---

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


          Wednesday, November 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 236



                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Patients Want Court to Lift Bankruptcy Stay
ABRA AUTO: "Gaspard" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALKERMES PLC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ALL STAR LIMOUSINE: "John" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

BARCLAYS PLC: 2d Cir. Affirms Certification of Securities Suit
BIG PHARMA: La Crosse Not Yet Ready to Join Class Action
BIG PHARMA: Lewis Legislators Decline to Join Opioid Class Action
BIG PHARMA: Manatee County to Hire Firm for Opioid Class Action
BIG PHARMA: Shelby Commissioner Sued Over Control of Opioid Suit

BIG PHARMA: Oktibbeha County Mulls Opioid Class Action
BOB EVANS FARMS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Post Holdings
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Cabral" Suit Alleges ITFA Violations
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: "Viguers" Suit Hits Denied Coverage
CALPINE CORP: "Langston" Suit Challenges Energy Capital Merger

CASH DEPOT: Court Narrows Claims in Technician's Suit
CDK GLOBAL: Hartley Files Suit Over Price-fixing
COOK COUNTY: "Howard" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
DECKS ON A BUDGET: "Black" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DIAMOND RESORTS: "Jocson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

DOLLAR TREE: Averts California Pay Stub Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: AG Proposes Tighter Data Security Laws After Hack
EQUIFAX INC: Executives Cleared of Stock Sales Allegations
EQUIFAX INC: Intends to Fight Data Breach Class Actions
EQUIFAX INC: "Cole" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages

ETISON LLC: "Schleifer" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL: "Betancourt" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
GREAT AMERICAN: "Goertzen" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
GREENBRIAR RESTAURANT: "Grace" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
GREMI LAUNDROMAT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

HYATT HOTELS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Livi" Wage and Hour Suit
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: "Corley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
IQ DATA INT'L: "Tohanczyn" Action Disputes Alleged Debt
ISI SECURITY: "Rains" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
JP MORGAN: Fair Debt Collection Class Action Can Proceed

JP MORGAN: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Duty Class Action
L'OREAL USA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Amla Litigation
LAS TROJAS: "Wiliams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MGM RESORTS: "Phelps" Sues Over Taxes on Internet Charges
NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over Sunscreen Ongoing in California

NIAGARA BOTTLING: "Laverty" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
NOVAN INC: "Stefanowicz" Sues Over Share Price Drop
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Welk Files Suit Over Vitamin B False Ads
OMEGA FLEX: 8th Cir. Remands CSST Class Action to Federal Court
PIZZA HUT: Faces Class Action Over No-Hiring Agreement

PIZZA HUT: "Yoachim" Sues Over Data Breach
POPPY'S DELI: "Hernandez" Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
QUALCOMM INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied in Part
SCANA CORPORATION: "Fox" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
SHINE GLORY: "Gao" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES: "Swartz" Suit Asserts ADA Violation
SONY INTERACTIVE: Judge Has Yet to Approve Revised Settlement
SOUTH SHOR INC: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
STARION LLC: "Camuso" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
SWEETGREEN INC: "Cintron" Suit Hits Retention of Biometrics Data

TEZOS: TOA Indicates Backer Waives Class Action Right
TFSK INDUSTRIES: "Herrera" Suit Asserts Ca. Labor Law Violations
TRIVAGO NV: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
TROY NURSERIES: "De Paz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Paystubs
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Female Engineers Sue Over Pay Discrimination

UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Sues Over Retention of Biometrics Data
UNITED STATES: Court Approves $1.7MM Settlement in CBPOs' Suit
VALEANT PHARMA: Florida to Sue Over Securities Violations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dieselgate Class Actions to Kick Off This Month
WAL-MART STORES: Female Employees File Gender Bias Class Action





                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Patients Want Court to Lift Bankruptcy Stay
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer and Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, report that a
putative class of patients arguing that a data breach at bankrupt
cancer treatment center operator 21st Century Oncology exposed
their personal information told a New York bankruptcy court on
Nov. 6 that allowing them to file a class action claim would be
best for all concerned.

Calling 21st Century's list of the potential consequences of their
claim a "supposed parade of horribles," the class members said
allowing their claim would both be fair for the hundreds of
thousands of potential class members they claim were not notified
of the bankruptcy and allow 21st Century to dispose of claims that
might otherwise linger after it leaves Chapter 11.

"Against that backdrop, it is unclear why the debtors are so
intent on attempting to eviscerate the class claims," they said.

21st Century entered Chapter 11 in May in the midst of responding
to government inquiries related to potential violations of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act arising out of
a 2.2 million-patient data breach in 2015, criminal antitrust
violations and other potential False Claims Act violations.

The putative class, which is fighting for certification in the
bankruptcy case, has asked that the bankruptcy stay be lifted so
it can pursue its claims in Florida and that it be allowed to
pursue claims in bankruptcy court as a class.

However, 21st Century has argued that would open the door to
patients who have not chosen to take part in the class action to
pursue their own claims in bankruptcy court with no limitations.
The company also said the proposal would require it to assign its
insurance coverage rights to the patient class.

The class, though, argued both that it was entitled to make a
class claim because, despite 21st Century's claims that nearly all
potential class members were notified of the bankruptcy, their
examination of 21st Century's mailing list shows around 700,000
potential class members were missed.

In addition to giving due process to those potential class
members, lifting the stay for the class action under these
circumstances would be best for 21st Century in the long term,
they argued.

"Members of the putative class who were entitled to, but did not
receive, actual notice of the Chapter 11 cases and the bar date
may be able to assert in the future that they are not bound by the
plan and that their claims against the debtors were not discharged
through confirmation, heightening the risk of the exact result the
debtors profess to be attempting to avoid," they said.

The putative class plaintiffs said their proposal to agree to
limit their recovery to available insurance is "feasible and
practical" and that there are no legal obstacles to 21st Century
assigning the insurance proceeds.

"We take the position because we're prepared to limit recovery to
insurance there would be no disruptive effect on the estate or any
of the creditors," Michael Etkin, one of the counsel for the data
breach plaintiffs, said in a phone interview on Nov. 7.

Counsel for the debtors did not immediately respond to requests
for comment late on Nov. 7.

The debtors are represented by Christopher Marcus --
christopher.marcus@kirkland.com -- John T. Weber --
john.weber@kirkland.com -- James H.M. Sprayregen --
james.sprayregen@kirkland.com -- William A. Guerrieri --
will.guerrieri@kirkland.com -- and Alexandra Schwarzman --
alexandra.schwarzman@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The patients are represented by Michael S. Etkin, Andrew Behlmann
and Nicole Fulfree of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Melissa Emert of
Stull Stull & Brody.

The bankruptcy case is In re: 21st Century Oncology Holdings Inc.
et al., case number 17-22770, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. [GN]


ABRA AUTO: "Gaspard" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fritz Gaspard, and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Abra Auto Body & Glass, LP, Defendant, Case No. 17-
cv-10213, (D. N.J., October 31, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
compensation plus interest, damages, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage
and Hour Law.

Defendant owns, operates and/or manages auto glass replacement and
repair shops throughout the United States where Gaspard was
employed at their Marlton, Burlington County shop, repairing and
replacing auto glass from July 2016 to August 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALKERMES PLC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 7
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Alkermes plc (NASDAQ:
ALKS) resulting from allegations that Alkermes may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On November 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris announced that she
is opening an investigation into Alkermes' sales practices for its
opioid-addiction treatment Vivitrol.  Senator Harris stated that
Alkermes "aggressively marketed" its medication, convincing judges
and prison officials to use it rather than more proven addiction-
treatment products, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
lobbying policymakers. On this news, shares of Alkermes fell
sharply during intraday trading on November 7, 2017.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Alkermes investors.  If you purchased shares of
Alkermes, please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1233.htmlfor more information.
You may also contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.  Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services
for the number of securities class action settlements annually
obtained for investors. [GN]


ALL STAR LIMOUSINE: "John" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Joby John, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. All Star Limousine Service, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06327, (E.D. N.Y., October 31, 2017),
seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly, costs and
attorneys' fees pursuant to New York Labor Laws, New York Minimum
Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the business of providing transportation services
to customers in the New York City and Tri-state area where John
was employed from July 2005 to July 27, 2017 as a limousine
driver. Plaintiff worked between 50-60 hours a week and sometimes
more, 5-7 days a week, all without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Shelida E. Lewis, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Limousine, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04866, (E.D. Pa., October 31, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant operates Flyte Tyme, a limousine transportation provider
headquartered in Mahwah, NJ, with offices in New York City, NY,
Princeton, NJ, Stamford CT, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA.
Lewis worked as a driver out of their location on Essington Ave in
Philadelphia PA. She claims not to be paid for time rendered in
inspecting the vehicle, time driving from office to passenger pick
up location and the 15 minutes allowance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arkady Rayz, Esq.
     Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
     KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
     1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Telephone: (215) 364-5030
     Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
     E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
             dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

             - and -

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Telephone: (610) 822-3700
     Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwglaw.com


BARCLAYS PLC: 2d Cir. Affirms Certification of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Class
Certification in the case captioned JOSEPH WAGGONER, MOHIT SAHNI,
BARBARA STROUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BARCLAYS PLC, ROBERT
DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., WILLIAM WHITE,
Defendants-Appellants, CHRIS LUCAS, TUSHAR MORZARIA, Defendants,
No. 16-1912-cv (2nd Cir.).

Barclays PLC, its American subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc., and
three senior officers of those companies appeal from an order of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granting a motion for class certification filed by the
Plaintiffs-Appellees, three individuals who purchased Barclays'
American Depository Shares (Barclays' ADS) during the class
period. The Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.

The Defendants-Appellants (Defendants) contend that the district
court erred in granting class certification by: (1) concluding
that the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance applied, (2)
determining, alternatively, that the Basic presumption, applied
without considering direct evidence of price impact when it found
that Barclays' ADS traded in an efficient market; (3) requiring
the Defendants to rebut the Basic presumption by a preponderance
of the evidence (and concluding that the Defendants had failed to
satisfy that standard); and (4) concluding that the Plaintiffs'
proposed method for calculating class-wide damages was
appropriate.

Barclays' Recent Involvement in the LIBOR Scandal and Its
Investigations

Barclays and other financial institutions manipulated London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) an important set of benchmarks for
international interest rates. Barclays was fined more than
$450,000,000 as a result of its involvement. As a result of the
LIBOR investigation, Barclays' corporate leadership undertook
significant measures to change the company's culture and develop
more integrity in its operations.

LX, Dark Pools, and High-Frequency Traders

From the time it was involved in the LIBOR investigations to the
present, Barclays, through its American subsidiary Barclays
Capital Inc., has operated an alternate trading system essentially
a private venue for trading securities known as Barclays'
Liquidity Cross, or, more simply, as Barclays' LX (LX). LX belongs
to a particular subset of alternate trading systems known as dark
pools. Dark pools permit investors to trade securities in a
largely anonymous manner. Neither information regarding the orders
placed into the pool for execution nor the identities of
subscribers that are trading in the pool are displayed at the time
of the trade.

The New York Attorney General's Lawsuit

The New York Attorney General commenced an action alleging that
Barclays was violating provisions of the New York Martin Act in
operating its dark pool. The complaint alleged that many of
Barclays' representations about protections LX afforded its
customers from high-frequency traders were false and misleading.

The Plaintiffs' Action

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action shortly thereafter.
They alleged in a subsequent second amended complaint that
Barclays had violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by making false
statements and omissions about LX and Liquidity Profiling.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays' statements about LX and
Liquidity Profiling were materially false and misleading by
omission or otherwise because, contrary to its assertions,
Barclays did not in fact protect clients from aggressive high
frequency trading activity, did not restrict predatory traders'
access to other clients, and did not "eliminate traders who
continued to behave in a predatory manner.

Procedural History

The district court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, in
part.  The court explained that it was obligated to consider
whether the purported misstatements were quantitatively or
qualitatively material. In its quantitative analysis, the court
agreed with the Defendants that LX was a small part of Barclays'
business operation and accounted for a small fraction of the
company's revenue.  It nevertheless concluded that the
misstatements could be qualitatively material. After the LIBOR
scandal, the court explained, Barclays had staked its long-term
performance on restoring its integrity. Barclays' statements
regarding LX and Liquidity Profiling could therefore call into
question the integrity of the company as a whole.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

The Plaintiffs then sought class certification for investors who
purchased Barclays' ADS between August 2, 2011, and June 25, 2014.

