo
Bills, and Cumulus Radio Company, formerly known as Citadel
Broadcasting Company, the court properly considered the evidence
that plaintiffs submitted with their reply papers. Although it is
generally improper for a moving party to submit evidence for the
first time with its reply papers, the court may consider such
evidence where the opposing party has the opportunity to submit a
surreply.  Here, the parties had the opportunity to submit
surreply papers and, indeed, the Buffalo Bills' attorney submitted
a thorough surreply affirmation responding to the evidence in
plaintiffs' reply papers.

The Appellate Division rejected defendants' further contention
that plaintiffs failed to meet the five requirements of CPLR 901
(a).

The first prerequisite is that the class must be so numerous that
joinder of all of its members is impracticable. Here, the Buffalo
Bills admit that the class has approximately 134 members, and
classes of 53 to 500 members have been deemed well above the
numerosity threshold contemplated by the legislature and approved
by courts.

The second prerequisite is that there are common questions of law
or fact that predominate over questions affecting only individual
members.  Here, the common questions include whether the putative
class members were employees or independent contractors and
whether defendants failed to pay them in accordance with the law,
and the Appellate Division concluded that those questions
predominate over individual questions of damages.

The third prerequisite is that the class representatives' claims
are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs' reply
affidavits and the documents attached thereto establish that they
were subject to the same treatment during the 2009-2010, 2012-
2013, and 2013-2014 seasons.  The Appellate Division thus
concluded that the third prerequisite is met because plaintiffs
established that the claims of the class representatives arose out
of the same course of conduct and are based on the same theories
as the other class members.

The fourth prerequisite is that the class representatives will
fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.  Here,
plaintiffs averred in their reply affidavits that they have no
conflicts of interest with any of the putative class members and
that they are committed to prosecuting the case to its conclusion.
Although, as defendants note, plaintiffs have waived their right
to liquidated damages, that does not preclude class action
inasmuch as putative class members who wish to pursue such damages
may opt out of the class action and pursue them individually.

The fifth prerequisite is that class action is the superior method
to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy.
The Appellate Division concluded that this is a case where the
cost of prosecuting individual actions would deprive many of the
putative class members of their day in court. Although two
putative class members have already elected to pursue their claims
individually, the record demonstrates that those class members
worked for the Buffalo Jills for a longer period of time and made
more personal appearances, which arguably entitles them to damages
several times greater than the damages sought by other class
members.

Thus, the fact that two putative class members exercised their
right to pursue individual remedies does not controvert
plaintiffs' position that class action is the superior vehicle for
adjudicating the claims herein.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Division's September 29, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydyuawcdfrom
Leagle.com.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN A. COLLINS -
jcollins@lglaw.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BUFFALO
BILLS, INC.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (LOUIS ORBACH --
lorbach@bsk.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CUMULUS
RADIO COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, NEW YORK CITY (STEVEN D. HURD --
shurd@proskauer.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT THE
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE.

THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C., MELVILLE (CHRISTOPHER
MARLBOROUGH,445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400, Melville, NY 11747
OF COUNSEL), DOLCE PANEPINTO, P.C., BUFFALO, AND LEVI & KORSINSKY,
LLP, NEW YORK CITY, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.


NIGERIA: Class Action Mulled Over Monies Not Linked to BVN
----------------------------------------------------------
Obinna Chima, writing for This Day, reports that there was
disquiet in the banking sector at the weekend following a Federal
High Court ex parte order in Abuja that all monies in bank
accounts owned by corporate organisations, government agencies or
individuals that are without bank verification numbers (BVNs) will
be forfeited to the federal government in 14 days from the date
the order was given should the owners of the accounts fail to show
cause why their monies should not be forfeited.

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba Igwe had granted the order on October 18,
2017, following an application by the Attorney-General of the
Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) on behalf of the federal
government.

But investigations by THISDAY on Oct. 22 showed that the banks
were contemplating filing a class-action suit to stop the federal
government from appropriating funds that do not belong to it.

When contacted the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) chose to remain
mum on the issue, but a director of the bank said he would not
blame the banks if they chose to challenge the court order.

"If I were a banker, I would go to court to challenge this order.
I will not blame them if they did so," the director who preferred
not to be named, said to THISDAY.

According to the Nigerian Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS), 52
million bank accounts had been linked to their BVNs as of February
this year.  The total number of bank accounts in the country was
estimated at 70 million in 2016.

But speaking in a chat with THISDAY, a bank chief executive, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity, questioned the legality of
the move by the federal government.

According to the CEO, the move would discourage financial
inclusion and might affect financial system stability.

"What of a situation where somebody has died and the matter is in
administration, what do you want the bank to do? To give
government the money and face litigation?

"What of Nigerians who are abroad and are still struggling to get
their BNVs? What if we send the monies to government and we are
sued by the customer(s)?

"And the 14-day time frame is very short.  Why the rush? Why not
give a time frame, maybe till 2018 for people to get their BVNs?
These are the type of things that create uncertainty and
instability in the market.  We are just coming out of a recession
and we try to discourage anything that would destabilise the
system.

"We are trying to drive financial inclusion, but there are many
people who are not in the banking system that may not want to open
accounts once they hear of such things happening," he said.

In his reaction, the chief executive of Financial Derivatives
Company Limited, Mr. Bismarck Rewane also pointed out that if the
decision by the court is implemented, it would lead to a liquidity
squeeze in the market.

But Rewane stated that the court ruling would help sanitise the
system.

"It does mean that all that money would be transferred to the
central bank and that would drain liquidity.  Let's say it is N500
billion in all the banks and the banks are to comply by
transferring the monies to the central bank account which is the
federal government's bank.

"The immediate impact is that of liquidity squeeze and the second
impact is that it would sanitise the system and also improve the
culture of honesty and transparency.  However, it may encourage
the banks to be dishonest in their returns," he added.

But in his assessment of the development, the chief executive of
the defunct Progress Bank, Mr. Okechukwu Unegbu argued that the
ruling was "basically illegal".

Unegbu wondered under what law the ruling was given. "Was there
any federal gazette on that? Who was the case against?" he
wondered.

He added: "In fact, if that is done to anybody's account, the
person has the right to go to court.  But for me, if it is
something the federal government wants to pursue, let them come
out with a law.

"But I must tell you that we are still feeling the impunity of the
military mentality. Remember that in banking, your relationship
with the customer is confidential.

"However, if the government comes up with a policy to enable it to
fight corruption, all of us would support it.  But you don't use
draconian laws to enforce such things."

According to Unegbu, the federal government ought to be developing
policies that would encourage financial inclusion and not those
that discourage it.

He added that some of the challenges around the BVN scheme ought
to have been corrected before resorting to the courts.

"Even the BVN scheme has its problems.  If you go to the bank most
of the time, before you conclude it, it takes a lot of time.
Atimes when you register, the bank will call you back to come and
register again.

"The environment should be put right first.  If the environment is
faulty, there is nothing bank customers can do.  Besides, this
should be extended to the microfinance banks, where most of their
customers do not have BVNs yet.

"So there are holes in the so-called court order.  But any order
from a court should be obeyed, but it can still be challenged.

"Honestly, I am disturbed because I see it as an order given
without considering the challenges in the environment," he noted

In his reaction, a former Managing Director of the defunct Liberty
Bank, Chief Lawson Omokhodion welcomed the court order, arguing
that it would help the government in its anti-corruption war.

When asked about what would become of the fate of bank customers
in the diaspora, Omokhodion said: "People in the diaspora have not
gone forever.  They come home during Christmas, some come once a
year and some come twice a year.

"So they have time to link their BVNs to their accounts. Also, the
central bank created centres outside the country to enable them to
do that."

He added: "But the truth is that there is no person who genuinely
worked for his money, who would not be concerned about the safety
of his funds.  If I have 25,000 pounds in a British bank account
and they tell me there are things I need to do to preserve my
money, I would run down there immediately.

"So why won't you if you are truly the owner of this account? You
would run back to sort things out and return.  So for me
government is doing the right thing. Government sometimes has been
too soft. This country requires tough measures to create order."

However, human rights lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa described as
illegal, the order granting the forfeiture of funds in accounts
without BVNs to the federal government.

In a statement, Adegboruwa, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999
Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter, said it was not
proper to determine the rights of parties in their absence.

He said the BVN was a policy decision and not "backed by law".

The lawyer also faulted the "bindingness" of the order on millions
of bank customers who he said were not directly parties to the
suit, reported The Cable, an online news site.

He said the quest to get revenue for the government should not be
to the detriment of the constitutional and fundamental rights of
the citizens.

"I am very well concerned about how we deploy interim orders for
permanent purposes, such as to forfeit valuable assets without any
or fair hearing from the person(s) concerned," the statement read.

"I think it is improper to obtain interim orders to freeze the
bank accounts of estates that are in dispute between the
beneficiaries, of estates of deceased persons that are still being
contested, of profits of companies that are still subject to
litigation or other disputes, just to mention a few examples of
the arbitrariness of these orders.

"There is nothing in Section 3 of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act 2011 that makes BVN a condition precedent for
operating a bank account in Nigeria.  Nothing at all.  What the
law requires is verifiable identity of the customer, such as name,
address, photographs, identity cards, etc.

"BVN is a policy decision of the Central Bank of Nigeria and a
court of law should not base its orders on executive policies that
are not backed by law.

"I get truly worried with the way we adopt ex parte applications
to determine very serious and weighty issues of law.

"The other point is the bindingness of an ex parte order upon the
whole world and upon millions of bank customers in Nigeria, who
are not directly parties to the suit.

"How proper is it for a court to seek to determine the rights of
parties in their absence, in view of the clear provisions of
Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7 of the
African Charter?

"Why this desperation, if one may ask? I support that money
suspected to be proceeds of crime should be traced, isolated and
forfeited if the owner cannot successfully account for it.