In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs submitted an expert
report from Dr. Zachary Nye that considered whether the market for
Barclays' ADS was efficient, a necessary prerequisite for the
Basic presumption to apply. Dr. Nye's report applied the five
factors identified in Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F.Supp. 1264, and the
three factors identified in Krogman v. Sterritt, 202 F.R.D. 467
(N.D. Tex. 2001).   Dr. Nye explained that all eight factors
supported the conclusion that the market for Barclays' ADS was
efficient. Dr. Nye first concluded that the seven factors that
rely on "indirect" indicia of an efficient market-the first four
Cammer factors and all three Krogman factors-supported his
conclusion.

With respect to the final factor, the fifth Cammer factor, or
Cammer 5, which is considered the only direct measure of
efficiency Dr. Nye conducted an "event study" to determine whether
the price of Barclays' ADS changed when new material information
about the company was released. Based on the results of that event
study, Dr. Nye concluded that the final factor also weighed in
favor of concluding that the market for Barclays' ADS was
efficient. Thus, relying on Dr. Nye's report, the Plaintiffs
asserted that they were entitled to the Basic presumption.

The Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification

In response, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs had not
made the requisite showing to invoke the Basic presumption because
they had failed to show that the market for Barclays' ADS was
efficient.  The Defendants pointed to the report of their expert,
Dr. Christopher M. James, which claimed that the Plaintiffs had
not shown direct evidence of efficiency under Cammer 5 because the
event study conducted by Dr. Nye was flawed. The Defendants did
not, however, challenge Dr. Nye's conclusion that the seven
indirect factors demonstrated that the market for Barclays' ADS
was efficient, nor did Dr. James conduct his own event study to
demonstrate the inefficiency of the market for Barclays' ADS.

The Defendants further contended that the Affiliated Ute
presumption was inapplicable to the complaint's allegations. That
presumption, they argued, applied only to situations primarily
involving omissions, and the complaint alleged affirmative
misstatements, not omissions.

The District Court's Class Certification Decision

The district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification  It concluded that the Affiliated Ute presumption
applied.  The court explained that a case could be made that it is
the material omissions, not the affirmative statements, that are
the heart of this case. According to the court, it was far more
likely that investors would have found the omitted conduct, as
opposed to the misstatements, material.

The Presumptions of Reliance

In a securities fraud action under Section 10(b), one of the
elements that a plaintiff must prove is that he relied on a
misrepresentation or omission made by the defendant.

The first, the Affiliated Ute presumption, allows the element of
reliance to be presumed in cases involving primarily omissions,
rather than affirmative misstatements, because proving reliance in
such cases is, in many situations, virtually impossible.
The second, the Basic presumption, permits reliance to be presumed
in cases based on misrepresentations if the plaintiff satisfies
certain requirements.

The Defendants' Arguments

The Applicability of the Affiliated Ute Presumption

The Defendants first argue that the district court erred by
concluding that the Affiliated Ute presumption applies because the
Plaintiffs' complaint is based primarily on allegations of
affirmative misrepresentations, not omissions.

The Second Circuit agrees.

The omissions the Plaintiffs list in their complaint are directly
related to the earlier statements Plaintiffs also claim are false.
For example, the Plaintiffs argue that Barclays failed to disclose
that Liquidity Profiling did not apply to a significant portion of
the trades conducted in LX. That omission is simply the inverse of
the Plaintiffs' misrepresentation allegation: Barclays' statement
that Liquidity Profiling protected LX traders was false.

Thus, as alleged in Starr, the omissions here exacerbated the
misleading nature of the affirmative statements. The Affiliated
Ute presumption does not apply to earlier misrepresentations made
more misleading by subsequent omissions, or to what has been
described as half-truths, nor does it apply to misstatements whose
only omission is the truth that the statement misrepresents.

The Affiliated Ute presumption does not apply.

The Applicability of the Basic Presumption

The Defendants assert three reasons why the district court
incorrectly found that the basic presumption applied and was not
rebutted.

First, the Defendants contend that the court erred by failing to
consider whether direct evidence of price impact under Cammer 5
showed that Barclays' ADS traded in an efficient market.

Second, the Defendants argue that even if the failure to make that
finding was not erroneous, the court erred by shifting the burden
of persuasion, rather than imposing only the burden of production,
on the Defendants to rebut the Basic presumption.

Third, the Defendants assert that even if they bore the burden of
rebutting the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the
evidence, the district court incorrectly concluded that they had
failed to satisfy that standard.

The Second Circuit is not persuaded by the Defendants' arguments.

The Second Circuit concludes that direct evidence of price impact
under Cammer 5 is not always necessary to establish market
efficiency and invoke the Basic presumption, and that such
evidence was not required in this case at the class certification
stage. Also, the Defendants were required to rebut the Basic
presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, and they failed to
do so.

Whether Cammer 5  Must Be Satisfied

Whether direct evidence of price impact under Cammer 5 is required
to demonstrate market efficiency is a question of law over which
the Second Circuit exercises de novo review.

The Second Circuit then rejected the argument that directional
direct evidence of price impact was required by Cammer 5. In so
doing, the Second Circuit explained that it has never suggested
that an event study was the only way to prove market efficiency.
The Second Circuit then noted that the Supreme Court has suggested
that the burden required to establish market efficiency is not an
onerous one.

The Second Circuit explained that indirect evidence of market
efficiency under the other four Cammer factors would add little to
the Basic analysis if courts only ever considered them after
finding a strong showing based on direct evidence alone. Indeed,
the Second Circuit noted that indirect evidence regarding the
efficiency of a market for a company's stock under the first four
Cammer factors is particularly valuable in situations where direct
evidence does not entirely resolve the question of market
efficiency.

The Cammer and Krogman factors are simply tools to help district
courts analyze market efficiency in determining whether the Basic
presumption of reliance applies in class certification decision-
making. But they are no more than tools in arriving at that
conclusion, and certain factors will be more helpful than others
in assessing particular securities and particular markets for
efficiency.

Whether Cammer 5 Was Required Here

This case is more similar to the situation in Petrobras, where
holders of ADS of Petrobras, a multinational oil and gas company
headquartered in Brazil that was once among the largest companies
in the world, whose shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange,
brought suit. Petrobras, 862 F.3d at 256.

In particular, the strong indirect evidence of an efficient
market, which showed that Barclays' ADS was actively traded in
high volumes, on the New York Stock Exchange, on over-the-counter
markets, and in the secondary market, and had heavy analyst
coverage as well as the evidence related to the other indirect
factors, tipped the balance in favor of the Plaintiffs on their
burden to demonstrate market efficiency. Under the circumstances
here, the district court was not required to reach a conclusion
concerning direct evidence of market efficiency.29 It therefore
acted within its discretion in finding an efficient market based
on the remaining seven factors.

Rebutting the Basic Presumption

The Second Circuit then turns to the Defendants' argument that the
district court erred by shifting the burden of persuasion, rather
than the burden of production, to rebut the Basic presumption.

The burden defendants face to rebut the Basic presumption is a
question of law that the circuit court review de novo.  Applying
that standard, the Second Circuit concludes that defendants must
rebut the Basic presumption by disproving reliance by a
preponderance of the evidence at the class certification stage.

A concurring opinion in Halliburton II by Justice Ginsburg and
joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor stated that the majority
recognized that it is incumbent upon the defendant to show the
absence of price impact.

This Supreme Court guidance indicates that defendants seeking to
rebut the Basic presumption must demonstrate a lack of price
impact by a preponderance of the evidence at the class
certification stage rather than merely meet a burden of
production.

First, the phrase any showing that severs the link aligns more
logically with imposing a burden of persuasion rather than a
burden of production. Halliburton II, 134 S. Ct. at 2408 The
Supreme Court has described the burden of production as being
satisfied when a litigant has come forward with evidence to
support its claim.

Second, the language chosen by the Court in Halliburton II
demonstrates that the Court understood the burden that shifts to
defendants as one of persuasion rather than production.

Third, the Second Circuit has explained that when the plaintiffs
have demonstrated that they are entitled to the Basic presumption
by showing that the alleged misrepresentation was material and
publicly transmitted into a well-developed market, plaintiffs do
not bear the burden of showing an impact on price.

The Defendants assert that because no federal statute or other
rule of evidence provides otherwise, the Second Circuit is
required to conclude that defendants bear only the burden of
producing evidence when they seek to rebut the Basic presumption.

The Second Circuit disagrees.

The Basic presumption was adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to
federal securities laws. Thus, there is a sufficient link to those
statutes to meet Rule 301's statutory element requirement.
In Halliburton II the Supreme Court stated that although the Basic
presumption is a judicially created doctrine designed to implement
a judicially created cause of action, the Second Circuit has
described the presumption as a substantive doctrine of federal
securities-fraud law. Rule 301 therefore imposes no impediment to
our conclusion that the burden of persuasion, not production, to
rebut the Basic presumption shifts to defendants.

Whether the Basic Presumption Was Rebutted Here

As the district court concluded, it is unsurprising that the price
of Barclays' ADS did not move in a statistically significant
manner on the dates that the purported misstatements regarding LX
and Liquidity Profiling were made; the Plaintiffs proceeded on a
price maintenance theory. That theory, which the Second Circuit
has previously accepted, recognizes that statements that merely
maintain inflation already extant in a company's stock price, but
do not add to that inflation, nonetheless affect a company's stock
price.

Thus, the district court was well within its discretion in
concluding that the lack of price movement on the dates of the
alleged misrepresentations does not rebut the Basic presumption.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
concluded that the Defendants had failed to rebut the Basic
presumption.

The Class-wide Damages Issue

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class-wide damages model
fails to comply with Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013).
They contend that the Plaintiffs' model fails to (1) disaggregate
damages that resulted from factors other than investor concern
about Barclays' integrity (namely, the New York Attorney General's
regulatory action and the potential fines associated with it), and
(2) account for variations in inflation in stock price over time.
The Second Circuit reviews the district court's decision to
certify the Plaintiffs' class in light of this challenge to their
class-wide damages model for abuse of discretion.

The Second Circuit finds no abuse of discretion here.

The Second Circuit is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument
that class certification was improper under Comcast because the
Plaintiffs' damages model failed to account for variations in
inflation over time. Comcast does not suggest that damage
calculations must be so precise at this juncture. To the contrary,
Comcast explicitly states that calculations need not be exact.
Thus, even accepting the Defendants' premises that inflation would
have varied during the class period in this case and that such
variation could not be accounted for, the Defendants' argument
fails.

Dr. Nye explained that damages for individual class members could
be calculated by applying a method across the entire class that
focused on the decline in stock price following the disclosure of
the New York Attorney General's lawsuit and then isolating
company-specific events from market and industry events. His model
also accounted for calculating the damages for individual class
members based on their investment history.

Therefore, the Second Circuit concludes that the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it certified the Plaintiffs'
class over the Defendants' damages-related objections.

To summarize, the Second Circuit holds that: (1) the Affiliated
Ute presumption does not apply in this case; (2) direct evidence
of price impact under Cammer 5 is not always necessary to
demonstrate market efficiency, and was not required in this case;
(3) defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption must do so
by a preponderance of the evidence, which the Defendants in this
case failed to do; and (4) the Plaintiffs' damages methodology
posed no obstacle to certification.

The Second Circuit therefore affirms the district court's order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybupstmmfrom Leagle.com.

JEREMY ALAN LIEBERMAN -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
New York, NY (Tamar Weinrib, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Patrick
V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Chicago,
IL, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

JEFFREY T. SCOTT -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, New York, NY (Matthew A. Schwartz --
schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- and Andrew H. Reynard --
reynarda@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY;
Brent J. McIntosh, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC, on the
brief), for Defendants-Appellants.

Max W. Berger -mwb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, New York, NY (Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com  -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, New York, NY; Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA; Robert
D. Klausner -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner, Kaufman,
Jensen & Levinson, Plantation, FL, on the brief), for the National
Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems as amicus curiae
in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Daniel P. Chiplock -- dchiplock@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, for the National Association of
Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys as amicus curiae in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Jeffrey W. Golan, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (James J.
Sabella --  jsabella@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New
York, NY, of counsel; Daniel S. Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Washington, DC, of counsel; James A. Feldman, Washington, DC, on
the brief), for Evidence Scholars as amicus curiae in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Robert V. Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA,
for Securities Law Professors as amicus curiae in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Charles E. Davidow, Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
Washington, DC (Marc Falcone & Robyn Tarnofsky, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Ira D. Hammerman
and Kevin M. Carroll, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, Washington, DC, on the brief), for the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association as amicus curiae in
support of Defendants-Appellants.

David S. Lesser -- david.lesser@wilmerhale.com -(Fraser L. Hunter,
Jr. -- fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com  -- Colin T. Reardon, John
Paredes, on the brief), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
New York, NY, for Paul S. Atkins, Elizabeth Cosenza.
Daniel M. Gallagher, Joseph A. Grundfest -- grundfest@standord.edu
-- Paul G. Mahoney, Richard W. Painter, and Andrew N. Vollmer as
amicus curiae in support of Defendants-Appellants.

Michael H. Park -- park@consovoymccarthy.com -- Consovoy McCarthy
Park PLLC, New York, NY (J. Michael Connolly --
mike@consovoymccarthy.com -- Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC,
Arlington, VA; Kate Comerford Todd and Warren Postman, U.S.
Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, DC, on the brief), for the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus
curiae in support of Defendants-Appellants.


BIG PHARMA: La Crosse Not Yet Ready to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Reynolds, writing for WIZM, reports that while more than two
dozen Wisconsin counties have lined up to sue pharmaceutical
companies, La Crosse will stay on the sidelines.  At least for
now.

County administrator Steve O'Malley says there's no decision yet
on whether to join the class-action suit against big pharma for
deceptive marketing of opioid prescription drugs.

Mr. O'Malley does, however, feel like the just filed federal suit
has some merit.

"Based on the stats that have been put together by the attorneys
that have been working on this, the proliferation of and
distribution of these kind of opioid pharmaceuticals have had a
devastating impact on our state, our nation and our county," he
said.

The federal suit, filed on Nov. 7, says "nefarious and deceptive"
marketing campaigns of the big drug companies have led to the
nation's current opioid crisis.

Twenty-eight counties are part of the suit.

"There's not a deadline for making this decision but it's
interesting that a vast majority of counties and their corporate
councils are evaluating how much time this will take by county
staff and what's the most likelihood of success," Mr. O'Malley
said.

Among the counties, according to O'Malley, that have not joined
the lawsuit are those most heavily impacted by the opioid crisis:
Milwaukee and Dane counties.

O'Malley also said having the state attorney general go after the
companies might not be great, either.

As for a better option?

"I really wish I had a great answer," Mr. O'Malley said.  "We're
evaluating whether or not we should join in the lawsuit and we
will make a recommendation to the county board in the coming
months."

The federal lawsuit seeks damages from drug companies for the
resources getting devoted to fighting the opioid drug crisis. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Lewis Legislators Decline to Join Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Virkler, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reports that
Lewis County legislators on Nov. 7 got a first look at the
tentative 2018 budget and handily voted down a proposal to join a
class-action lawsuit against the major manufacturers of opioid
drugs.

"Importantly, the tentative budget proposes zero cuts to services,
zero fee increases and remains under the state-imposed property
tax cap," County Manager Ryan M. Piche said in his first county
budget summary.

The tax levy, or amount to be raised by taxes, has been
tentatively set at $15,799,939, up $461,750 from this year's
$15,338,189; that's a 3 percent increase.

The county's full taxable value is projected to increase from
$2.12 billion to $2.15 billion.

So, the full-value tax rate would increase by 11 cents per $1,000
of assessed value, from $7.23 to $7.34; that's a 1.5 percent
increase.  A resident with a $100,000 home would see an increase
in county taxes from $723 to $734.

Spending in the proposed budget -- not counting Lewis County
General Hospital -- would rise by $891,756, from $53,877,027 to
$54,768,783; that's a 1.7 percent increase.

With health insurance premiums expected to be increased by 10
percent in January and July to bolster reserves in the county's
self-insurance fund, the county is budgeting for a more than
$700,000 increase in health care costs to $4.2 million.

"I am confident that we will work towards a solution in 2018, but
in the meantime, there is no denying the weight of health
insurance premiums on our budget," Mr. Piche wrote.  "Health
insurance cost increases are almost double the state-imposed tax
cap."

The county has done a good job of generating long-term savings
through employee attrition, dropping staff by 23 percent since
2008, the county manager added.  However, the 2018 budget would
slightly increase total positions from 292 to 308, he said.
Overall revenues are projected to increase by $426,490, from
$37,440,292 to $37,866,782.  That includes an increase in
projected sales tax revenue from $10,825,000 to $10,975,000.
The tentative spending plan would use $820,000 from the county's
general fund balance to lower taxes, the same as in the 2017
budget.  "Our goal remains to reduce overall fund balance use to
$500,000 or less by 2021 to account for the loss of windmill
revenue," Mr. Piche said.

To keep spending down in the 2018 budget, the contingency fund was
dropped from $870,000 in 2017 to $250,000.  "This will tighten
additional spending throughout the year, but we are confident that
$250,000 will be enough to cover regular county operations," Mr.
Piche wrote.

The county manager is also recommending legislators approve
$363,461 in one-time expenses to be paid from the 2017 year-end
surplus rather than in next year's budget.

They include $200,00 for the annual highway building capital
contribution, $78,000 for two Sheriff's Department cruisers,
$59,461 for Highway Department vehicle equipment and $26,000 for
two new voting machines.

Legislators are scheduled to hold a public hearing on the
tentative budget at 5 p.m. Nov. 16 in the second-floor legislative
chambers at the County Office Building on North State Street.  The
full document will be accessible at the county's website:
www.lewiscountyny.org.

Lawmakers by a 6-2 vote also opposed contracting with New York
City law firm Simmons, Hanly, Conroy P.C., to join planned legal
proceedings against manufacturers of prescription opiates, with
only Legislators Craig R. Brennan, R-Deer River, and Richard A.
Chartrand, D-Lowville, in favor. Legislator Lawrence L. Dolhof, R-
Lyons Falls, abstained, saying he wasn't convinced that drug
companies were the culprit; Legislator Roscoe K. "Rocky" Fawcett,
R-Lyonsdale, was absent.

The firm won't charge counties any money unless the lawsuit
results in a financial settlement from the companies.

"I think it's misplaced that we're going after drug companies,"
said Legislator Philip C. Hathway, R-Harrisville.

He suggested a more appropriate lawsuit target may be the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, since it approved and was to
regulate the pain medications.

Mr. Chartrand countered that drug companies should be culpable for
shipping out larger quantities of the medications to communities.
Mr. Brennan spoke against the companies' "very aggressive
marketing plan" without regard to possible negative consequences
and suggested a lawsuit would be "a wake-up call to the
pharmaceutical companies."

County attorney Joan E. McNichol also said it would be an
opportunity to ultimately recoup some costs associated with the
opioid epidemic to relieve local taxpayers.

However, Mr. Dolhof expressed concern that the legal action could
end up increasing prescription drug costs, and other legislators
suggested many groups, not just drug companies, should share
culpability with the epidemic.

The monthly meeting was held at the Harrisville fire hall to honor
Mr. Hathway, who is not running for re-election, for his service
on the board.  Before the meeting, legislators and other county
staff toured the Viking Cives snowplow plant. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Manatee County to Hire Firm for Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Morse, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that Manatee
County is considering hiring an outside law firm to potentially
sue opioid manufacturers and distributors, County Attorney Mickey
Mr. Palmer said on Nov. 7.

Mr. Palmer told commissioners he is choosing between two firms to
file either an individual or class action lawsuit.  He didn't
divulge the names of the drug companies in question, but said
Tampa-based Trenam Law and Napoli Shkolnik from New York are being
considered to represent the county.

Napoli Shkolnik has a page on its website dedicated to the opioid
epidemic, outlining how the drugs have surged, why they're
dangerous and who is responsible for an overdose death.

The opioid epidemic has affected Manatee County for several years
since illicit pain management clinics across Florida were shut
down, opening up a generation to feed their addictions with
heroin, fentanyl and carfentanil.  This led to an overwhelming
number of overdose deaths, crowding the medical examiner's office
-- in 2015, Manatee County had the state's highest per capita rate
of overdose deaths related to morphine, fentanyl and cocaine.

Firefighters and law enforcement have to be equipped with
naloxone, the opioid overdose antidote, and the cost to the county
continues to grow as sometimes multiple doses are required
depending on the potency of the drug.  Even pharmacies like CVS
and Walgreens began selling it.

Mr. Palmer said the county is focusing the potential lawsuit on
how opioids were marketed and said officials would be seeking to
"recover a wide range of costs."  This includes the increased need
for social programs, EMS response, drug court, naloxone, health
care services and the medical examiner's office.

"That's just really the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Palmer said.

While there isn't a set timeline on when the lawsuit would be
filed, Palmer said he will be bringing the matter before the
commissioners for approval by at least January.

Commissioner Carol Whitmore said she often checks in with what's
going on at the Manatee Memorial Hospital emergency room.  While
the number of overdoses has decreased there, she said, "we still
have a major problem and a long way to go."

"If this is one thing that can prevent more deaths, it's worth
looking at and then I'll make a decision," she said. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Shelby Commissioner Sued Over Control of Opioid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Poe, writing for Commercial Appeal, reports that Shelby
County Mayor Mark Luttrell's administration sued Board of
Commissioners chairwoman Heidi Shafer on Nov. 6 in Chancery Court,
challenging her decision to hire a law firm to sue pharmaceutical
companies over the county's opioid crisis.

In a news conference on Nov. 7, Mayor Luttrell said he was "irked"
by Shafer's decision to hire New York-based Napoli Shkolnik, the
law firm known for winning a huge class-action settlement for sick
Ground Zero workers, among others.  He repeatedly emphasized that
her action was "unilateral," without input from the full
commission or administration, and claimed she violated the county
charter by usurping executive branch authority.

"The biggest foul, I think, is on our ability to aggressively move
forward and address this from a consolidated standpoint," Luttrell
said.

However, Ms. Shafer maintained on Nov. 7 that she has the
authority under the charter to hire the attorneys, and especially
during an emergency situation where a delay in filing a lawsuit
could conceivably affect the size of whatever payout the county
receives.

Ms. Shafer shrugged off the administration's lawsuit on
Nov. 7 as "insider, political, sausage-making" while at the same
time saying it was an attempt to bully her in order to shield Big
Pharma from taking responsibility for its role in giving Tennessee
the second highest rate of opioid prescriptions in the nation,
with more prescriptions than residents.

"I'm going to try to say this the nicest way I can," said
Ms. Shafer, who laughed on Nov. 7 when asked about the lawsuit.
"I think it's a desperate attempt to protect a web of industries
that are contributing to the addiction and deaths of an
unconscionable amount of people in Tennessee."

Asked if she had evidence Luttrell was attempting to protect
pharmaceutical industries, she said no. "The net effect of what
he's doing seems to be protecting those industries."

The administration is currently vetting a number of law firms for
a potential lawsuit, including Napoli, but Luttrell said the
county attorney is still crafting a legal strategy.  The county is
considering a number of strategies, including filing its own
lawsuit, allying with the state in a lawsuit, and mediation.  The
county also has yet to decide whether to limit the scope of any
legal action to pharmaceutical manufacturers or distributors.

"I think this will certainly impede us," Ms. Luttrell said of the
controversy's effect on planning.

Ms. Shafer could also face a challenge from some of her
colleagues, not all of whom are sympathetic to her cause, during
committee meetings.  Mayor Luttrell said he could veto any
commission resolution violating the charter -- a move requiring
eight of the 13 votes on the commission to overturn.

"It's kind of messy, isn't it? Kind of confusing?" Mayor Luttrell
said.  "And that's the point: It's messy and confusing."

Both Mayor Luttrell and Ms. Shafer called the dispute a
"distraction" from the tragedy of opioid abuse, but both also
vowed Nov. 7 to hash out the disagreement in court.

The administration has retained outside counsel for the lawsuit
and the commission could potentially do the same, but
Mayor Luttrell said he didn't know how much the lawsuit could cost
taxpayers. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Oktibbeha County Mulls Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Alex Holloway, writing for The Dispatch, reports that Oktibbeha
County supervisors decided to wait before joining the county with
a class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers.

Rayford Chambers, an attorney with Jackson-based Chambers and
Gaylor Law Firm, LLC, approached supervisors during the Nov. 6
meeting to ask if the county would join the class action suit his
firm is pursuing.

Mr. Chambers said the opioid epidemic has placed a great strain on
entities such as law enforcement, education institutions and
health care providers.

"We seek to pursue a claim to make manufacturers pay for that,"
Mr. Chambers said.  "It's not a case against any doctors or
hospitals or medical providers. It's strictly against medicine
(manufacturers)."

Opioids are a class of drug with the primary purpose of reducing
pain.  Legal opioids can be prescribed by medical providers and
include drugs such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine and
fentanyl.  Illegal opioids include drugs like heroin and variants
of fentanyl and other synthetic substances.

According to the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, 32,532
prescriptions for opioids were written in Oktibbeha County in
2016. With the county's population at 49,833, that works out to
0.65 prescriptions per person -- the lowest rate in the Golden
Triangle.

Finer details of the proposed lawsuit were not immediately
available on Nov. 6 and The Dispatch couldn't reach Mr. Chambers
for more information by press time.  However, he said the county
would have to describe opioids a public nuisance to move forward
with a lawsuit.