"But to proceed to seek to forfeit all monies in all banks meant
for all customers in Nigeria on the grounds of absence of BVN is
manifestly illegal.

"I therefore humbly urge the Honourable Attorney-General of the
Federation to review this case with a view to tempering the tenor
of these rather outlandish orders.

"The quest to scoop revenue for government should not be to the
detriment of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the
citizens.  Which is why I have been praying that these orders are
not real, but rather one of the usual social media gimmicks," he
said. [GN]


NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA J. DAZA BUTRON, and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NOVA RESTAURANT INC., Florida Profit Corporation
and MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 62898631 (Cir. Ct. of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Fla., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks
to recover damages pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of
1992 and Fair Labor Standards Act, to redress injuries resulting
from Defendants' unlawful failure to properly pay and age-based,
national origin-based, and disability-based discriminatory
treatment of and retaliation against Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid at or above
the applicable overtime wage for each hour worked. The Plaintiff
worked approximately 45 hours each week but was only paid for 40
hours each week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgattorneys.com


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: FCRA Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand the case captioned REBECCA COURTRIGHT and RAPHAEL
SAYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others, Plaintiffs, v.
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-
00334-CV-W-DGK, Consol. with: 4:15-00134-CV-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

This case is a putative class action brought under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to
comply with various federal and state mandates for obtaining and
using consumer reports and investigative consumer reports for
employment purposes.

Article III standing requires the plaintiff to have (1) suffered
an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision.  The Court noted that in their
subsequent briefing, however, Plaintiffs did not assert that they
had suffered an injury in fact.

There has been some confusion among district courts whether
dismissal or remand is appropriate where a defendant removes a
case to federal court and the plaintiff lacks standing. The Eighth
Circuit has recently reaffirmed that these cases should be
remanded.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the remand of this case to the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxw77h5from Leagle.com.

Rebecca Courtright, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown,
Brown & Watkins, LLC, 301 S. US 169 Hwy Gower MO 64454

Rebecca Courtright, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, pro hac
vice, Jayson A. Watkins, Brown & Watkins, LLC, 301 S. US 169 Hwy
Gower MO 64454 , Jordan Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
- Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark S. Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com --  Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert K. Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, pro hac
vice & Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice.

Raphael Saye, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone
Law APC, pro hac vice, Jayson A. Watkins, Brown & Associates, LLC,
Jordan Lurie, Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Mark S. Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert K. Friedl,
Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC,
pro hac vice & Charles Jason Brown, Brown & Watkins, LLC.

Juan Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Witte --
Alexandria.witte@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, pro hac
vice, Arnab Banerjee -- Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Cody R. Padgett, Capstone Law APC,
pro hac vice, Jordan Lurie, Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Mark
S. Greenstone, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Melissa Grant,
Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Phyllis Norman, The Norman Law
Firm LLC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice, Robert K.
Friedl, Capstone Law APC, pro hac vice & Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone
Law APC, pro hac vice.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas Wayne Robinson -- dwrobinson@shb.com -- Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Kristen Aggeler Page -- kpage@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, LLP & William C. Martucc -- wmartucci@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP.

CSK Auto, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas Wayne Robinson,
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kristen Aggeler Page, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, LLP & William C. Martucci, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.
O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas
Wayne Robinson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kristen Aggeler Page,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & William C. Martucci, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, LLP.


ORBITAL ATK: Ayzin Balks at Northrup Grumman Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT AYZIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., RONALD R.
FOGLEMAN, KEVIN P. CHILTON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, MARTIN C. FAGA,
LENNARD A. FISK, ROBERT M. HANISEE, RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H.
KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN MARTINEZ IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI,
JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H. SCHMITT, DAVID W. THOMPSON, and SCOTT
L. WEBSTER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01151-CMH-JFA (E.D.
Va., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks injunctive and other equitable relief
to prevent the irreparable injury that Company stockholders will
continue to suffer absent judicial intervention.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Orbital ATK, Inc., brings this
action against the members of Orbital's Board of Directors for
violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Specifically, Defendants solicit the vote of common stockholders
of Orbital in connection with the sale of the Company to Northrop
Grumman Corporation through a preliminary proxy statement that
omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information
to decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their appraisal
rights.

On September 17, 2017, the Company and Northrop Grumman entered
into a definitive agreement under which Northrop Grumman will
acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Orbital in an all-
cash transaction. If consummated, shareholders will receive
$134.50 in cash per common share of Orbital. The Proposed
Transaction has an equity value of approximately $7.8 billion.  On
October 2, Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in the Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy is deficient
and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of
all material information related to the Proposed Transaction.

Orbital is a Delaware corporation that develops, manufactures, and
supplies aerospace and defense system products to the government
of the United States and allied nations. The main products include
launch vehicles and related propulsion systems, satellites and
associated components and services, composite aerospace
structures, tactical missiles, subsystems and defense electronics,
and precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com


ORBITAL ATK: "Berg" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Northrop Grumman Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., RONALD R. FOGLEMAN,
KEVIN P. CHILTON, OXANNE J. DECYK, MARTIN C. FAGA,
LENNARD A. FISK, ROBERT M. HANISEE, RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H.
KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN MARTINEZ IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI,
JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H. SCHMITT, DAVID W. THOMPSON, SCOTT L.
WEBSTER, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, and
NEPTUNE MERGER SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01169-
CMH-JFA (E.D.Va., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and
all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, or in the
event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding
it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
September 18, 2017, pursuant to which Orbital ATK, Inc. will be
acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation and Neptune Merger Sub,
Inc. On September 17, Orbital ATK's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Northrop Grumman. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of Orbital ATK will receive $134.50 in cash for each
share of Orbital ATK stock they own. On October 2, defendants
filed a Preliminary 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
that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense
industry company. It was formed in 2015 from the merger of Orbital
Sciences Corporation and parts of Alliant Techsystems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          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: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com


OTG EXPERIENCE: "Wadud" Suit Alleges Workplace Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------
MAIYA WADUD, the Plaintiff, v. OTG EXPERIENCE LLC; CHRIS LEE and
JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. MER-L-002231-17
(N.J. Super. Ct., Oct. 13 , 2017), demands judgment against the
defendants jointly, severally and in the alternative, together
with compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of
suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back
pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any other
relief the Court deems equitable and just.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
defendant at his office located at Terminal C, Concourse C1,
Newark Liberty Airport, Newark, New Jersey 07114 on June 14, 2016.
The Plaintiff was terminated from her employment on or around
September 26, 2016.  On July 8, 2016, while plaintiff was working,
she asked one worker named Rosina to assist another female
employee named Glory. In response, Rosina said to plaintiff, "Fuck
you, you faggot."

Plaintiff is a lesbian, a fact that her coworkers were aware of
because she told them. When Rosina made this comment, plaintiff
attempted to deescalate the situation, but Rosina continued
yelling in her face. After that incident, the supervisor at that
time, Jean, wrote both plaintiff and Rosina up as a result of the
incident. Plaintiff told Jean that she was not going to sign the
write up. He responded by yelling at plaintiff, and then told her
that, "You'll see what happens to you." Around the same time,
plaintiff's coworkers, a female named Fadia and another female
named Nafia became aware of the fact that plaintiff was in a
relationship with another woman. Plaintiff told both Fadia and
Nafia that she was in a relationship with a woman, because they
kept asking her questions about her personal relationships. After
plaintiff told Fadia and Nafia that she was in a relationship with
a woman, the two of them stopped being friendly with her.

Plaintiff never used her phone to record other employees, and she
told that to the three individuals at the meeting. The three
individuals at the meeting also told plaintiff that they caught
her on camera eating a croissant. The Plaintiff was terminated at
that meeting. At the time of her termination, plaintiff was
performing her job duties up to and above expectation. All of the
harassment plaintiff was subjected to was unwelcomed. All
harassment is alleged to be severe and pervasive. All harassment
is alleged to have been because of plaintiff's gender, her sexual
orientation and/or in retaliation for plaintiff engaging in
protected conduct. All harassment is such that a reasonable woman
in plaintiff's circumstance would have found her work environment
altered to have become hostile, intimidating or abusive.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court order the defendants to cease
and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made, both as
to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals
similarly situated.

OTG is a restaurateur which operates more than 350 restaurants and
retail concepts in 10 airports across North America. In 2016 and
2014, it ranked among the World's 50 Most Innovative Companies by
Fast Company Magazine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drake P. Bearden, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


PARAMOUNT OF OAK: Faces Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Regan, writing for Skilled Nursing News, reports that an
employee of a skilled nursing and rehab center in Illinois is
taking his employer to court over mandatory fingerprint scans he
says violate a state privacy law.

Martin Ragsdale filed suit in Illinois circuit court against
Paramount of Oak Park Rehabilitation & Nursing Center in the
Chicago suburb of Oak Park, according to Law360.  Mr. Ragsdale
said Paramount violated hundreds or thousands of its employees'
right to privacy by requiring twice-daily fingerprint scans: one
as they clock in, one as they clock out.

Specifically, Mr. Ragsdale said the rehab and skilled nursing
facility is breaking the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA), a law that regulates the collection and storage of
biometric data such as fingerprints, iris scans or face
recognition technology.

The suit claimed the "invasive" fingerprint scans put workers'
personal information at risk of being stolen in data breaches or
other privacy lapses.

"Unlike a Social Security number, which can be changed, no amount
of time or money can compensate [workers] if their fingerprints
are compromised by the lax procedures through which defendants
capture, collect, store and use their workers' biometrics,"
according to the suit, as reported by Law360.

Mr. Ragsdale has asked the court to stop Paramount from collecting
more fingerprint data and force the provider to destroy the
information it has on file.  He's also asked for an unspecified
amount of damages and legal fees.

Paramount of Oak Park Rehabilitation & Nursing Center didn't
comment on the lawsuit when reached by Skilled Nursing News.