At a question from District 4 Supervisor Bricklee Miller,
Mr. Chambers said about 10 counties in Mississippi have agreed to
the lawsuit, and said he could provide supervisors with a list of
which counties.  He said "hundreds" of counties nationwide are
seeking action against opioid manufacturers.

Mr. Chambers said his firm had representatives in Adams and
Jackson counties on Nov. 6 making the same request.

Counties and cities have sued opioid manufacturers, Mr. Chambers
said, with Birmingham, Alabama, being the largest city to do so
thus far.

Supervisors may consider the suit again at the board's next
meeting, which is set for Nov. 14.

District 3 Supervisor Marvell Howard said he wants to hear from
board attorney Jack Brown before he decides what to do.

"I would like to hear what our attorney has to say before taking
any action," Mr. Howard said. [GN]


BOB EVANS FARMS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Post Holdings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Douglas
N. Benham, Charles M. Elson, Mary Kay Haben, David W. Head,
Kathleen S. Lane, Eileen A. Mallesch, Larry S. McWilliams, Kevin
M. Sheehan, J. Michael Townsley, Michael F. Weinstein, Paul S.
Williams, Post Holdings, Inc. and Haystack Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00961, (S.D. Ohio, October 31, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Bob Evans Farms, Inc. by Post Holdings, Inc.,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger.

The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for 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, shareholders of Bob
Evans will receive $77.00 per share in cash for each share of Bob
Evans common stock.

The complaint says Defendants have agreed to a "no solicitation"
provision that prohibits the solicitation of alternative proposals
and severely constrains their ability to communicate and negotiate
with potential buyers who wish to submit a better offer.
Plaintiff also claims that the intrinsic value of the company is
materially in excess of the amount offered since the analyses
performed by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC yielded per share values
as high as $94.25.

Bob Evans is a leading producer and distributor of refrigerated
potato, pasta, and vegetable-based side dishes, pork sausage, and
a variety of refrigerated and frozen convenience food items under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800

            - and -

      John C. Camillus, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
      P.O. Box 141410
      Columbus, OH 43214
      Tel: (614) 558-7254
      Fax: (614) 559-6731
      Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Cabral" Suit Alleges ITFA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Cabral, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02841 (D. Nev., November 10, 2017), seeks damages
and restitution for Defendants' violations of the Internet Tax
Freedom Act.

The Plaintiffs alleged that despite the ITFA's prohibition on the
taxation of Internet access, Defendants improperly and illegally
charged their overnight guests the Clark County Combined Transient
Lodging Tax on the entire Resort Fee, including the portion of the
Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access.

All Plaintiffs stayed at the Defendants' hotel and were charged
the taxation of internet access.

Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation and its subsidiaries
operate the LINQ Hotel and Casino resort, Caesars Palace Resort,
Harrah's Casino Hotel Las Vegas Resort, Flamingo Las Vegas Resort,
Harrah's Casino Hotel Las Vegas resort, Bally's Las Vegas resort,
Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino resort, Rio All-Suite Hotel &
Casino resort, and Caesars Palace resort and others. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      Bradley Schrager, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
      SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
      Tel: (702) 341-5200
      Fax: (702) 341-5300
      E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
              bschrager@wrslawyers.com

          - and -

      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net

          - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Blvd., Ste. 300
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Tel: (855) 467-0451
      Fax: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: "Viguers" Suit Hits Denied Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Viguers and George Garcia, Jr., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California
Physicians' Service and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC682172 (Cal. Super., November 7, 2017), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, special, general and punitive damages, costs
of suit and attorneys' fees for violation of the Unfair
Competition Law under the California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 as well as for breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing.

California Physicians' Service operates under the name Blue Shield
of California which is a health care service plan licensed by the
Department of Managed Health Care and subject to the relevant
provisions of the Health and Safety Code.

Viguers underwent a below the knee amputation of his left leg
following an automobile accident in 2011. His prosthetist sought
authorization from Blue Shield for a microprocessor-controlled
foot prosthesis. On December 5, 2016, Blue Shield denied coverage.

Garcia underwent a right transfemoral amputation on November 21,
2009, due to injuries received in an automobile accident. Blue
Shield, however, agreed to pay only approximately 37% of the usual
and customary charges of the prosthetist's fee. Garcia was force
to pay approximately $18,000.00 out of pocket for the new
prosthetic device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
      Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
      Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
      GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 489-1600
      Fax: (213) 489-1611

             - and -

      Conal Doyle, Esq.
      Stephen Beke, Esq.
      DOYLE LAW
      9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 608
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 385-0567
      Fax (310) 943-1780


CALPINE CORP: "Langston" Suit Challenges Energy Capital Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Langston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Calpine Corporation, Frank
Cassidy, Thad Hill, Laurie Brlas, Jack A. Fusco, Michael W.
Hofmann, David C. Merritt, W. Benjamin Moreland, Robert A.
Mosbacher Jr. and Denise M. O'Leary, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
03316, (S.D. Tex., October 31, 2017), seeks to enjoining
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the merger of Calpine
Corporation with Energy Capital Partners and Volt Merger Sub,
Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.

The suit further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Holders of Calpine common stock will receive $15.25 per share in
cash. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $5.6
billion. Plaintiff claims that the Merger Consideration is
insufficient and undervalues the Company since the company's stock
price closed at $16.00 per share during the 52-week period ending
May 9, 2017.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, critical to making
their decision on the said merger. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77019
      Tel: (713) 438-5244
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: jchambers@wolfpopper.com

             - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             rplosky@wolfpopper.com


CASH DEPOT: Court Narrows Claims in Technician's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned TIMOTHY J. FAST, Plaintiff, v. CASH DEPOT LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-C-1637 (E.D. Wis.).

Cash Depot, Ltd., is a Wisconsin company that sells, leases,
rents, installs, ships, and services Automated Teller Machines
(ATMs).  Plaintiff Timothy Fast was employed by Cash Depot as a
Field Service Technician for a little over a year. Fast brought
this collective action against his former employer on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated current and former non-
exempt Field Service Technicians employed by Cash Depot, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Relatively early in the case, Cash Depot reached the conclusion
that it had been underpaying its employees based upon a wage audit
conducted by its accountant. Cash Depot then issued payroll checks
for the underpayment calculated by its accountants to its current
and former employees. The court approved the parties' stipulation
staying all proceedings for sixty days to allow Fast's counsel to
review Cash Depot's calculations regarding the amounts owed to
Fast. Counsel for Fast disputes Cash Depot's calculation of his
client's underpayment, but refuses to tell Cash Depot what he
believes the correct amount is or how he arrived at it.

Cash Depot's counsel mailed a check in the amount of $13,333.35 to
Fast's counsel, which represented payment by Cash Depot of the
attorneys' fees and costs disclosed in Fast's discovery responses.
The following day, Cash Depot filed the instant motion to dismiss
on the ground that Fast has been paid in full and his claim is now
moot. Alternatively, Cash Depot filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking a determination that it owes Fast the sum of
$380.76, plus his costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Fast
denies that the case is moot, noting that although the checks from
Cash Depot remain in his attorney's possession, neither Fast nor
his counsel have deposited the checks or indicated any acceptance
of the funds. Fast also contends that Cash Depot's motion for
summary judgment is premature and inappropriate.

Fast argues that the case is not moot because: (1) neither he, nor
his attorney, has deposited or cashed the check that Cash Depot
mailed to his attorney; (2) the additional relief requested in his
complaint, including conditional certification of the collective,
appointment of his attorneys as collective counsel, and full
payment of wages due, liquidated damages and pre-judgment
interest, has not been granted; and (3) Cash Depot's calculation
of the overtime pay due Fast and other employees is incorrect.
Only the first of these reasons has support in the law and facts
of the case.

This case presents the important question of whether an employer
accused of violating the FLSA in calculating the wages due its
employees is required to incur the substantial costs and
attorneys' fees of a collective or class action even when it
acknowledges the violations and promptly attempts to remedy them.

Cash Depot has cured its prior FLSA violations by paying what it
owed its current and former employees, this case should promptly
resolve with little additional expense to either party. Courts
should not countenance meaningless class actions, or collective
actions, that benefit no one but the attorneys.  Federal courts
have both statutory and inherent powers to sanction, deny
recovery, or shift fees to address unreasonable and vexatious
conduct that unnecessarily multiplies proceedings or delays or
increases costs.

For these reasons, these are the tools that must be used to
protect truly repentant defendants who are willing to make full
restitution for FLSA violations from abusive lawsuits. Forced
settlements, as the law now stands, are not an option.

Accordingly, Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment is granted
in part and denied in part. Cash Depot's motion for summary
judgment is granted to the extent that Cash Depot correctly
calculated that it owes Fast the sum of $380.76 in unpaid overtime
plus his costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Cash Depot's motion
to dismiss the case as moot is denied. Fast's motion for leave to
file a surreply is granted. Cash Depot's motion to lift the stay
is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Decision
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya4zykxzfrom
Leagle.com.

Timothy J Fast, Plaintiff, represented by Scott S. Luzi --
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC.

Timothy J Fast, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Walcheske --
jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC.

Cash Depot Ltd, Defendant, represented by George Burnett, Law Firm
of Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC & Jodi Arndt Labs, Law Firm of
Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC. 231 South Adams Street, P.O. Box
3200, Green Bay, WI 54301


CDK GLOBAL: Hartley Files Suit Over Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------
Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CDK Global, LLC; and The
Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07827,
(N.D. Ill., October 31, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief
and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act and New York General
Business Laws and from unjust enrichment.

Defendants are alleged of allocating market share, reducing
competition, and fixing, raising and maintaining and/or
stabilizing prices in the market for the provision of data
management systems to retail automotive dealerships.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing data management
systems services to the auto-dealer industry.

Hartley operates a Buick/GMC dealership located at 1505 Washington
Street, Jamestown, NY 14701, in Chautauqua County.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary L. Specks, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      423 Sumac Road
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Telephone: (847) 831-1585
      Facsimile: (847) 831-1580
      Email: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Daniel Cohen, Esq.
      Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
      Yifei Li, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             joel@cuneolaw.com
             danielc@cuneolaw.com
             vicky@cuneolaw.com
             evelyn@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
     RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
     111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
     Jamestown, NY 14701
     Tel: (716) 664.2967
     Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com


COOK COUNTY: "Howard" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Sdahrie Howard, Denise Hobbs, and Ellenor Altman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cook County
Sheriff's Office, and Thomas P. Dart, Case No. 1:17-cv-08146 (N.D.
Ill., November 10, 2017), seeks to remedy sex discrimination in
employment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Illinois Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of
the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs Sdahrie Howard, Ellenor Altman, and Denise Hobbs are
female correctional officers employed by the Sheriff's Office.

Defendant Cook County Sheriff's Office is a unit of local
government, organized under 55 ILCS 5/3-6001-6036, and has at all
times relevant to this complaint been the "employer" of
correctional officers at the Cook County Jail, for purposes of
Title VII.

Defendant Thomas J. Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, with
responsibility and authority for running the Jail, including for
promulgating rules, regulations, policies, and procedures
governing both the conduct of detainees at the Jail and the
training and protection of staff employed by the Jail. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Marni Willenson, Esq.
      Samantha Kronk, Esq.
      WILLENSON LAW, LLC
      542 S. Dearborn St. Suite 610
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Tel: (312) 508-5380
      E-mail:  marni@willensonlaw.com
               skronk@willensonlaw.com

          - and -

      Joshua Karsh, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
      RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      70 W. Madison St. Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 6060
      Tel: (312) 604-2630
      E-mail: jkarsh@hsplegal.com


DECKS ON A BUDGET: "Black" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lester Black, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Christopher Roth and Kelly Roth, and dba Decks on a Budget,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00311 (E.D. Tenn., November 9, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Lester Black is a resident in Hamilton County, Tennessee
and worked as a foreman and deck builder for Defendants since
September 2016.

The Defendants own and operate a deck construction company in
Hamilton County, Tennessee [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
      BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
      711 Cherry Street
      Chattanooga, TN  37402
      Tel: (423) 266-2121
      Fax: (423) 266-3324
      E-mail: dmikel@bdplawfirm.com


DIAMOND RESORTS: "Jocson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Neri Jocson and Fe Jocson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Diamond Resorts International Club,
Inc., dba Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC dba
Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc., Barclays Bank Delaware
dba Barclaycard and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:17-cv-08214
(C.D. Calif., November 10, 2017), seeks damages for Defendants'
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and
the Truth in Lending Act.

Plaintiffs Neri Jocson and Fe Jocson are residents of California
and are consumers.

Defendant Diamond Resorts International Club, Inc. dba Diamond
Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC dba Diamond Resorts
Financial Services, Inc. is a "creditor" with principal place of
business is in the state of Nevada. Defendant Diamond Resorts
International sells timeshare contracts.   [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
      8032 West Third Street, Suite 201
      Los Angeles, CA 90048
      Tel: (323) 937-0400
      Fax: (866) 288-9194


DOLLAR TREE: Averts California Pay Stub Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal jury on Nov. 7 found that Dollar Tree's practice of
providing pay stubs on cash register receipts for a class of 5,400
retail employees didn't violate a state law requiring that
employers provide accessible wage statements.

The jury found that Dollar Tree Stores Inc. provided workers with
easy access to their electronic wage statements, ending an inquiry
over whether any failure to provide easy access was intentional or
caused any injuries.

The trial kicked off on Nov. 2 over whether Dollar Tree failed to
provide easily accessible pay stubs to a class of about 5,400
California workers who received pay via direct deposit or pay
cards.

Joshua Boxer of Matern Law Group, who represents the plaintiffs,
told Law360 they were disappointed by the verdict.

"We will consider our options and keep moving forward," he said.

An attorney for Dollar Tree didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The suit, brought by named plaintiff Francisca Guillen, claimed
that instead of getting a paper statement or having an online
portal, workers who want their direct deposit wage statements have
to print them off of the cash registers at the stores.

Meanwhile, corporate workers have access to wage statement
information via a company website, Ms. Guillen's counsel argued at
trial.

Dollar Tree contended that its register stub system was designed
to be convenient and free for store associates, who may not have
access to the internet or a printer at home to get wage
statements.  The register statements didn't exclude any lawfully
required information, Dollar Tree said, and employees were also
permitted to call a company phone number to receive a paper
statement in the mail.

In February, Judge Michael Fitzgerald certified the class over the
wage statement claim that covers anyone who worked at retail
stores in California at any time on or after April 2, 2014, who
received their wages via direct deposit or a type of pay card, and
hadn't entered into an arbitration agreement with Dollar Tree.

Dollar Tree, a publicly traded company, operates more than 14,500
stores in North America and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia. It has more than 500 stores in California, according to
the company's counsel.

The plaintiffs and the class are represented by Matthew J. Matern,
Mikael H. Stahle and Joshua D. Boxer of Matern Law Group PC.

Dollar Tree Stores Inc. is represented by Elena R. Baca --
elenabaca@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP and Lindbergh
Porter -- lporter@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Guillen v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03813 (C.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald.  The case was filed May 20, 2015. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: AG Proposes Tighter Data Security Laws After Hack
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Velasquez, writing for Law.com, reports that following on
the Equifax Inc. breach that compromised personal information of
145.5 million Americans including more than 8 million
New Yorkers, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is proposing
comprehensive legislation to tighten data security laws and expand
protections.

The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act,
introduced in the Legislature, would require companies that handle
New Yorkers' sensitive data to adopt "reasonable administrative,
technical and physical protections for data" regardless of where
the company is headquartered,
Mr. Schneiderman's office said in a news release on Nov. 2.  It
would cover credit reporting agencies such as Equifax as well as
many other types of companies that collect personally identifiable
information on individuals.

The Attorney General's Office said it received a record 1,300 data
breach notifications in 2016, a 60 percent increase over the
previous year.

Business officials, speaking on background, said they wondered how
such a proposal would be enforced considering the proposal extends
to entities operating outside the state.  The bill would apply the
notice requirement to anyone holding private information of New
Yorkers, a change from the current requirement that they "conduct
business" in the state.

Under the legislation, reporting requirement triggers would
include username and password combinations, biometric data and
health data covered by the federal Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996.  Current New York state law
requires that companies meet data security requirements only if
the identifiable information contains a Social Security number,
according to the Attorney General's Office.

"It's clear that New York's data security laws are weak and
outdated.  The SHIELD Act would help ensure these hacks never
happen in the first place.  It's time for Albany to act, so that
no more New Yorkers are needlessly victimized by weak data
security measures and criminal hackers who are constantly on the
prowl," Mr. Schneiderman said in the release.

Mr. Schneiderman's program bill, introduced by state Sen. David
Carlucci and Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, both Democrats who lead
their respective chambers' consumer protection bureaus, would
allow the Attorney General's Office to seek civil penalties and
injunctions if companies  don't provide adequate security for
their data.

The civil penalty would be $5,000 for each violation or up to $20
per instance of failed notification, provided that the latter's
aggregate amount doesn't exceed $250,000.  The legislation would
also require that companies who handle sensitive user data to
provide consumers with broader information when a data breach is
attempted or occurs, Mr. Schneiderman's office said.

The legislation provides flexibility for small businesses with
fewer than 50 employees, who have gross revenue under $3 million
for the last three fiscal years or less than $5 million in year-
end total assets.  According to the legislation, small businesses
would be deemed compliant if they "implement and maintain
reasonable safeguards that are appropriate to the size and
complexity of the small business to protect the security,
confidentiality and integrity of the private information."

Also under the bill, companies that obtain independent
certification that their data security measures meet the highest
standard would receive safe harbor from state enforcement action.

David Zetoony, leader of Bryan Cave's global data privacy and
security practice, praised the provision in the AG's news release,
saying it is "providing a safe harbor for companies that go above-
and-beyond to certify good data security is innovative, unique and
friendly to business".

The Business Council of New York State Inc., an association of
more than 2,400 private sector employers, is still in discussion
with Schneiderman's office over the legislation, a spokesman for
the organization told the New York Law Journal.

"Businesses are not the bad actors in the scenario," said
spokesman Zack Hutchins. "They're interested in securing their
customer data."

The legislation comes roughly two months after the massive breach
of the major consumer credit reporting agency Equifax.
Mr. Schneiderman's office opened up an investigation into Equifax
in September.  The state's Department of Financial Services, which
regulates the banking insurance and other financial institutions,
is also investigating the Equifax breach.

Following the Equifax breach, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed
new regulations that would subject consumer credit reporting
agencies to the same groundbreaking cybersecurity rules that the
state recently enacted for bank and insurance companies.  Under
the proposed rules, credit reporting agencies such as Equifax,
TransUnion and Experian would have to register with the state
Department of Financial Services beginning in February and every
year thereafter. Credit reporting agencies, under Cuomo's
proposal, would have to have state-approved cybersecurity plans.

A spokeswoman for the Consumer Data Industry Association, the
trade group representing credit reporting agencies, said in an
email that the organization is reviewing Mr. Schneiderman's
proposal.  In a hearing before a state Senate panel, Eric Ellman,
the senior vice president of public policy and legal affairs at
the Consumer Data Industry Association, based in Washington, D.C.,
said further laws weren't necessary and lawmakers should be
focusing on mitigating cybersecurity threats.

Separately, on Nov. 1, the AG's office announced a $700,000
settlement with Hilton Domestic Operating Co. Inc., formerly known
as Hilton Worldwide Inc., after 350,000 credit card numbers were
exposed in two separate breaches in 2015.


EQUIFAX INC: Executives Cleared of Stock Sales Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
ALM reports that the four executives who sold stocks just days
after Equifax Inc.'s security department observed suspicious
activity have been cleared by a special committee tasked with
looking at various aspects of the breach.  The execs in question
did not have knowledge of the security incident and "received
clearance from the appropriate Legal Department personnel prior to
trading," according to the report from the special committee.

Questions about the timing of these sales often focus on the
company's chief legal officer, John Kelley III, who along with
being in charge of company cybersecurity is responsible for
approving share sales by Equifax executives.  But per the report,
Kelley, who did not immediately respond to request for comment for
this article, followed company policies with respect to these
stock sales and had no reason to believe the execs in question had
knowledge of the data security incident.

In September, the same month the cybersecurity incident was
announced, Equifax's board formed the special committee of
independent directors to look at the company's response to the
breach that has affected some 145 million U.S. consumers to
company policies and the stock sales, among other issues.
The focus for the report, released Nov. 3, was on the securities
trading.  Given his roles within the company, it comes as no
surprise that Mr. Kelley has been a point of focus with respect to
the breach.  In multiple hearings before Congress in October,
former Equifax CEO Richard Smith was pressed, in part, about the
timing of the stock sales and Kelley's decision to approve the
transactions.  Mr. Smith testified that he believed Kelley was
notified about suspicious activity on July 31.  On the same day
and on Aug. 1, Mr. Kelley approved stock sales totaling roughly
$1.8 million from CFO John Gamble, president of U.S. information
solutions Joseph Loughran and president of workforce solutions
Rodolfo Ploder.  The Nov. 3 announcement noted that Douglas
Brandberg, senior vice president of investor relations, received
pre-clearance to sell Equifax securities on Aug. 1.  All trades
were executed on Aug. 1 and Aug. 2. But after looking through more
than 55,000 documents -- including emails, text messages and other
records -- the special committee determined that "none of the four
executives had knowledge of the incident when their trades were
made, that preclearance for the four trades was appropriately
obtained, that each of the four trades at issue comported with
Company policy, and that none of the four executives engaged in
insider trading."

As part of this review, the special committee examined "all
Equifax emails, texts, voicemails, calendars, and other electronic
documents for the period of July 29 through August 2" from those
in the legal department most involved in the security
investigation and/or the preclearance of the trades in question.
In person or telephone interviews were also conducted of those who
potentially knew about the investigation of the data security
incident on or before the trades were made, which would likely
include Kelley.  Per the report, Equifax policy stipulates that
directors and certain senior officers may only trade Equifax
securities in specified trade windows and must receive
preclearance from Kelley or his designee.  Each of the four execs
sent an email to the legal department requesting preclearance
between July 28 and Aug. 1.  In one case, greater specificity was
requested from the legal department related to the number of types
of shares to be sold, but ultimately, all received the required
preclearance.

"Based on its review, the Committee has concluded that neither
Equifax's Chief Legal Officer nor his designated preclearance
officer had reason to believe that Messrs Gamble, Loughran,
Ploder, or Brandberg had knowledge of the security incident's
existence as of the date of their preclearance requests or the
date of their trades," according to the report.  "Accordingly, the
Special Committee has concluded that the preclearance
authorization obtained by [these four executives] was within the
authority permitted under the policy."

The report also revealed that on Aug. 15, Equifax's legal
department imposed a trading blackout on all company personnel
"identified as aware of the breach as of that date."  This may not
be the end of the questioning for Kelley and Equifax around the
stock sales, though, as the U.S. Department of Justice has
reportedly opened a criminal investigation into whether the
executives' actions amounted to insider trading.


EQUIFAX INC: Intends to Fight Data Breach Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for National Law Journal, reports that
appearing before Congress last month, former Equifax Inc. CEO
Richard Smith apologized to consumers over a data breach that
potentially compromised the personal information of nearly half
the U.S. adult population.

A month later, the Atlanta-based credit reporting bureau is
showing less contrition as it confronts a rising wave of class
actions alleging harm to consumers and financial institutions.

"We dispute the allegations in the complaints described above and
intend to defend against such claims," Equifax said in a
regulatory filing on Nov. 9.

Here's a look, by the numbers, at where things stand for Equifax
in the fallout over one of the largest data breaches in U.S.
history.

$87.5 million
That's the total so far of expenses stemming from the data breach,
according to Equifax's filing at the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

240
Consumers have filed more than 240 class actions in federal, state
and Canadian courts over the breach, which exposed personal
information -- including names, Social Security numbers and birth
dates -- of at least 145 million Americans.  Financial
institutions have brought other class actions claiming their
businesses have been "placed at risk," according to the
disclosure. Other lawsuits allege securities laws violations
related to the company's past statements about cybersecurity.

50
The state attorneys general in all 50 states, along with the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, are involved in ongoing
investigations.  According to the disclosure, state enforcers are
investigating "or otherwise seeking information" about the breach.

One attorney general has been particularly aggressive.  In
September, within weeks of the public disclosure of the breach,
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey brought the first
enforcement action over what her office described "the company's
failure to protect sensitive and personal information of nearly
three million Massachusetts residents."

4
Equifax's latest disclosure identified four federal offices that
are conducting investigations: the Federal Trade Commission,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta, where the
company -- and its lawyers at King & Spalding -- are based.

In a rare move, the FTC confirmed in September it was
investigating the data breach. But, as The National Law Journal
first reported, it is conducting that probe without the interim
chief of the office leading the investigation. Thomas Pahl, named
acting head of the bureau of consumer protection in February, has
recused himself from the investigation because he represented
Equifax when he was a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory in
Washington.  A deputy, longtime FTC lawyer Daniel Kaufman, is
overseeing the probe.

The CFPB said in September that it was "looking into the data
breach and Equifax's response" and defended its authority over the
credit reporting industry.  In recent years, the CFPB has
identified Equifax as among the top targets of consumer
complaints.  Since 2012, consumers have filed more than 57,000
complaints against Equifax, for an average of 31 per day,
according to a Fast Company review of the CFPB's complaint
database.