This case is the most recent in a wave of BIPA suits filed against
companies in recent months, according to Brian Spang, an attorney
in the Chicago office of national law firm Epstein Becker Green.
Grocery store chain Roundy's Supermarkets, Kimpton hotels and data
center operator Zayo Group have all recently ended up in the
crosshairs of such lawsuits, the Chicago Tribune reported.

"These cases raise significant questions relating to standing and
actual injury," Mr. Spang told Skilled Nursing News.  "Even if a
technical violation of the statutory requirements has occurred, it
seems extremely unlikely that a plaintiff has suffered any type of
injury.  Plaintiffs' counsel are filing class action seeking
statutory liquidated damages in the likely absence of any actual
harm to any individual."

Other Illinois nursing homes could be vulnerable to such suits in
the future if they use similar fingerprint scanning or other
biometric data collection methods, Mr. Spang said. [GN]


PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK: Faces "Ragsdale" Suit over Biometric Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK
REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, and A TIED ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH13911 (in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County, Oct. 17, 2017),
seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in capturing,
collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

This case is about nursing home providers capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA
and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois'
BIPA protects. Defendants do this in the form of finger scans
which capture a person's fingerprint and uses that to identify
that same person in the future.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale
or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest
bidder, the Illinois legislature passed detailed regulations
addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric
information by private entities, such as Defendants. Choosing to
shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendants have instead
implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture,
collection, storage, and use of their workers' fingerprints, while
disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy
interests it protects.

The Defendant is a full service nursing center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEPSICO INC: Faces "Becerra" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PepsiCo, Inc. The
case is captioned as Shana Becerra, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. PepsiCo, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05918-SK (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 16, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Sallie Kim.

PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. PepsiCo
has interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
grain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Sacks, Esq.
          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 764 3008
          E-mail: asacks@sackslaw.com
                  jweston@sackslaw.com


PERCHERON PROFESSIONAL: "Nash" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NASH and JEFFREY PEPPER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERCHERON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-06718-
MAT (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
overtime premium pay, and liquidated damages under the New York
Labor Law.  This class action case arises out of the systematic
unlawful treatment of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
former Right of Way Agents (Row Agent) who worked for Mason Dixon
on gathering line and pipeline projects within or based around New
York.

Percheron Professional Services, LLC provides contract land
services to oil and gas exploration and production companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
          OBEYERMAYER REBMANN
          MAXWELL & HIPPEL, LLP
          500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240
          Pittsburg, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566 1500
          E-mail: bruce.fox@obeyermayer.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227 0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


PLUS FAMILY: "Cuellar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Luteria Cuellar, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. A Plus Family Care, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01088 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 27, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid at the
straight-time hourly rate for the hours. Plaintiff was not paid at
an overtime rate for any of the hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, Texas 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416 5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416 5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


PLUS500: Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over CFD Markets Rigging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Haig, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that online trading
platform Plus500 is reported to have become the subject of legal
action, owing to accusations that the company has been "rigging"
its contracts for difference (CFD) markets.  Plus500 offer
contracts for CFDs for shares, commodities, forex, and over half a
dozen cryptocurrencies.

Plus500 Is Accused of Intentionally Delaying the Execution of
Trade Requests

Luca Salerno, a representative of Giambrone, the European law firm
that is currently preparing the class action lawsuit, discussed
the class action against Plus500 with the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation.  "We have more than 600 people who got in touch with
us, and we've managed to turn 30 percent into actual claims," Mr.
Salerno said. Plus500 is listed on the London Stock Exchange and
offers trading products internationally through subsidiaries
located in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Cyprus, and
Israel.

Mr. Salerno states Plus500 engaging in "rigging the platform",
accusing the company of failing to execute its customers'
requesting trade actions in a timely manner.  Mr. Salerno states
that "each client lost $10,000 [USD], typically, within a
timeframe of a couple of months."

"I Think the Way [Plus500] Set up Their System Is Very Unfair" -
Yousif Sadik, former Plus500 customer

Plus500 Purportedly Subject to Litigation Over Allegations Of
"Rigging" CFD Markets

Mr. Slareno alleges that the Plus500 is able to do this through
letting its customers trade CFDs, rather than the underlying
assets represented by the CFDs.  "Let's say I make a bet today on
bitcoin going up," Mr. Salerno explained, "[Plus500] would say 'by
the time we managed to execute the transaction, bitcoin went down
again."  Mr. Salerno states that Plus500's practices "fl[y] in the
face" of UK market regulations, and accuses the company of
"build[ing]. . . delay[s in transaction execution] on purpose."

Yousif Sadik, a former customer of Plus500, asserts that he has
witnessed the platform delay the execution of action requests on
multiple instances.  "To be honest, I feel that was deliberate
because it didn't happen just once.  If it was a one-off . . . you
could understand it. But if it's something that persisted every
week, you really need to look into your service."  Mr. Sadik
alleges that disruptions consistently experienced whilst
attempting to access Plus500 via a mobile app resulted in him
losing thousands of pounds.

"I think the way [Plus500] set up their system is very unfair.
They basically disable the instrument whenever they want",
Mr. Sadik told media.  "You should be able to open close positions
as you please, but this is not how it works.  It's more like
gambling than trading."

A Representative of Plus500 Has Refuted the Purported Lawsuit
Plus500 Purportedly Subject to Litigation Over Allegations Of
"Rigging" CFD Markets

A Plus500 representative is reported to have told the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation that there is "no outstanding litigation
against the company", and that it has "received no correspondence
from lawyers [associated] with Giambrone."

The spokesperson asserted that signing up to sue Plus500
necessitates that an individual pass the company's screening
process which "requires each customer to pass a knowledge test,
state [their] level of experience with derivative products . . .
and other questions regarding their economic profile and
appropriateness."  Plus500 also claims to take "reasonable steps'"
to achieve "the best possible result" for trading customers.

In order to evaluate Plus500's screening process, Mr. Salerno
intentionally failed the knowledge test provided by Plus500. Mr.
Salerno states that he was then taken to a page providing a waiver
that prospective customers can sign and upload in order to gain
access to the platform, despite having failed the knowledge test.
"By clicking that waiver, I was effectively saying I'm not really
qualified to do this trading . . . and that is something they
cannot do," said Mr. Salerno. [GN]


POP WARNER: Must Face Class Action Over Lack of Safety Protocols
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson, writing for Deadspin, reports that a U.S. District
Court Judge in California has allowed a class-action lawsuit
against Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. to proceed after agreeing
that the league increased the danger to youth football
participants by failing to institute league-wide safety protocols
and guidelines, according to Law360.com.

"Pop Warner Little Scholars argues that the fraud claims fail
because head trauma is an inherent risk of tackle football," the
judge wrote, but what the parents are alleging is "that PWLS
misrepresented that safety was its top priority, with coaches
trained in head injuries, equipment that afforded the best
protection, and rules and procedures designed to protect children
from injury -- all with the knowledge that none of this was true,
to boost the number of Pop Warner participants."

Reports of declining participation in Pop Warner football -- and,
more generally, all 11-player full-contact youth football -- have
been circulating for years, with some evidence that the decline is
related to increased concern about head injuries.  Pop Warner and
USA Football adopted the Heads Up program after its establishment
in 2012, but this lawsuit alleges that Pop Warner overstated its
focus and commitment to the safety of its participants
specifically in order to facilitate increased participation.  In
other words, instead of making youth football safer in response to
declining participation, Pop Warner is accused of endeavoring only
to make it seem safer, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The case was brought last year by the parents of two kids who were
found to have suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)
during postmortem autopsies.  A New York Times report noted that
the parents -- Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell -- are represented
by lawyers with experience representing NFL players in actions
against the league for knowingly obscuring the risks of head
trauma.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez reportedly "tossed causes of action
related to California's Unfair Competition law and Unfair Business
Practices act," but allowed counts of negligence, fraud,
fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation to
proceed, according to the Law360 report. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Children's Services Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN'S
SERVICES, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC F/K/AACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS,
INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/AWATSON PHARMA, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; RUSSELL PORTENOY; PERRY FINE;
SCOTT FISHMAN; and LYNNWEBSTER, the Defendants, Case No. ______),
was removed on Oct. 16, 2017 from the Court of Common Pleas,
Richland County, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-02185-JG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants
misrepresented the risks and benefits of FDA-approved prescription
opioid medications in marketing and promotional materials. The
Plaintiff alleges that because of these misrepresentations-many of
which purportedly occurred more than a decade ago-Ohio physicians
prescribed opioid medications to patients when it was medically
unnecessary. The Plaintiff claims that these allegedly improper
prescriptions somehow caused Plaintiff and similarly situated Ohio
county agencies to incur a range of opioid-related costs,
including "increased child placement costs, investigation costs,
health care costs, criminal justice and victimization costs,
social costs, and lost productivity costs."