Meanwhile, the SEC and U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta have been
scrutinizing stock sales by Equifax executives in the days after
the company learned of the breach, but weeks before the public
disclosure.

Equifax said it has received subpoenas "regarding trading
activities by certain of our employees in relation to the
cybersecurity incident."  Mr. Smith testified the executives were
unaware of the breach when they made the sales, and the company
said an internal investigation uncovered no evidence of
wrongdoing.

2
In New York, two agencies -- the state Department of Financial
Services and State Department's division of consumer protection
-- have both entered the mix.  At the local level, two cities --
Chicago and San Francisco -- have filed lawsuits "alleging
violations of state laws and local ordinances governing protection
of personal data, consumer fraud and breach notice requirements
and business practices," according to Equifax.

And internationally, two countries -- the United Kingdom and
Canada -- have launched investigations, with the U.K.'s Financial
Conduct Authority focused on the company's subsidiary in the
country, Equifax Ltd.

Indefinite
"It is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of
possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements, penalties or other resolution of the above described
proceedings and investigations based on the early stage of these
proceedings and investigations, that alleged damages have not been
specified, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or
classes and the size of any certified class, as applicable, and
the lack of resolution on significant factual and legal issues,"
Equifax said.


EQUIFAX INC: "Cole" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Shirley M. Cole and Sandra Barrett, in behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax
Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00223, (D.
Vt., November 13, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory
damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of out-of-
pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit monitoring
services with accompanying identity theft insurance and injunctive
relief including an order requiring Equifax to improve its data
security pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Vermont Consumer Protection Act.

Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers. The companies are supplied with
data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history.

Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information
concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      Richard Windish, Esq.
      HAYES, WINDISH & BADGEWICK
      45 Pleasant St.
      Woodstock VT 05091
      Telephone: (802) 457-2123
      Facsimile: (802) 457-3656
      Email: rwindish@woodstockvtlaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 434-7001
      Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


ETISON LLC: "Schleifer" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Schleifer, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Etison LLC dba ClickFunnels, Case No. 7:17-
cv-08792 (S.D. N.Y., November 12, 2017), seeks injunction and
statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Joshua Schleifer is a resident of Bronx, New York.

Defendant Etison is a limited liability corporation specializing
in internet marketing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL: "Betancourt" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Betancourt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Fortune International Realty, Inc., Case No.  1:17-cv-
24123 (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Jenny Betancourt is a former salesperson of the
Defendant.

Defendant Fortune is an international real estate sales company
with operations throughout the United States, South America and
Europe. During the relevant time period, Fortune has employed
hundreds of individuals throughout the as salespersons, including
Plaintiffs.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Wadsworth, Esq.
      WADSWORTH LAW, LLLP
      14 Northeast First Avenue, 10th Floor
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 777-1000
      Fax: (786) 777-1001
      E-mail: cw@wadsworth-law.com


GREAT AMERICAN: "Goertzen" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order approving Class
Settlement, directing Issuance of Notice to the Class and Setting
Fairness Hearing in the case captioned JOYCE GOERTZEN, an
individual, individually and on behalf of herself all similarly-
situated persons, by and through her power of attorney BEVERLY
KRAUS, Plaintiff, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
DOES 1-50 Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00240-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of
California's Business and Professions Code and California's Elder
Abuse statute Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code.  The Complaint
alleges that Great American did not properly disclose the
surrender charges on the face page of certain contracts issued in
California to persons aged 60 or older.

The proposed Settlement resulted from an arm's-length mediation
session before the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) and was
concluded only after Plaintiff and Great American conducted their
own investigations and evaluation of the factual and legal issues
raised by Plaintiff's claims and Great American's defenses.

The Court finds for settlement purposes that:

   (a) the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied
because the proposed settlement Class, comprised of more than
4,000 class members, satisfies the requirement that a class be
sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

   (b) the commonality requirement of rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied
because the Great American products owned by the various Class
Members all have the same language on their cover pages;

   (c) the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied
because the Great American product issued to Plaintiff was similar
to those issued to the other members of the Class;

   (d) the adequacy requirement of rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied
because (i) Class Counsel is qualified and competent to prosecute
the Action vigorously, (ii) Plaintiff's interests are not
antagonistic to the interests of the Class, and (iii) Class
Counsel and Plaintiff have fairly and adequately protected the
interests of the Class; and

   (e) in the context of settlement, common questions predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and class
resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Court has determined that mailing the Class Notice to the last
known addresses of the Class Members:

   (a) constitutes the best practicable notice under the
circumstances;

   (b) is reasonably calculated to apprise Class Members of the
pendency of the Action and of their right to object to or exclude
themselves from the proposed Settlement;

   (c) is reasonable and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient
notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and

   (d) meets all applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and its
Amendments.

Accordingly, the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted.

The Court appoints Evans Law Firm, Inc. as Class Counsel.

A hearing (Fairness Hearing) will be held on March 27, 2018, at
2:00PM before the undersigned in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.

Class or Class Member or Class Members means and includes my
current or most recent Owner (or joint Owners) of an Annuity,
according to Great American's policy administration system as of
the Eligibility Date, who has not made a valid request for
exclusion from this Settlement. Class, Class Member, and Class
Members" do not include an Owner of a particular Annuity who (a)
is or was a member of the Board of Directors, or an officer,
shareholder or employee, of Great American; (b) is an affiliate,
legal representative, attorney, successor, or assign of Great
American; (c) is a judge, justice, or judicial official presiding
over the Action or is with the staff or immediate family of such
judge, justice or official; or (d) is a person or entity hired to
administer the terms of the Settlement. Any reference to Class or
Class Member or Class Members with respect to a date before the
Effective Date shall refer to those persons or trustees who would
be Class Members if such date were the Effective Date.

Class Representative means Joyce Goertzen.

Subject to Court approval, Great American agrees to pay Plaintiff
no more than $20,000 as a service award for participation as a
Class Representative in the Action. Great American will pay the
service award approved by the Court in addition to any benefits
that Plaintiff is entitled to receive under this Agreement as a
Class Member. Great American will pay any service award within 10
days of the Effective Date. Class Counsel agrees not to seek a
service award for the Class Representative that exceeds $20,000 in
the aggregate.

Class Counsel agrees not to seek or accept an award of attorneys'
fees and costs in excess of, or in addition to, $370,513.69 in
attorneys' fees and $20,000 for reimbursement of their expenses
and costs as the Class Counsel Payment. Great American agrees not
to oppose any request by Class Counsel for a Class Counsel Payment
of up to $336,831.00 in fees and $20,000 in costs, either in this
Action or on appeal; however, Great American shall have no
obligation to join in Class Counsel's request or in any related
submissions. In the event that Class Counsel submits a request for
attorneys' fees in excess of $336,831.00, Great American may
oppose any part of the request that exceeds $336,831.00.

Plaintiff estimates that the reasonable value of the benefits,
exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, is approximately
$1,347,323.00 million. This estimate is based on data provided by
Great American. For the purposes of the preliminary and final
approval of the settlement, Great American does not contest this
valuation based on the data it provided.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybpr4fd8from Leagle.com.

Joyce Goertzen, Plaintiff, represented by Ingrid M. Evans --
ingrid@evanslaw.com  -- The Evans Law Firm.

Joyce Goertzen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Aaron Levy --
michael@levycivilrights.com  --  Evans Law Firm, Inc.

Great American Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Robert D. Phillips, Jr. -- bo.phillips@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird, Rachel Adi Naor -- rachel.naor@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP & Thomas A. Evans -- tom.evans@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP.


GREENBRIAR RESTAURANT: "Grace" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Grace, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greenbriar Restaurant, Inc. and
Betty Basilakis, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07849, (N.D. Ill.,
October 31, 2017), seeks compensation in the amount of the owed
minimum wages for all time worked by Plaintiff, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and disbursements and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Erin and similarly situated employees were not paid for all hours
worked, as such, they were paid less than their applicable minimum
wages due to time-shaving and off-the-clock work rendered.
Defendants also deduct the cost of uniforms. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREMI LAUNDROMAT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Aguilar, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Gremi Laundromat Inc., Aida Jorge, and
Gregory Jorge, Case No. 1:17-cv-06560 (E.D. N.Y., November 9,
2017), seek to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the
trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Eduardo Aguilar is a resident of Queens and was employed
as an attendant by Defendants Gremi Laundromat Inc. from July 2010
to November 3, 2017.

Defendants own and operate a laundromat business in Flushing, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Mendez, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8522
      E-mail: pmendez@hanglaw.com


HYATT HOTELS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Livi" Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, issued a Memorandum granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned NANCY LIVI, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYATT
HOTELS CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-5371 (E.D.
Pa.).

Plaintiff Nancy Livi brings suit on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of banquet servers against four defendants:
Defendant Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Defendant Hyatt Corporation
d/b/a Hyatt at the Bellevue (Hyatt Corporation), Defendant
Bellevue, Inc. and Defendant Bellevue Associates (Hyatt) for
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), violations
of Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), and for
Unjust Enrichment.  Livi also brings suit on behalf of herself and
a proposed sub-class of banquet servers against Hyatt for
violation of the Philadelphia Administrative Code.

Livi's Compensation

Hyatt paid Livi for her work as a Banquet Server through a
combination of hourly wages and distributions from the service
charges that Hyatt collected on Banquet Events.  To the date of
her separation, Livi's hourly rate ranged from $11.24 to $11.57
per hour. Throughout the course of Livi's employment, service
charge distributions constituted more than 50% of Livi's total
compensation. Livi earned approximately $57,000 in total
compensation, with distributions from service charges constituting
approximately $37,500 of this total compensation.

The parties later stipulated to dismissal of Livi's FLSA claim.
Defendants then filed an affidavit attesting to certain facts
relevant to this Court's jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims under CAFA.

CAFA provides federal courts with jurisdiction over civil class
actions if the 'matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$5,000,000,' the aggregate number of proposed class members is 100
or more, and any class member is a citizen of a state different
from any defendant.

The threshold requirements for CAFA jurisdiction are met. The
requirement that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000 is met because the amount in controversy is at
least $7,626,152. The requirement that the aggregate number of
proposed class members is 100 or more is met because the aggregate
number of proposed class members exceeds 100 members.
Finally, the requirement that any class member is a citizen of a
state different from any defendant is met because Livi is a
Pennsylvania citizen and thus from a different state than Hyatt
Corporation and HHC (Hyatt Defendants), which are citizens of
Delaware and Illinois.

The only outstanding issue is whether either of the two mandatory
exceptions, the local controversy exception and the home state
exception, is applicable.

Local Controversy Exception

The local controversy exception requires courts to decline to
exercise jurisdiction over class actions that otherwise meet
CAFA's jurisdictional requirements where all of the following
elements are met: (1) greater than two-thirds of the putative
class are citizens of the state in which the action was originally
filed; (2) at least one defendant is a citizen of the state in
which the action was originally filed (the local defendant); (3)
the local defendant's conduct forms a significant basis for the
claims asserted; (4) plaintiffs are seeking significant relief
from the local defendant; (5) the principal injuries occurred in
the state in which the action was originally filed; and (6) no
other class action asserting the same or similar allegations
against any of the defendants had been filed in the preceding
three years.

Livi alleges in the Complaint that the Defendants violate the
PMWA, the WPCL, the Philadelphia Administrative Code, and are
unjustly enriched by purportedly not paying the Banquet Servers a
proper overtime wage and by not distributing the entirety of the
collected service charges to the Banquet Servers. Hyatt
Corporation is the entity that hires, supervises and pays the
Banquet Servers, and therefore is the defendant that allegedly
does not pay the proper overtime wage to the Banquet Servers and
does not distribute the entirety of the collected service charges
to the Banquet Servers. Thus, the entity whose alleged conduct
forms the basis of the asserted claims is Hyatt Corporation, an
out-of-state defendant. The Bellevue Defendants, the Pennsylvania
corporations, are therefore not the entities responsible for
hiring, supervising and paying the Banquet Servers, and their
actions are thus not a significant part of the alleged conduct of
all Defendants nor an important ground for the asserted claims.
Therefore, because an element of the local controversy exception
fails, the local controversy exception has not been met.

Home State Exception

Under the home state exception, a district court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction over a class action that otherwise meets the
CAFA jurisdictional requirements, if two-thirds or more members of
all proposed plaintiff classes and the primary defendants are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.

Hyatt Corporation is clearly a primary defendant, and therefore
the home state exception is inapplicable. Applying the first
factor, Hyatt Corporation is the real target of Livi's allegations
because, as described above, it is the entity whose alleged
conduct forms the bases of the allegations in the Complaint, and
is therefore directly liable to the proposed class and sub-class
of Banquet Servers. Applying the second and third factors, Hyatt
Corporation has potential exposure to the entire class, as the
entity responsible for hiring, supervising, and paying all of the
members of the proposed class and sub-class of Banquet Servers.

Hyatt Corporation would also sustain the greatest loss if found
liable, as the entity responsible for the hiring, supervising and
paying of all of the members of the proposed class and sub-class
of Banquet Servers and as the entity directly responsible for
actions underlying the claims in the Complaint. Because Hyatt
Corporation is a non-local defendant and a primary defendant, the
home state exception does not apply. The Court therefore has
jurisdiction to decide Hyatt's motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is granted if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if it might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. A factual
dispute is genuine if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Four counts of the Complaint remain before the Court:

   (1) Count II: Violation of the PMWA for failure to pay Livi and
the proposed class a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly wage
for overtime hours worked;

   (2) Count III: Violation of the PMWA for the retention of a
portion of the service charges collected from customers;

   (3) Count IV: Violation of the WPCL; and

   (4) Count VI: Unjust Enrichment.

Unpaid Overtime (Count II of the Complaint)

Livi alleges that by regularly and routinely failing to pay
Plaintiff and the Class one and one-half times their regularly
hourly wage rate for overtime hours worked, Defendants violated
the provisions of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

The PMWA and its regulations are silent on the definition of
commissions. But, the FLSA's exemption to its overtime pay
requirements for retail or service establishments contains
parallel language to the Pennsylvania Code Exemption. In this
situation, Pennsylvania state law directs district courts to look
to federal law interpreting the FLSA's parallel exemption in order
to analyze a claim under the Pennsylvania Code Exemption.
Under federal precedent interpreting the FLSA's parallel
exemption, distributions from service charges are interpreted as
commissions. Applying this federal precedent to the current case,
the distributions from service charges that Livi received are
commissions under the PMWA, and Hyatt was therefore exempt from
the PMWA's overtime requirements.

Unpaid Distributions from Service Charges (Count III of the
Complaint)

In Count III of the Complaint, Livi claims that Hyatt has violated
Section 333.103(d)(2) of the PMWA by retaining a portion of the
service charges imposed in banquet contracts.

The parties do not dispute Livi's hourly rate was more than 1.5
times the minimum wage. Therefore, it is clear, as Hyatt asserts,
that Hyatt did not take a tip credit to offset the wage it was
required to pay Livi. Because the provision from which Livi
extracts her claim is a condition precedent to an employer taking
a tip credit, and Hyatt did not take a tip credit, the provision
does not apply to Livi.

Therefore, without deciding whether or not the service charge may
be a tip, Livi was not entitled under this section to receive a
distribution from the entirety of the service charges collected.
I will therefore grant Hyatt's summary judgment motion on this
claim, Count III of the Complaint.

Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law (Count IV of the
Complaint)

In Count IV of the Complaint, Livi claims that by their actions
Hyatt violated the WPCL, and specifically a portion of Section
260.3 of the WPCL.

Pennsylvania has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts
Section 302 as a guide for the analysis of third party beneficiary
claims.

Here, it is undisputed that there is no express intention to
benefit the Banquet Servers in the Banquet Event contracts
themselves.  Furthermore, the circumstances are not so compelling
that recognition of the Banquet Servers' right is appropriate to
effectuate the intention of the parties.

Because the Banquet Event contracts do not create a contractual
entitlement to compensation from wages, as required to state a
claim under the WPCL, I will grant Hyatt's summary judgment motion
on Count IV of the Complaint.

Unjust Enrichment (Count VI of the Complaint)

Livi alleges in Count VI of the Complaint that Defendants devised
and implemented a plan to increase their profits by depriving
Plaintiff and the Class of: (1) their rightful rate of overtime
pay; and (2) the full amount of gratuities due them. Livi contends
that Hyatt was unjustly enriched by securing the work and efforts
of Plaintiff and the Class without compensating them at their
rightful level of pay, thereby reducing Hyatt's overhead costs and
increasing its profits. Because Livi's claims for unpaid overtime
and unpaid service charge distributions have been dismissed,
Livi's claim for unjust enrichment also fails. Hyatt's summary
judgment motion will be granted on Count VI of the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycjz95eqfrom
Leagle.com

NANCY LIVI, Plaintiff, represented by MARC A. GOLDICH, AXLER
GOLDICH, LLC, 1520 Locust St., Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA, 19102
NANCY LIVI, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER, AXLER GOLDICH
LLC. 1520 Locust St., Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA, 19102
HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHERYL A. LUCE
-- cluce@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, NOAH A. FINKEL --
nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & SCOTT F. COOPER --
Cooper@BlankRome.com --  Blank Rome, LLP.

HYATT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHERYL A. LUCE,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, NOAH A. FINKEL, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & SCOTT F.
COOPER, BLANK ROME, LLP.

BELLEVUE INC., Defendant, represented by CHERYL A. LUCE, SEYFARTH
SHAW LLP, NOAH A. FINKEL, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & SCOTT F. COOPER,
BLANK ROME, LLP.

BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, Defendant, represented by NOAH A. FINKEL,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, SCOTT F. COOPER, BLANK ROME, LLP & CHERYL A.
LUCE, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: "Corley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Kimali Q. Corley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-08771 (S.D. N.Y., November 10, 2017), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Kimali Q. Corley is a resident of Bronx County, New
York. Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt.

Defendant Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., is a New York
Corporation with a principal place of business in Dutchess County,
New York.  Defendant is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IQ DATA INT'L: "Tohanczyn" Action Disputes Alleged Debt
-------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Tohanczyn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IQ Data International, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05031,
(E.D. Pa., November 7, 2017), seeks actual, damages, statutory
damages, costs, and attorney's fees under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Beginning June of 2017 and at various and multiple times, IQ Data,
a collection agency, contacted Tohanczyn in an attempt to collect
an alleged outstanding debt. IQ Data refused to validate the debt
and continued its collection efforts despite Plaintiff's
contention.

IQ Data continued to report the alleged debt on Plaintiffs
"consumer report." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Phone: (888) 595-911l ext. 618
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: clevin@attorneysforconsumcr.com


ISI SECURITY: "Rains" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Arnold Rains, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ISI Security Group, Inc. and Argyle
Security, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01154, (W.D. Tex.,
November 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid and/or underpaid
overtime wages and other damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are affiliated companies and together furnish and
install security equipment for the global correctional industry
such as security doors, frames and walls, security and detention
furniture, security windows, glass and glazing, security mesh and
security ceilings. Rains worked for ISI and Argyle as a Field
Superintendent, regularly working in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      Michael M. Guerra, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Tel: (956) 682-5999
      Fax: (888) 317-8802
      Email: mburke@mmguerra.com

             - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM PC
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 880-8181
      Fax: (361) 887-6521
      Email: timraub@raublawfirm.com


JP MORGAN: Fair Debt Collection Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Dannunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that while paring
down all but one claim in a fair debt collection class action
against financial giant JP Morgan Chase, a federal judge has
allowed the litigation to proceed under Pennsylvania's  Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws Act.

In her order and opinion issued Nov. 7, U.S. District Judge Nitza
I. Quinones Alejandro of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted the bank's motion to dismiss several federal consumer
protection claims and debt collection claims.

According to the judge, in regard to their bankruptcy, "Plaintiffs
contend that defendant failed to honor the parties' negotiated
agreement that plaintiffs' future mortgage and escrow payments
would not include a sum for insurance premiums and as a
consequence, defendant misapplied plaintiffs' monthly mortgage
payments resulting in the incurrence of late fees and other
penalties." [GN]


JP MORGAN: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Duty Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rob Kozlowski, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that an
ERISA class-action lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Chase alleging a
breach of fiduciary duty in its stable value fund by a class of
participants has been settled for $75 million, a court document
announcing the agreed settlement shows.

The settlement by plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York would bring to an end a years-long
class-action lawsuit in which participants alleged improper
investments by J.P. Morgan's stable value fund between Jan. 1,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2010.  The lawsuit said the stable value fund
improperly invested in two commingled J.P. Morgan funds, the
intermediate bond fund and the intermediate public bond fund,
which the settlement document said "allegedly invested in
excessively risky, highly leveraged assets, including, among other
things, mortgage-related assets."

The original lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in 2012, followed by a consolidation
with two other similar lawsuits in December 2014.

Kristen Chambers, J.P. Morgan spokeswoman, said in an email that
the proposed settlement is pending court approval.  "This
settlement is related to cases filed several years ago and events
that date back to the financial crisis," she said.  "Any
settlement will be to avoid the ongoing costs of litigation, not a
finding of wrongdoing or liability."

She also added "no investor has ever experienced a negative return
or lost money in any JPM stable value products.  Our stable value
products have consistently met all of their stated objectives,
including outperforming money market investment funds."

Michael M. Mulder, partner at The Law Offices of Michael M.
Mulder, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said: "We are pleased to
have the case resolved with the settlement and it benefits many
401(k) participant investors." [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Amla Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants L'Oreal USA, Inc., and Soft-Sheen Carson, L.L.C., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled LAVETTE
JACOBS, TIFFANY RAINES and SANDI TURNIPSEED, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
L'OREAL USA, INC. and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-6593,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages and equitable remedies caused by Amla
Relaxer's detrimental effects.

The Defendants are aware that, when used as instructed, the
Product causes injuries due to a known material design or
manufacturing defect, the Plaintiffs allege.  Despite Defendants'
longstanding knowledge, the Defendants failed to take reasonable
steps to disclose to and/or warn Plaintiffs and putative Class
Members of the dangers associated with the use of Amla Relaxer.

Instead of warning consumers of the detrimental effects of using
Amla Relaxer, the Defendants worked to conceal information
regarding consumer injuries caused by the Product, the Plaintiffs
contend.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Amla Litigation, Case
No. 17-3676, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Tiffany Raines, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; Sandi Turnipseed, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; Jasmine Hervey,
Plaintiff and Proposed Class Representative; and Jennifer Sanon
are represented by:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 631-8632
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: lfeldman@milberg.com

               - and -

          Rosemary Medellin Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

Defendants-Petitioners L'Oreal USA, Inc., and Soft-Sheen Carson,
L.L.C., are represented by:

          Peter George Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
          E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com


LAS TROJAS: "Wiliams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Angela Williams, Cheyenne Sierra, Edil Feliciano, Leticia Ortega,
Plaintiffs, v. Las Trojas Mexican Restaurant, Inc., Las Trojas
Cantina Mexican Restaurant, Inc., Las Trojas Mexican Restaurant
II, Inc. Las Trojas Hazel Green Alabama, Inc., Las Trojas Cantina
By Elvia and Miguel, Inc. The Mexican Trojas, Inc. Miguel Martinez
and Elvia Garcia, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01832 (N.D. Ala.,
October 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid (or underpaid) minimum
and overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and all other legal or equitable relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Garcia and Martinez are the owners, officers and operators of a
chain of restaurants under the name Las Trojas with multiple
locations where Plaintiffs worked as servers at Defendants'
Huntsville and Madison locations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 250-2000
      Fax: (615) 250-2020
      Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
             dea@yezbaklaw.com


MGM RESORTS: "Phelps" Sues Over Taxes on Internet Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Phelps, Dustin Chapman, Victor Wukovits, Larry Lawter, Cindy
Montgomery, Ashley Boldus, Darrell Bieshada, Andra Verstraete,
David Dunphy, Gina Marinelli, Kerri Shapiro, Jacob Tallman, Cathy
Kongphouthakhoun, Eric Marmion, Julie Mutsko and James Strehle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MGM Resorts International, Ramparts, Inc., MGM Grand
Hotel, LLC, New York Hotel & Casino, LLC, Aria Resort & Casino
Holdings, LLC, Bellagio, LLC, New Castle Corp., Victoria Partners
Limited Partnership, The Mirage Casino-Hotel, LLC, Mandalay Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02848 (D. Nev., November 13, 2017),
seeks damages and restitution for the total amount of taxes
Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of the
Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access pursuant
to the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Defendants charge overnight guests a mandatory, per-night resort
fee which includes daily access for two guests each day to the
fitness center at the property, daily in-room Internet access for
two devices, and all local phone calls. When charging a Resort Fee
that included Internet access, Defendants applied the Clark County
Combined Transient Lodging Tax to the entire amount of the Resort
Fee, which includes the portion of the Resort Fee that constitutes
charges for Internet access.