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company. In
2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a
pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and
three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, Esq.
          PECA & GAROFOLI, C.O., L.P.A.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621 -8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771 1632

               - and -

          Patrick G. Warner, Esq.
          Darrin C. Leist, Esq.
          LEIST WARNER LLC
          513 East Rich Street, Suite 201
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 222 1000
          Facsimile: (614) 222 0890

               - and -

          Scott Kalish, Esq.
          KALISH LAW LLC
          1468 W. 9th Street, #405
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 502 0570

               - and -

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road - Suite 350
          Melville, New York 11747

Attorneys for Purdue Pharma, LP, Purdue Pharma Inc.,
and The Purdue Frederick Company:

          Daniel J. Buckley, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE
          East Fourth Street
          Suite 3500, Great American Tower
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Telephone: 513 723 4000
          Facsimile: 513 723 4056
          E-mail: djbuckley@vorys.com

               - and -

          Sheila Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Hayden A. Coleman, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849 7100

               - and -

          Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          R. Ryan Stoll, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 407 0700
          Facsimile: (312) 407 0411

Consent to removal on behalf of ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. and
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.:

          Tera N. Coleman, Esq.
          Carole S. Rendon, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower
          127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
          Telephone: (216) 696 0740
          E-mail: crendon@bakerlaw.com
                  tcoleman@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ingo W. Sprie, Jr., Esq.
          Sean Morris, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9710
          Telephone: (212) 836 8000
          E-mail: Ingo.Sprie@apks.com
                  Sean.Morris@apks.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc.:

          Charles C. Lifland, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430 6000
          E-mail: clifland@omm.com
                  ckubota@omm.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS LLC,
AND ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC.:

          Albert J. Lucas, Esq.
          Jason J. Blake, Esq.
          CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
          1200 Huntington Center
          41 South High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 621 1500
          E-mail: alucas@calfee.com
                  jblake@calfee.com

               - and -

          Georgia Yanchar, Esq.
          CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
          The Calfee Building
          1405 East Sixth Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 622 8200
          E-mail: gyanchar@calfee.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Reed, Esq.
          Tinos Diamantatos, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963 -5603
          E-mail: steven.reed@morganlewis.com
                  tinos.diamantatos@morganlewis.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants ALLERGAN PLC (F/K/A
ACTAVIS PLC) AND ACTAVIS, INC. (N/K/A ALLERGAN FINANCE, LLC
F/K/A WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.:

          Stacey A. Greenwell, Esq.
          John R. Mitchell, Esq.
          Andrea B. Daloia, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          3900 Key Center
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1291
          Telephone: (216) 556 5500
          Facsimile: (216) 556 5800
          E-mail: John.Mitchell@ThompsonHine.com
                  Stacey.Greenwell@ThompsonHine.com
                  Andrea.Daloia@ThompsonHine.com

               - and -

          DonnaWelch, P.C., Esq.
          Martin L. Roth, Esq.
          Timothy Knapp, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862 2000
          E-mail: donna.welch@kirkland.com
                  martin.roth@kirkland.com
                  timothy.knapp@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jennifer G. Levy, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5000
          E-mail: jennifer.levy@kirkland.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant RUSSELL PORTENOY:

          Jordan D. Rauch, Esq.
          O. Judson Scheaf, III, Esq.
          HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
          65 East State Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 233 5190
          E-mail: JScheaf@hahnlaw.com
                  JRauch@hahnlaw.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants PERRY FINE, M.D., SCOTT
FISHMAN, M.D., and LYNN WEBSTER, M.D.:

          Tyler Tarney, Esq.
          Gregory Brunton, Esq.
          Daniel Hyzak, Esq.
          Bruce Moore, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          41 South High Street, Suite 240
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 340 5558
          E-mail: gbrunton@grsm.com
          dhyzak@grsm.com
          ttarney@grsm.com
          bmoore@grsm.com


QUALITY HARDWORD: "Acuna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVARISTO ACUNA, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. QUALITY HARDWORD FLOORS, INC., and DONALD P. RAINS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01025 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 27, 2017),
seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, up to approximately May 2017,
Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 7 and 15 of
the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff at a rate not less
than 1-1/2 times his regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, were only paid their hourly rate for
each hour worked, without being paid the additional half-time
premium for their overtime work. The work schedules for the
Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, required them to
work 12 hour shifts, 5 to 7 days a week, during numerous
workweeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474 7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474 5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


RAMIREZ SERVICES: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RAMIREZ SERVICES LLC, and
JULIO RAMIREZ, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04131-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are in the construction industry. Plaintiff worked
for Ramirez Services LLC on job sites across Atlanta, performing
various construction labor tasks. The Plaintiff worked for Ramirez
Services LLC as a construction laborer. The Plaintiff was paid
straight-time for all hours worked, despite working in excess of
40 hours per week throughout their employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RELAX IN STYLE: Styles Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
MANDY STYLES, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELAX IN
STYLE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and Does 1
19 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679600 (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action to fully compensate the
California Class for their losses incurred during the California
Class Period caused by Defendant's uniform policies, practices and
procedures which failed and continue to fail to properly
compensate these non-exempt employees for all of the hours they
work, including overtime.

The Defendant provides and sells back pain relief products and
self-care back pain solutions, including massage chairs, tempur-
pedic mattresses and pillows, and ergonomic office furniture. The
Defendant provides and sells its products through retail franchise
boutiques throughout the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn D. Morris, Esq.
          Will Lemkul, Esq.
          Chase M. Stem, Esq.
          MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP
          9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 566 7600
          Facsimile: (858) 566 6602

               - and -

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


RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Artur A. Nistra, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Reliance Trust Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04773, the
Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery, Defendant's motion for a protective
order, and Plaintiff's class certification motion.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 30,
2017, the status hearing was held and continued to Nov. 16 at
10:00 a.m.  Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, Defendant's
motion for a protective order, and Plaintiff's class certification
motion are entered and continued. The parties were required to
file a joint status report indicating which discovery issues have
and have not been resolved by the close of business on Nov. 1,
2017.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3MPkTN7F


RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR AGUILAR FERNANDEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL
SERVICES, INC. and MICHAEL LAWRENCE FLAMMIA, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:17-cv-03159-GJH (D. Md., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an electrician. Plaintiff was
paid at an hourly rate. Plaintiff was not paid for several days of
work and did not receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per
week. Defendants further improperly labeled Plaintiff as an
independent contractor and improperly issued Plaintiff an IRS 1099
Form for 2015. Defendants have willfully violated the clear and
well-established straight time, minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law, District of Columbia Wage Payment and
Collection Law. By improperly labeling Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and issuing an IRS 1099 Form in 2015 to Plaintiff,
Defendants have also violated the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act.
The Plaintiff is aware of other current and former employees of
Defendants who are similarly situated and who should have the
opportunity to "opt-in" to this action to assert their rights to
unpaid wages under the FLSA against Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo S. Garcia, Esq.
          STEIN SPERLING BENNETT
          DE JONG DRISCOLL PC
          25 West Middle Lane
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 340 2020
          Facsimile: (301) 354 8326
          E-mail: egarcia@steinsperling.com


SANTINI FOODS: Hernandez Sues for Rest Periods, Wages Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Hernandez, Rigoberto Hernandez and Jaime Medina, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Santini Foods, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. RG17878049 (Cal. Super., October 6, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, redress for failure to authorize or
permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain time-
keeping records, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Santini Foods offers a full line of organic evaporated milk,
evaporated milk, organic sweetened condensed and sweetened
condensed milk to the marketplace, syrups & sauces.  Defendants
employed Hernandez as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from
approximately January 1999 to August 2016 [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


SDG PROPERTIES: Andon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALINO ANDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SDG PROPERTIES, INC. and NOEY MATOS,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07876-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was a building superintendent and handyman who
worked for Defendants from 2003 to August 8, 2017. Throughout the
course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked as many as
six days a week, and well over 40 hours each week -- including the
requirement that he be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week
to deal with any issues that arose in the building -- without
receiving minimum wages and/or overtime pay as required by
law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Villanueva Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA. VILLANUEVA, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a corporation;
SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17880281 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay employees for all hours
worked at the applicable overtime rates of pay and/or applicable
double-time rates of pay; failure to include all remuneration when
calculating the applicable overtime rate of pay; failure to
provide legally compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period
premium wages; and failure to provide legally complaint rest
breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages, pursuant to Labor
Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 9021
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSICA SMITH, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class, the Plaintiff, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00769-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
   Simm Associates, Inc. mailed an initial written communication,
   between May 31, 2016 and June 21, 2017, which was not returned
   as undeliverable, and which identified "Paypal Credit" as the
   "Client" but not the current creditor or owner of the debt."

Excluded from the Class is SIMM and its officers, members,
partners, managers, directors and employees and their respective
immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this
action and all members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that his attorneys, STERN
THOMASSON LLP and EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC, be
appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7V0B6SPN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 2056
          E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  heather@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917 4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-Mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Poor Sales, Share Price Drop Prompt "Cadle" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE CADLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., ROBERT
GREENBERG and DAVID WEINBERG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08305 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to recover 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.

This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Skechers common stock between
April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, both dates inclusive.

Skechers designs, develops, and markets footwear for men, women,
and children. The Company's primary reporting segments are: (1)
Domestic Wholesale; (2) International Wholesale; and (3) Retail
(which includes both domestic and international Company stores).
From 2013 through 2015, Domestic Wholesale was the Company's
primary driver of growth and accounted for higher net sales as
compared to the other two segments. The Domestic Wholesale segment
accounted for approximately 39% of Skechers' 2015 total net sales.
The Company's Domestic Wholesale customers include department
stores, athletic footwear retailers, and specialty shoe stores.

During the Class Period, Skechers repeatedly touted the strength
of customer demand within the Domestic Wholesale segment, which
the Company claimed would spur continued sales growth. Skechers
frequently emphasized that its Domestic Wholesale segment growth
would continue into the second half of 2015 based on pending
orders and meetings with key customers.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's Domestic Wholesale customers took early receipt
of fall 2015 inventory, causing them to delay receipt of and, in
some cases, cancel pending orders scheduled for delivery in the
second half of 2015; (ii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's Domestic Wholesale growth rate was unsustainable; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Skechers' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The
Company's slowing sales growth was revealed on October 22, 2015
after the market closed, when Skechers issued a press release
announcing financial results for the third quarter ended September
30, 2015, which included disappointing net sales that fell short
of analysts' consensus estimates.

According to Defendants, $20 million in net sales were shifted
from third quarter 2015 into second quarter 2015 due to early
customer deliveries. Defendants blamed the sales miss on the
Company's inability to make up this shortfall in third quarter
2015 due to a weaker-than-expected retail environment.

On news of the Company's disappointing net sales and diluted
earnings per share, Skechers common stock fell $14.55 per share,
or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64 per
share. 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.