Plaintiffs were guests at these hotels and claim to be taxed for
internet access. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don Springmeyer, Esq.
     Bradley Schrager, Esq.
     WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
     3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
     Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
     Tel: (702) 341-5200
     Fax: (702) 341-5300
     Email: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
            bschrager@wrslawyers.com

            - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     1022 Carolina Blvd., Ste. 300
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Tel: (855) 467-0451
     Fax: (662) 368-1506
     Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

            - and -

     Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: mdellangelo@bm.net


NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over Sunscreen Ongoing in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Goldstein, Esq. -- lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- and
Theodore J. Kobus III, Esq. -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that plaintiffs'
lawyers in a class action against Neutrogena were fighting hard in
the Central District of California in October 2017.  The
plaintiffs were trying to win class certification for a group of
consumers who allegedly purchased Neutrogena sunscreen based on
labels claiming the products contained "naturally sourced
sunscreen ingredients."

In support of their argument, the plaintiffs submitted a survey
that polled consumers about the nature of the sunscreen
ingredients.  The survey purported to demonstrate that most of the
consumers, when presented with the labels claiming natural
sources, concluded that the products were made entirely of natural
ingredients.

Neutrogena's counsel wasn't impressed, protesting that the survey
was irrelevant because it didn't show respondents either actual
labels or products.  "That survey," stated the Neutrogena team,
"violates every rule in the book."

Somewhat natural?

The certification battle grew out of an original lawsuit filed in
2013.  After several twists and turns, including a failed motion
to dismiss, the defendants submitted a renewed motion for class
certification in the summer.

The plaintiffs, led by named consumer Julie Fagen, had allegedly
purchased a range of Neutrogena sunscreen products.  The common
thread binding the putative class together was the argument that
the "naturally sourced" label claim is false and misleading.
Neutrogena argued against the certification, claiming that the
specific product ingredients that blocked the sun were naturally
sourced and that other ingredients did not need to be natural for
the labels to be true.  The defendants also took a shot at the
consumers' damages model, arguing that it did not support
classwide damages.

The takeaway

Surveys and damage models aside, the future of this putative class
may come down to a more mundane subject: semantics. A third
objection raised against the class rested on the defense's claim
that the plaintiffs, in their own testimony, claimed they wanted
naturally sourced products because they thought they were safer
than other products.  Neutrogena's counsel was quick to note that
"natural and safe don't mean the same thing"; given that
difference, the issuance of reliance is inherently individualized,
the defense contends.

The court is currently reviewing the arguments.  This case
illustrates the importance of class certification battles in
defending false advertising consumer claims. [GN]


NIAGARA BOTTLING: "Laverty" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Laverty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Niagara Bottling, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-00196, (W.D. N.C., October 31, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act including
all lost wages, benefits, compensation and monetary loss under the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Niagara Bottling is a water and/or beverage bottling company with
geographically diversified production facilities throughout the
United States. Laverty worked as a preventative maintenance
technician at their facilities in 178 Mooresville Boulevard,
Mooresville, NC 28115. Laverty and other preventative maintenance
technicians regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during
their tenure with Niagara Bottling without overtime premium for
all hours they worked.

Laverty also filed a leave to care for his mother, who was
diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Said leave was denied due to
incomplete documents. He was eventually terminated for his
absence. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     Danielle Hall, Esq.
     PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
     15720 Brixham Hill Ave #331
     Charlotte, NC 28227
     Tel: (704) 612-0038
     Fax: (704) 612-0038
     Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com
            danielle@philgibbonslaw.com


NOVAN INC: "Stefanowicz" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Stefanowicz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Novan, Inc., Nathan Stasko,
Richard D. Peterson, Robert A. Ingram, W. Kent Geer, Robert
Keegan, G. Kelly Martin, Sean Murphy, John W. Palmour, Piper
Jaffray & Co., JMP Securities LLC and Wedbush Securities Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01015, (M.D. N.C., November 7, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees and
such equitable, injunctive or other relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on
the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based
therapies in dermatology. Novan had commenced two identically
designed Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204, a once-daily, topical
gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris. It failed to beat a
placebo in the other separate studies. Subsequent disclosures
regarding SB204 demonstrated that the two clinical trials of SB204
were not identical. On this news, the price of Novan stock
declined from $5.48 on August 1, 2017, to $4.54 on August 2, 2017,
a drop of more than 17%.

Stefanowicz purchased Novan stock traceable to its initial public
offering and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Bruce McDaniel, Esq.
     McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
     Lafayette Square
     4942 Windy Hill Drive
     Raleigh, NC 27609
     Telephone: (919) 872-3000
     Fax: (919) 790-9273
     Email: mcdas@mcdas.com

            - and -

     Jack Reise, Esq.
     Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 750-3000
     Fax: (561) 750-3364
     Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
            rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Telephone: (770) 392-0090
     Fax: (770) 392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Welk Files Suit Over Vitamin B False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Welk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutraceutical Corporation (d/b/a
Biogenesis), Nutraceuticals, Inc. (d/b/a Nutrabiogenesis and
Biogenesis), Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02266 (S.D. Cal., November
7, 2017), seeks preliminary and/or permanent order for injunctive
relief requiring Defendant to discontinue advertising, marketing
and otherwise representing the content of its vitamin B.

The Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement of Defendant's ill-gotten
gains and to pay restitution to Plaintiff, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, special, general and compensatory damages for
negligent and/or intentional misrepresentations, exemplary and/or
punitive damages for intentional misrepresentation, costs of this
suit, reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief under the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Health and Safety
Code.

Defendant is an American conglomerate that manufactures and/or
distributes dietary supplements and over the counter
pharmaceutical products including liquid B12 vitamin supplement
branded as BioGenesis - Methyl Factors. Welk alleges that B12
becomes unstable upon opening and degrade over time, thus
rendering the content as stated on the label no longer applicable.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com


OMEGA FLEX: 8th Cir. Remands CSST Class Action to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit is sending a class action
claim against the manufacturers of yellow-insulated corrugated
stainless steel tubing (CSST) back to federal court after granting
the companies' appeal.

In ruling on an issue involving a plaintiff's Article III
standing, a three-judge panel found in favor of defendants Omega
Flex Inc., Ward Manufacturing and Titeflex Corp. in a suit brought
by plaintiffs Bonnie George, Ed McKinzie, Tim Worstell, Cedar
Deraps, Casey Wasser, Tammy Volkart, James Rehm and Ron Metzgar.

Their suit claims that the defendants' CSST, which is used to
distribute natural or propane gas within homes and other
structures, is susceptible to failure when exposed to electrical
arcing from appliances, as well as to indirect or direct lightning
strikes, the ruling states.

They originally filed their complaint in federal court alleging
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, conspiracy
and unjust enrichment, the ruling indicates. A federal judge for
the Western District of Missouri dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, which then prompted the plaintiffs to sue in state
court on the same claims.

However, the plaintiffs added a claim for loss of benefit-of-the-
bargain for the dimunition in the value of the structures
containing CSST, the ruling states.

The defendants then removed the case, arguing that the plaintiffs
had Article III standing based on the benefit-of-the-bargain
claim, and sought to dismiss on the basis of failure to state a
claim.

"The district court ruled that the benefit-of-the-bargain claim
failed to bolster the claims enough for Article III standing," the
ruling states. "The court granted George's motion to remand."

In ruling on the defendants' appeal, the panel of judges - which
included James Loken, Pasco Bowman and Duane Benton - held that
Article III extends judicial power only to cases and
controversies, and that plaintiffs have the burden to establish
that injury was suffered in fact, that the alleged injury is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendants and
that they are likely to be redressed by a favorable court
decision.

"George's assertions of paying more than CSST is worth and the
consequent loss in value of the structures are economic injury
sufficient to establish Article III standing," the panel held in
reversing the lower court.

The panel remanded for further proceedings. [GN]


PIZZA HUT: Faces Class Action Over No-Hiring Agreement
------------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for South East Texas Record, reports that
a Pizza Hut employee in Pennsylvania has pursued legal action
against the restaurant chain, alleging it is stifling pay and
preventing professional growth opportunities.

Allegheny County, Pa., resident Kristine Ion filed a 30-page class
action complaint in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District
of Texas on Nov. 3.

The antitrust lawsuit explains that Pizza Hut, which is
headquartered in Plano, has a no-solicitation and no-hiring
agreement with its franchisees, to which the latter agreed not to
recruit or hire each other's management employees or Pizza Hut
management employees.

Pizza Hut has employed Ion, a shift manager, since 2011.  She
alleges the company promised to pay her $9.00 an hour, but she was
only paid $7.25.

The suit further claims that she was never promoted despite the
respondent's numerous promises of doing so during the six years it
employed her.

According to the original petition, the agreement "reflects a
naked restraint of competition and a per se violation of the
antitrust laws."

"Because of the 'no-solicit' and 'no-hire' agreement, the
plaintiff and the putative class have suffered injury in the form
of reduced wages and worsened working conditions," the suit says.

"Suppressed wages due to employers' agreement not to compete with
each other is injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended
to prevent."

A jury trial is requested.

Attorney Bruce W. Steckler of the law firm Steckler Gresham
Cochran PLLC in Dallas serves as the lead counsel for Ion and the
class members.

Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas Case No. 4:17-
CV-0788 [GN]


PIZZA HUT: "Yoachim" Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
Peter Yoachim and Michelle Madeen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pizza Hut, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08234, (W.D. Wash., November 7, 2017),
seeks equitable relief enjoining Pizza Hut from the misuse and/or
disclosure of Plaintiffs' data, compelling them to use appropriate
cyber security methods and policies.  The suit further seeks
damages, award of attorneys' fees costs and litigation expenses,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, and such other and
further relief for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

Pizza hut is an international chain of restaurants. It operates
over 16,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries. In addition,
Pizza Hut conducts business online, where consumers can pay via
credit card or debit card. Pizza Hut has acknowledged that a
cybersecurity incident occurred resulting in the theft of its
customers' personal information, mainly consisting of payment card
numbers.

Madeen and Yoachim order from Pizza Hut regularly, paying via
credit card. Unauthorized charges were made to Plaintiffs' credit
card resulting from the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 234-1560
      Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

             - and -

      Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 682-5600
      Fax: (206) 682-2992
      Email: KStephens@tousley.com


POPPY'S DELI: "Hernandez" Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Camacho Hernandez and Filio Roberto Lucas Garcia
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Poppy's Deli Inc., 2152 D Corp. and Rudy Guerrino,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08412, (S.D. N.Y., October 31, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages and withheld tips pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
spread-of-hours, applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Rudy Guerrino owns, operates, and/or controls two delis located at
420 E. Sandford Blvd, Mt. Vernon, NY 10550 and in 2152 Crotona
Parkway, Bronx, NY 10460 where Plaintiffs worked as cooks, food
preparers, delivery workers, dish washers, sandwich preparers and
cashiers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUALCOMM INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
October 20, 2017, Judge Michael M. Anello of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California denied in
part and granted in part a motion to dismiss brought by Qualcomm,
Inc. (the "Company"), its CEO, and four directors, in response to
a shareholder lawsuit. 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
Case No. 15-cv-2678-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2017).

Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), as well as
violations of SEC Rule 10b-5, in connection with statements made
by the Company and its directors regarding one of its
microprocessors used in smartphones and other mobile devices.  The
Court held that plaintiff had adequately pleaded falsity and
scienter in connection with some of the alleged statements, but
that other statements were not actionable.  The Court allowed the
claims against the CEO and the Company to proceed, but dismissed
the claims against the four directors.

At the heart of plaintiff's allegations is the Snapdragon 810
("810") microprocessor, intended for use in smartphones to
"improve power efficiency, processing speeds, and technical
capabilities, including the ability to seamlessly connect to
4G/LTE networks."  As part of the design process for the 810, the
Company allegedly "identified smartphones in which the 810 would
be incorporated so that it could design the processor to match the
technological specifications and capabilities of those devices."
The most important device the Company targeted was the Samsung
Galaxy S6.  According to plaintiff, when the Company began testing
the 810, however, it found that the processor experienced severe
overheating problems, which were allegedly known to all
defendants.  The overheating problems were allegedly so pronounced
that Samsung ultimately decided to abandon the 810 for the Galaxy
S6 phone, opting instead to use its own processor. Plaintiff
alleged that during the proposed class period, defendants made
several material misstatements to investors regarding the
performance of the processor, as well as misstatements concerning
the use of the processor in various mobile devices, including the
Galaxy S6.

The Court first held that several alleged statements were not
actionable because they were not materially false or misleading.
In particular, the Court found that phrases such as "Samsung
intended to use the 810 in its flagship device," and "[m]any of
the flagship smartphones released next year are expected to be
built around Qualcomm(R) Snapdragon(TM) 810 processors" were not
actionable, because "the statements themselves did not
affirmatively lead the market to one conclusion or the other."
Further, the Court found that merely because defendants did not