Founded in 1992, the Company is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California and its common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "SKX."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


STANLEY STEEMER: "Arensdorff" Suit Seeks OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS ARENSDORFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STANLEY STEEMER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC681368 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages 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 continuing to the present, Defendants
have had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay
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, without limitation, Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees routinely working over 8 hours per day or 40
hours per week without being properly compensated for hours worked
in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week by, among other
things, failing to track all hours worked, failing to pay for all
tracked hours worked, auto-deducting pay for worked time, and
paying overtime hours worked at the regular rate of pay.

Stanley Steemer is a US-based company that provides carpet
cleaning, tile and grout cleaning, upholstery cleaning, hardwood
floor cleaning and air duct cleaning.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com


STARBUCKS CORP: "Strumlauf" Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SIERA STRUMLAUF, BENJAMIN ROBLES, and
BRITTANY CRITTENDEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01306-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs will
move the Court on January 9, 2018, to certify Classes, appoint
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs'
counsel as Class Counsel.

The Classes are defined as:

   Latte Multi-State Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot lattes1 on or after
   March 16, 2012 in Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware,
   D.C., Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
   Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
   South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
   Wisconsin";

   Mocha Multi-State Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot mochas2 on or after
   March 16, 2012 in Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware,
   D.C., Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
   Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
   South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
   Wisconsin";

   Latte California Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot lattes on or after
   March 16, 2012 in California";

   Mocha California Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot mochas on or after
   March 16, 2012 in California";

   Latte New York Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot lattes on or after
   March 16, 2012 in New York";

   Mocha New York Class

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot mochas on or after
   March 16, 2012 in New York";

   Latte Florida Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot lattes on or after
   March 16, 2012 in Florida; and

   Mocha Florida Class:

   "all persons who purchased Starbucks hot mochas on or after
   March 16, 2012 in Florida."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8sIrHRg4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989 9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW, PC
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (646) 767 2271
          Facsimile: (212) 658 9177

               - and -

          Gerald Healy, Esq.
          John Hafemann, Esq.
          MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          219 Scott Street, PMB 315
          Beaufort, SC 29902
          Telephone: (844) 334 5459
          Facsimile: (843) 645 6530
          E-mail: gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
                  john@militaryjusticeattorneys.com


STURM & RUGER: Faces "Palmer" Suit over 10/22 Target Rifles
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID S. PALMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 62939091 (Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial
Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Fla., Oct. 17, 2017),
seeks to recover damages and other equitable remedies resulting
from the unlawful conduct of Defendant in negligently or knowingly
and/or willfully advertising its 10/22 Target Rifles as being
equipped with a two-stage target trigger when, in fact, no such
trigger was ever manufactured for any of Ruger's 10/22 Target
Rifles, in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, breach of Express Warranty, and Unjust Enrichment.

Ruger is an American firearm manufacturing company, which was
founded in 1949 by Alexander McCormick Sturm and William B. Ruger
and has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange since
1990.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          Judicial Circuit
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com


SUNCORP: Faces Litigation Threat Over Add-on Car Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Suncorp has
found some of its add-on insurance sold through motor dealers is
flawed and is considering "remediation", which for rivals has
resulted in multimillion-dollar refunds.

Brisbane-based Suncorp has been "working with" the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission on the problem, which it
revealed in a prospectus for a $250 million fundraising drive.

The prospectus further stated a solicitor had sent a letter eight
months ago indicating "they were contemplating commencing" a class
action about add-on insurance, but no proceedings had been filed.

ASIC last year issued a warning to the insurance sector about
selling add-on protection through car dealers, saying a survey had
"found that the products are expensive, of poor value and provide
consumers very little or no benefit".

Then several months ago, Sydney-based insurer QBE refunded more
than 35,000 customers $16 million.  The QBE products included
consumer credit insurance that had been "sold to young people who
had no dependants and who were unlikely to need the cover", ASIC
determined.

In the Suncorp case, its prospectus said "deficiencies" in add-on
insurance were linked to customers of subsidiary MTA Insurance,
which the Queensland insurer acquired in 2014.

Suncorp was working "on potential remediation activities", the
prospectus said.

The prospectus was released as Suncorp looked to raise $250
million from investors via special notes, which, while listed on
the ASX, were not traditional equities.  The money would be used
for "general corporate and funding purposes", Suncorp said.

Suncorp expects to pay a margin of between 3.65 per cent and 3.85
per cent above bank bill rates, with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank
raising $300 million at a 3.75 per cent margin.

Suncorp declined to answer specific questions about the insurance,
but said it "worked closely" with ASIC. [GN]


SUNSHINE BANCORP: Law Firm Investigates Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sunshine
Bancorp, Inc. ("Sunshine" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM: SBCP)
relating to the sale of the Company to CenterState Bank
Corporation. As a result of the merger, Sunshine shareholders will
receive 0.89 shares of CenterState common stock in exchange for
each share of Sunshine.

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether Sunshine and its Board of
Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to conduct a
fair process 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction
undervalues the Company by and 3) failing to disclose all material
financial information in connection with the upcoming shareholder
meeting on November 17, 2017.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.

If you own common stock in Sunshine and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341. [GN]


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Cheam" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sirica Cheam, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 0973-20670343,
was removed on Oct. 16, 2017 from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California in Los Angeles. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-07570-PSG-MRW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez.

Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona-based American
truckload motor shipping carrier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP PC
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI AND ASSOCIATES
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz

               - and -

          Paul M Yi, Esq.
          Law Offices of Choi and Associates
          515 S Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 -1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: paul.yi@choiandassociates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul S Cowie, Esq.
          Africa Reanne Swafford, Esq.
          John D Ellis, Esq.
          Patricia M Jeng, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          379 Lytton Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 815 2600
          Facsimile: (650) 815 2601
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                  rswafford-harris@sheppardmullin.com
                  jellis@sheppardmullin.com
                  pjeng@sheppardmullin.com


SYNERMED: "Munoz" Worked through Rest Breaks, Claims Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Munoz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synermed, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC678505 (Cal.
Super., October 5, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, restitution,
penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of attorneys'
fees for violation of the California Business & Professions Code.

Synermed operates a medical clinic in Monterey Park, California. -
www.synermed.com.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


TEZOS: ICO Investor Class Actions Hit Futures Price
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Kimani, writing for Cryptovest, reports that the futures
price of Tezos is down 60% after getting slapped with news of
several mass class action suits by lawyers representing ICO
contributors. After raising $232 million of ether and bitcoin in
July, the self-amending ledger blockchain project is now in
trouble.

Investors are responding to details revealed on Oct. 19 concerning
a boardroom wrangle for control over ICO proceeds now valued at
$400 million.  The proceeds are held in custody by an independent
Swiss Foundation, Tezos AG, headed by Johann Gevers as president.
Controversy erupted when Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, Tezos CTO
and CEO the president of the nonprofit, of mismanaging funds.

The dispute has now put the whole project on ice.  While
contributors to an ICO typically receive tokens in some weeks or
months, Tezos investors are still in the dark about when to expect
their promised tokens.

A law firm based out of Boston has stepped to right the damage
incurred by investors.  Block & Leviton has launched an
investigation into the initial coin offering on charges of
securities fraud.  A memo on the firm's website is reaching out to
Tezos investors in a bid to represent as many as possible in a
class action suit.

"Block & Leviton LLP has launched an investigation on behalf of
investors in the Tezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO").  If you
invested in the Tezos ICO and have questions about your legal
rights or if you have information relevant to this investigation,
please contact our attorney."

Projects like Tezos skirt securities regulation by only accepting
cryptocurrency funds in online crowdfunding events and
subsequently dishing out digital tokens to investors instead of
shares.  This year alone, ICOs have raked in over $ 2 billion in
funding primarily due to their supposed unregulated status.

But it wasn't long before regulators caught wind of the
incredulous sums raised from retail investors.

In the last three months, a wave of announcements by financial
authorities in China, US, Canada, Hong Kong and multiple countries
have cast doubt on the purported unregulated status of ICOs.  The
US Securities and Exchange Commission in August clarified some
tokens indeed fall under federal securities law. If true, any case
brought against the Breitman's under US federal law would
necessitate a refund.

Restis Law, another law firm in San Diego, has already requested
Tezos to refund all contributions made to the ICO. In a statement,
the firm said:

"As time passes, and information continues to come to light, the
Tezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") is a textbook case of how NOT
to raise money for blockchain projects.  Luckily for U.S.
investors, the federal securities laws allow for a refund."

Tezos investors now have to wait until February 2018, the earliest
date suggested by CTO Arthur Breitman for the dispute to resolve
and the project to continue development.  The other alternative is
for a full refund of ICO proceeds if the class action suits prove
successful. [GN]


TEZOS: Nothing Secret About Acquisition, Tim Draper Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Cyril Gilson, writing for Cointelegraph, reports that on Oct. 22,
Cointelegraph published its contributor Nick Ayton's opinion piece
called "What Lessons Can Be Learnt From Tezos ICO Debacle." The
piece asked questions regarding the situation with the Tezos's
ICO, the companies, foundations and persons that participated in
it.

It has recently been reported that a San Diego legal firm is
considering filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of some US
investors against the company Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. that,
as the law firm suggests, is holding the rights to the Tezos
network.

Cointelegraph's aim is serving the crypto community, for which the
question of raising money for Blockchain projects is vital.
That's why Cointelegraph considers the issues relating to the
security and trust during ICOs as being of utmost importance.

In his opinion piece, Nick Ayton has asked questions about the
sale, Tim Draper's role in it, why was the Tezos token not
registered with the SEC, raising corresponding issues.  Again,
regardless of Nick Ayton's interpreting and questioning certain
actors' actions and motives, the piece was clearly marked as
"opinion" and should be considered as such. Cointelegraph's Terms
of service agreement clearly underlines that: "the opinions of
authors and other contributors are their own and should not be
taken as financial advice . . . All materials on this site are for
informational purposes only.  None of the material should be
interpreted as investment advice."

Tim Draper's statement
Mr. Draper has made a valuable comment regarding the article
which, being faithful to the standards of journalism ethics, we
are happy to publish in full:

"This was brought to my attention.  Please get your facts
straight.  My fund is a long-term investor and holder of tokens. I
back promising entrepreneurs with the prospect of transforming
society for the good of the customer.  There was nothing secretive
about our purchase of Tezos.  We invested for ownership in the
company, which at the time was two bright young people and an
idea.  The sale might not have happened at all! We also
participated in the Pre-sale. Most ICO founders earn tokens over
time.  All tokens we hope to receive that we didn't buy in the
Pre-sale (alongside with all the other investors who participated)
will vest over time with the founders' tokens.  I have no
intention of selling these tokens because I am a true believer in
the Tezos mission: to build a Blockchain on proof of stake and
open it up for developers to build and invent on a new and more
relevant platform.  It can be faster and more energy efficient
than existing solutions.  It can have a hand in transforming
everything from healthcare to the insurance industry to real
estate to government.  Arthur and Cathleen are dedicated, honest
and brilliant founders.  They made it clear to me and the other
purchasers that the token would require time to develop.  If they
are successful, they might just transform society, and we will all
be better off as a result, and then, maybe 5 or ten years down the
road, my investors and I might get rich.  I expect a full
retraction. And I think you should send Arthur and Cathleen some
flowers and an apology." [GN]


TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned: VLADIMIR GOLOSIY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
TINTRI, INC., KEN KLEIN, KIERAN HARTY, IAN HALIFAX, PETER SONSINI,
ADAM GROSSER, CHRISTOPHER SCHAEPE, HARVEY JONES, JOHN BOLGER,
CHARLES GIANCARLO, NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES 12, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, NEA PARTNERS 12, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEA 12 GP, LLC,
SILVER LAKE GROUP, L.L.C., SILVER LAKE KRAFTWERK FUND, L.P.,
SILVER LAKE TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES KRAFTWERK L.P., MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., and DOES 1-25, Inclusive, the Defendants, was
removed on Oct. 16, 2017 from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, Case No. 17CIV04618, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-05876-YGR to the
proceeding.

Tintri, Inc. is an American information technology company based
in Mountain View, California. Tintri provides products designed
for Enterprise Cloud, virtual machines, and containers.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants Tintri, Inc., Ken Klein, Ian Halifax,
John Bolger, Charles Giancarlo, Adam Grosser, Kieran Harty, Harvey
Jones, Christopher Schaepe, and Peter Sonsini:

          Caz Hashemi, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq.
          Doru Gavril, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304 1050
          Telephone: (650) 493 9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565 5100
          E-mail: chashemi@wsgr.com
                  bcrosson@wsgr.com
                  dgavril@wsgr.com


TOTAL PHARMACY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS
PHARMACY, a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. TOTAL PHARMACY SUPPLY, INC. and LEXMARK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02553-JSM-
AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for entry of an
order certifying a class of:

   "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages after October 30, 2013 offering Genuine
   Lexmark Reconditioned Toner Cartridges available through
   www.tps-online.com or 1-800-878-2822 that did not inform the
   fax recipient that he or she may make a request to the sender
   of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile
   advertisements and that failure to comply with the request
   within 30 days in unlawful."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZKjqlp9a

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


TRANSPORTATION REPAIRS: Gaca Sues over Biometric Information
------------------------------------------------------------
JOZEF GACA, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORTATION REPAIRS &
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-13914 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, IL, Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover damages
as a result of Defensant's violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Transportation Repairs and Services, Inc. is an Illinois
corporation, which provides repair, maintenance, frame
straightening, custom paint, restoration, fabrication, and
customization services to trucks and trailers.

According to the complaint, TRS employees have been required to
clock "in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their
fingerprints, and Defendant's biometric computer systems then
verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out." Unlike
traditional time clock punch cards which can be changed or
replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers' associated with each employee.
This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which
to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

The lawsuit notes that BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to
obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a
condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an
individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and
biometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligates
Defendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometric
identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored;
to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store their
biometric information and any purposes for which biometric
information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make
available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently
destroy such information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386 5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          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
          Facsimile: (312) 332 0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SERGIO MEJIA, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS BUQUET
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, TRAVIS BUQUET HOME BUILDERS, LLC, and TRAVIS
BUQUET, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03494-JCZ-JVM (E.D. La.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: eaw@beaumontcostales.com


TWITTER INC: Ex-Engineer Seeks to Lead Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt and Anne Reifenberg, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that the way Tina Huang tells it, the path to her
resignation from Twitter Inc. was a Kafkaesque experience.  She
said she was denied a promotion, led to believe her coding skills
were inferior, asked to take a leave of absence, and scolded for
taking that leave.

Two years ago, she sued, contending that the company
systematically thwarts the advancement of female engineers.  Since
then, she's been gathering data on gender and pay for her peers
there and says she can prove Twitter stacks the deck.  By January,
she plans to ask a state judge for permission to represent 133
female engineers at Twitter, in what would be the first group case
of its kind in Silicon Valley if certified.

Ms. Huang said in an interview the time is ripe to do something
that's never been done before: pry open entrenched, male-dominated
barriers in the technology sector.  One catalyst, she said, was a
February blog post by former Uber Technologies Inc. engineer Susan
Fowler, which detailed a predatory work environment, infighting, a
"chaotic" organization and blatant sexual harassment.  That post
helped lead to the founder and chief executive officer's ouster.

"You not only saw real action happen at Uber but you also saw the
amount of the conversation" that followed, Ms. Huang said.  "Women
were emboldened by it."

Twitter has rejected Ms. Huang's claims in court filings and in a
statement -- saying that she resigned voluntarily after being
denied a second promotion and company leaders tried to persuade
her to stay.

"Twitter is deeply committed to a diverse and supportive
workplace, and we believe the facts will show Ms. Huang was
treated fairly," the company said.

Larger Narrative

Since the suit was filed, the dynamics have changed in Silicon
Valley.  In September, three women at Google sued the company in a
class action, claiming it systemically pays male employees more
than their female counterparts.  Add to that a groundswell of
women speaking out in the past few months with complaints against
tech and venture capital companies alleging sexual harassment,
underscoring the rocky terrain women face culturally and
professionally.

"Hearing the stories from numerous other women has helped me
understand how my incident, though unique in its details, is part
of a larger narrative," Ms. Huang said.  "It's basically
impossible for any individual to know with 100 percent certainty
that her promotion was denied due to gender.  The only way to
understand the systemic bias is for all of us to share our
experience so we can look at what's happening on the whole."

Ms. Huang joined Twitter eight years ago as one of its first
engineers.  In 2013, she was one of a number of people being
considered for a promotion.

Engineers at Twitter are placed on a "technical ladder," with an
eight-rung hierarchy.  When Ms. Huang joined the company, the
ladder didn't exist, but she was eventually slotted into the
fourth rung.  No woman had ever reached the fifth rung, yet it was
a critical step because it's where engineering jobs shift from
coding and discrete projects to higher-level management.

Ms. Huang learned she didn't get the promotion in February 2014
and promptly told the chief executive officer at the time,
alerting him to her concerns that the process lacked transparency
and that she believed she was denied a promotion due to her
gender.  But it was hearing from a colleague that her coding, an
engineer's fundamental tool of the trade, was deemed inadequate
that felt personal.

"Even though I knew it was bogus, it was a huge emotional toll,"
Ms. Huang said.  "It took years for me to recover confidence in my
engineering and technical skills."

Apple, Google

Before Twitter, Ms. Huang had worked at Apple Inc., where she
helped develop the OS X operating system, and Google, where she
worked on Google News.  She left both companies on good terms, and
as of January 2014, a few months before she left Twitter, was
rated "exceptional" in a performance review.

Workers often have different experiences of bias, and courts
reject class actions when the facts vary too much by individual,
an argument Twitter has already made in an early attempt to rebut
Huang's case.  But Ms. Huang's lawsuit seeks to show the result of
systemic discrimination -- the impact -- rather than detailing
treatment.

"The principal difficulty the case will face is in judicial
resistance to a story of discrimination that places responsibility
on the organization," said Tristin Green, a professor at
University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in
employment discrimination.

Mr. Green said Ms. Huang and her lawyers face an uphill battle if
they "can't convince a court to see the bigger picture of
organizational involvement."

Other women from Twitter who may join Ms. Huang's case haven't
been identified in court filings, though some may submit
statements to accompany her request for class-action status.

'Black Box'

Ms. Huang describes Twitter's promotion committee as a "black
box."  Employees up for promotion don't know who sits on it.
There's no input from workers, no interview, no feedback or
explanation about the decision.

When Ms. Huang complained about discrimination, she says she was
urged by human resources to take a week off while managers looked
into the matter, and then placed on indefinite leave amid an
investigation that became a "state of limbo" dragging on for
weeks.

The turning point came at the end of April, when she met with
Twitter's head of engineering.  Human resources had led her to
believe the executive was reconsidering her promotion.  Instead,
Huang said, that person berated her for not being at work, clearly
unaware that she was asked to go on leave months earlier. She also
learned her projects had been transitioned to other engineers.

"There was no intention of rectifying the situation," Ms. Huang
said. "They didn't really want me back in the office."

Twitter said in a court filing that Ms. Huang's supervisor never
suggested she take time off.  While she vacationed, Huang's
manager asked her what he should tell colleagues and she confirmed
"personal leave," according to the filing.

The lawsuit against Google cites data from a 2015 review of the
company by the U.S. Labor Department, which in a separate federal
administrative complaint found "systemic compensation disparities
against women."

Jason Lohr, Ms. Huang's lawyer, thinks he can make a similar,
evidence-based case.  By using statistical samples to show how it
takes women longer to be promoted or that there are fewer women
being promoted, the lawsuit will focus on company policies that
produce that outcome, he said.

Ms. Huang has since gone on to lead a startup, Transposit, with an
infusion of venture capital.  What she's learned about how Twitter
works since filing her lawsuit has convinced her that criticisms
of the quality of her coding skills weren't legitimate.

"I saw all the data, I saw all the feedback," Ms. Huang said.  "It
was just used as an excuse."

Mr. Lohr, Ms. Huang's lawyer, says there's safety in numbers.
"You can't turn to all women engineers at Twitter and say there's
a problem with all of them."

Bloomberg LP is developing a global breaking news network for the
Twitter service.

The case is Huang v. Twitter Inc., CGC-15-544813, California
Superior Court (San Francisco). [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Violates Equal Pay Act, "Lopez" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANA DEL TORO LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-06255 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2017),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
other make-whole relief on behalf of a collective of all female
engineers who were paid less than male employees doing the same or
similar work for claims under the Equal Pay Act.

The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiff against Uber
Technologies, Inc. alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, on
behalf of herself and all similarly-situated employees nationwide.

Uber is a global provider of on-demand transportation and food
delivery services. In 2015, Uber generated approximately $10.8
billion dollars in revenue. Uber is a major employer with
approximately 12,000 employees, many of whom are engineers. As a
result of Uber's policies, patterns, and practices, female
engineers receive less compensation and are promoted less
frequently than their male counterparts. In addition to bringing
this action on her own behalf, Plaintiff also brings this action
on behalf of a collective of similarly situated current and former
female engineers employed by Uber in the United States, in order
to end Uber's discriminatory policies and make the class
whole.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Collective Action Members:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  rdempsey@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Rachel M. Bien, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2060
          E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
                  rmb@outtengolden.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Safer Rides Feature
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rare Houston reports that as part of a class action settlement,
Uber recently agreed to pay out millions to anyone who used their
"safer rides" feature between Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 31, 2016.

Settlement documents show the crux of McKnight v. Uber centered on
people who used the ride sharing service paying extra fees for a
driver the company guaranteed 'safe,' when, as settlement parties
agreed.

Documents further described the methods Uber used to check the
backgrounds of its drivers as inadequate.

The lawsuit, filed back in December of 2014, points out how
drivers only needed to submit contact information, social security
number and driver's license number through an online form if they
wanted to be marked 'safe' as an option for riders.

Part of the complaint for the settlement also reportedly stemmed
how Uber did not require drivers to meet physically with an Uber
representative or be fingerprinted.

Uber and the city of Houston previously clashed on the issue of
background checks, as well, with Mayor Turner refusing to budge on
background check requirements to include fingerprinting, according
to clicktohouston.com.

In this case, the court eventually ruled in Uber's favor, forcing
the company and Houston to reach an agreement to lower the amount
of money and effort going into obtaining a license to drive with
Uber in Houston's city limits.

This June, a group of 19 Houston drivers also sued Uber over their
status as "independent contractors," which some of the parties
described as a step above indentured servitude.

Court records showed a number of those parties wanted to be full
company employees, with the suit further claiming Uber
misrepresented how much drivers could realistically make working
for the company.

In the latest legal disposition of the incidents, the McKnight
lawsuit alleged Uber once again misrepresented its services, this
time for the safety of its passengers relying on the extra safety
promised with the designation.

Lawyers eventually came to a $32.5 million settlement, saying, if
you qualify for a payout, your portion of the settlement will be
deposited automatically with an active Uber account.

If you quit on Uber after one of your, as the settlement
described, "unsafe" rides, January 2018 will be the cut off to
file a claim online.

The hearing on whether to approve the agreement is scheduled for
February 8, 2018. [GN]


ULTIMATE CLASS: "Korcz" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KORCZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE INC.;
MATTHEW SILVER; and any other related entities, the Defendants,
Case No. 600246/2017 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to
recover all compensation, including unpaid overtime compensation,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members are all victims of Defendants' common policy and/or plan
to violate New York wage and hour statutes by: failing to provide
overtime compensation to employees for work performed in excess of
40 hours per week; failing to provide a statement to employees
with every payment of wages accurately listing hours worked, rates
paid, gross wages, allowances, if any, claimed as part of the
minimum wage, deductions and net wages; and failing to remit
gratuities intended for employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendants are represented by:

          ADLER & HYMAN LLP
          90 Merrick Avenue
          East Meadow, NY 11554

               - and -

          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          50 Jericho Quadrangle, Ste 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 832 7500


UNITED STATES: Chhoeun & Neth Sue over Immigrant Detention
----------------------------------------------------------
NAK KIM CHHOEUN, MONY NETH, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly-situated individuals, the Petitioners, v. DAVID
MARIN, Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office, United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID W. JENNINGS,
Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting
Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, United States Department of
Homeland Security; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, United States
Attorney General; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County; and
SCOTT R. JONES, Sheriff of Sacramento County, the Respondents,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01898 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to
prevent and challenge arbitrary and indefinite detentions that
violate statutory and regulatory law as well as the Constitution.

Nak Kim Chhoeun and Mony Neth allege that beginning in October
2017, they have been arbitrarily and unlawfully detained by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Petitioners' and
class members' families fled Cambodia in the 1970s to escape the
Khmer Rouge's campaign of mass murder and torture. They arrived in
the United States as small children after their families secured
refugee status. Petitioners and class members have lived in the
United States ever since. Almost all are lawful permanent
residents. Many have never set foot in Cambodia. In every possible
sense, the United States is their only home. Petitioners and class
members were ordered removed based on criminal convictions -- in
many cases, decades-old convictions for offenses they committed as
teenagers. They were released from ICE custody because Cambodia
would not accept their repatriation. They returned to their
communities under orders of supervision, reporting regularly to
ICE and complying with the conditions of their release. Many have
U.S. citizen spouses, children, siblings, and relatives who rely
on them for support. For years, they have cared for their families
and led peaceful and productive lives in their communities.

Nonetheless, beginning on approximately October 1, ICE abruptly
commenced a series of raids and other enforcement actions across
California and other states to detain Petitioners and class
members without cause and without providing procedural protections
required by law. ICE detained Petitioners and class members
without any evidence that Cambodia would now accept their
repatriation. ICE also conducted raids in disregard of basic
procedural rights. On information and belief, Petitioners and
class members have received no adequate explanation of the reasons
for detention, no opportunity to be heard regarding any purported
reasons for detention, and no individualized consideration before
a neutral decision maker regarding whether they pose a danger or
flight risk that could warrant detention.

Petitioners bring this action on behalf of themselves and
approximately 1,900 other similarly-situated persons to prevent
and challenge arbitrary and indefinite detentions that violate
statutory and regulatory law as well as the Constitution.

According to the complaint, more than 100 Cambodian refugees
already have been unlawfully detained in the October 2017 raids,
and ICE continues to undertake unlawful actions to arbitrarily
detain Cambodians. Many of those targeted live in California, with
large numbers residing in Long Beach, Modesto, and Stockton,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Anoop Prasad, Esq.
          Kevin Chun Hoi Lo, Esq.
          Melanie Chun-Yu Kim, Esq.
          Winifred Kao, Esq.
          ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE -
          ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896 1701
          Facsimile: (415) 896 1702
          E-mail: jennyz@advancingjustice-alc.org

               - and -

          Nicole Gon Ochi, Esq.
          Christopher Lapinig, Esq.
          ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - LA
          1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 7500
          Facsimile: (213) 977 7595
          E-mail: lhoq@advancingjustice-la.org
                  nochi@advancingjustice-la.org
                  clapinig@advancingjustice-la.org

               - and -

          Sean A. Commons, Esq.
          Darlene Cho, Esq.
          Naomi Igra, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896 6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896 6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
                  dcho@sidley.com
                  naomi.igra@sidley.com


VEGE-MIST INC: "Ortiz" Suit Claimed Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Roberto Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vege-Mist, Inc., Barrett Business
Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC678573 (Cal. Super., October 5, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime and
minimum wages, redress for failure to authorize or permit required
meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain time-
keeping records, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Barrett Business is a payroll and staffing services that assigned
Ortiz to Vege-Mist, a manufacturer of merchandising displays. [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
      Tel: (310) 553-3600
      Fax: (310) 553-3603


VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: "Jones" Disputes Traffic Light Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie Jones, Debra Demery and Janet Wittenmyer, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Village
of Crestwood, Defendant, Case No. 2017CH13401 (Ill. Cir., October
5, 2017), seeks disgorgement and refund all of fines, penalties
and interest paid by Plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and costs,
including interest thereon and such further and other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs received automated traffic law violations from
Crestwood for allegedly failing to come to a complete stop before
making a right turn on a red light at the intersection of Cicero
Avenue and Cal Sag Road despite the fact there is no automated
traffic signal on the said intersection, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
      Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180
      Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com

             - and -

      Mark Roth, Esq.
      Bob Fioretti, Esq.
      ROTH FIORETTI, LLC
      311 S. Wacker, Suite 2470
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Website: www.rothfioretti.com
               mark@rothfioretti.com
               rwf@rothfioretti.com


VOCUS: To Sell New Zealand Assets Amid Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinne Reichert, writing for ZDNet, reports that Vocus has
announced a decision to sell off its New Zealand business, with a
proposed completion date by the end of FY18.

"The board has now determined that the Vocus New Zealand (VNZ)
business will be prepared for sale finalising appointment of
advisors," Vocus said in its investor update presentation on
Oct. 23.

"The board has also progressed its review of the non-core
Australian assets: Advisors appointed to the sale of the
Australian datacentre assets [and] other non-core Australian
assets will continue to be evaluated with regard to potential
divestment or closure."

Its trading update on New Zealand included a net consumer
broadband subscriber growth of 3,365 customers in the first
quarter of FY18, with 16 percent share of all Ultra-Fast Broadband
(UFB) connections as of the end of the quarter.

In total, Vocus had 192,000 broadband consumer services in
operation (SIOs) as of September 30, with 53,000 on the UFB at an
average revenue per user (ARPU) of NZ$71.18 per month.

Vocus said it was also the fastest-growing energy retailer in
Auckland, with 4,704 active energy customers for a total SIO
number of 9,000.

Vocus had 21,000 mobile SIOs by the end of the period.

Despite also selling its stake in Macquarie Telecom for AU$41
million in March, Vocus' full-year results announced in late
August saw a turnaround in its FY16 net profit of AU$64.1 million
to a net loss of AU$1.5 billion for FY17 due to "higher than
forecast net finance costs and a higher effective tax rate", along
with what CEO Geoff Horth called "a more competitive business
environment" in both Australia and New Zealand.

Underlying net profit was AU$152.3 million, while underlying
earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation
(EBITDA), not including significant items during the year, was
AU$366.4 million, up 70 percent.

Revenue grew by 119 percent year on year to AU$1.8 billion, and
the company's net debt increased by 35 percent to AU$1.03 billion
and is expected to climb even higher, to up to AU$1.06 billion for
FY18.

In September, law firm Slater and Gordon announced that Vocus
would be facing a potential class action from its shareholders
over having downgraded its financial guidance in May.

According to Slater and Gordon, the proposed class action alleges
that "Vocus engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct because it
had no reasonable grounds for the original FY17 guidance issued in
November 2016"; and that the telco "breached its obligations of
continuous disclosure by failing to disclose that it would not
achieve the FY17 guidance".

The law firm said the proposed claim will be brought on behalf of
those who purchased Vocus shares between November 29, 2016, and
May 2, 2017. Between these dates, the claim alleges that the
company's shares traded significantly higher than their actual
value due to Vocus' alleged misleading and deceptive conduct.

Mathew Chuk, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer, said Vocus'
original guidance had relied on assumptions made about growing the
business through its AU$1.2 billion acquisition of Amcom in June
2015, its merger with M2 in February 2016 to form the third-
largest telecommunications provider in New Zealand and the fourth-
largest in Australia worth more than AU$3 billion, and its AU$861
million acquisition Nextgen Networks in July 2016.

However, Chuk said Vocus' presumptions that it would consequently
gain efficiencies by combining these businesses "was done without
proper visibility of profitability".

Vocus' revised guidance saw forecast revenue reduced by AU$100
million, underlying EBITDA reduced by between AU$65 million and
AU$75 million, and net profit reduced by between AU$45 million and
AU$50 million.

As a result of its downgraded guidance, the company in June
received a takeover proposal from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co
(KKR) to acquire 100 percent of its shares at a price of AU$3.50
per share via a scheme of arrangement, with Vocus then allowing
KKR to conduct due diligence to explore whether a binding
transaction could be agreed upon.

Shortly afterwards, Affinity Equity Partners submitted a takeover
proposal in July to acquire 100 percent of Vocus' shares at a
price of AU$3.50 per share via a scheme of arrangement to be paid
in cash.

Two days before Vocus was due to announce its FY17 full-year
financial results, however, both takeover proposals were
terminated. [GN]


WESTAR ENERGY: "Reese" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to Great Plains
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Reese, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Westar Energy, Inc., Charles Q. Chandler
IV, Mollie Hale Carter, R.A. Edwards, Jerry B. Farley, Richard L.
Hawley, Anthony Isaac, Sandra A. J. Lawrence, Mark A. Ruelle, S.
Carl Soderstrom Jr., Great Plains Energy Incorporated, Monarch
Energy Holding, Inc. and King Energy, Inc, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-02584, (D. Kan., October 6, 2017), seeks to preliminarily
and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of Westar Energy, Inc. by Great Plains Energy
Inc., Monarch Energy Holding, Inc. and King Energy, Inc.  The suit
seeks an award of rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, each share of
Westar common stock will be converted into the right to receive
one share of Holdco common stock. Westar will be the surviving
corporation.

The complaint says the merger agreement contains a "no
solicitation" provision that prohibits the solicitation of
alternative proposals and severely constrains their ability to
communicate and negotiate with potential buyers with better
offers. Also, the merger consideration appears inadequate,
claiming that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in
excess of the amount offered while the Registration Statement
omits financial projections and the analyses performed by
Guggenheim Securities, LLC, its financial advisor.

Westar is an electric energy provider to approximately 687,000
customers in east and east-central Kansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce Keplinger, Esq.
     NORRIS & KEPLINGER, LLC
     Corporate Woods, Building 32
     9225 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 750
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Phone: (913) 663-2000
     Fax: (913) 663-2006
     Email: bk@nkfirm.com

            - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310
     Email: GMS@rl-legal.com

            - and -

     LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
     300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
     Pittsburgh, PA 15234
     Tel: (412) 391-5164


* BETTER FINANCE Calls for EU-Wide Collective Redress Framework
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mondovisione reports that earlier this year BETTER FINANCE called
on policy makers to put an end to financial abuses by ensuring
better public enforcement of conduct of business rules and
introducing an EU-wide framework for Collective Redress in order
to facilitate effective private enforcement.  Now the European
Commissioner for Justice and Consumer Affairs is calling for an
EU-wide Collective Redress framework.

In its briefing paper published ahead of its conference on public
and private enforcement, BETTER FINANCE took a deeper look at the
mis-selling of financial products and, unsurprisingly, concluded
that several key EU regulatory provisions pertaining to retail
investor and saver protection are not properly enforced.

Besides proposals to improve the public enforcement of conduct of
financial business rules, BETTER FINANCE also called for an EU
wide collective redress scheme.  The lack of a properly developed
framework for Private Enforcement hampers law enforcement efforts
and stands in the way of providing more practical solutions to
reduce detriment to financial services users.

In its briefing paper and at its conference in May 2017 BETTER
FINANCE stressed that Collective Redress (if well designed like in
the Netherlands) would constitute an effective solution that can
facilitate and make legal remediation of damages incurred by EU
citizens as financial services users more effective and
affordable.

It now seems as though the need for a Pan-European collective
redress mechanism has been finally acknowledged, as the European
Commission's justice- and consumer-affairs chief Vera Jourova
announced an 'EU-wide class-action' blueprint for March 2018.
"Consumers should have more help in grouping together to sue
companies and there should be a fresh EU initiative to back them",
the European Commissioner said and added that the DG Justice
"would like to propose EU-wide class action and collective
redress".

Whereas no further details were provided as to which areas of law
these new measures would apply to, BETTER FINANCE applauds
Commissioner Jourova's initiative and reiterates the importance of
Collective Redress for EU financial services users and the
necessity for EU citizens as savers and investors to have access
to such recourse. [GN]


* Fianna Fail Calls for Class Action Legislation Against Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juno McEnroe and Joyce Fegan, writing for Irish Examiner, report
that bank chiefs are facing the threat of tougher levies or even
fines if they fail to set out how and when customers ripped off by
the tracker mortgage scandal will be properly repaid and
compensated.

The five main banks will be asked to set out a clear timeline for
compensating borrowers and exactly how many must be repaid, when
they meet the finance minister.

A rise in the bank levy, increased taxation, penalty fines, and
enhanced consumer protection were flagged at the weekend by
Government figures.  Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe was set to
meet on Oct. 23 with the CEOs and chairmen of KBC, Bank of
Ireland, and Permanent TSB, while Ulster Bank and AIB would also
be quizzed at Government Buildings.

On Oct. 23, the Cabinet was expected to discuss responses from the
banks and options to resolve the tracker mortgage scandal.

Financial experts are predicting that as many as 30,000 people
could have been wrongly removed from their tracker mortgages and
moved onto a higher rate.

Mortgage campaigner David Hall told the Irish Examiner that,
despite the Government promises, borrowers must be protected after
what was "stolen from them in the tracker scandal".

The pressure to act will also intensify as Fianna Fail moves a
Dail motion, demanding an inquiry and penalties.

Legislation to allow for class action suits should also be
introduced so borrowers can sue the banks, Fianna Fail says.

The prospect of fines for banks failing to adequately compensate
borrowers is being strongly considered.

"If they act the bollix, we can get the money off them [for those
customers] by doing it this way," one minister told the Irish
Examiner.

The minister pointed to a recent EUR4.5m fine for PTSB over its
subprime unit Springboard Mortgages, which it sold to Mars Capital
in 2014.

The junior rural affairs minister, Sean Kyne, also said this
threat should be used with the banks.

"Whatever legislation is needed to fine the banks should be
prepared now," he said.

"And I think that threat needs to be made by Minister Donohoe to
the banks, and have that rushed through the Dail, as it were,
before Christmas if needed."

Junior finance minister Michael D'Arcy confirmed the prospect of
increasing the bank levy or taxation on banks was "on the table".
The current levy will bring in EUR750m by 2021.

Mr D'Arcy also suggested the consumer protection role of the
Central Bank may be removed and transferred to a stand-alone
authority.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar left open the option of financial penalties
for the banks.  At a Fine Gael event on Oct. 21, he said: "We are
very frustrated at the lack of progress to date and we are
certainly not ruling out further sanction, further regulation, or
additional taxation on the banks."

Government sources said that between now and on Oct. 25, the six
lenders would be asked for exact figures and a timeline on
compensating customers.

If this is deemed unsatisfactory, sanctions, in combination with
fresh legislation, will then be considered.

However, Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty said empty promises were a
"slap in the face" for customers, some of whom had lost homes or
families, or had emigrated.

"Banks don't do morals," said Mr Doherty, adding six of the
lenders involved had not returned a cent to customers.

Meanwhile, an advocacy group representing people who lost homes as
a result of the tracker scandal said it will take "aggressive
action" against the banks.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation wrote to banks asking them
not to sell any of the homes repossessed as a direct result of the
mortgage scandal.  If the banks do not reply, it is understood the
IMHO will seek a High Court injunction against them selling on
these properties. [GN]








                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *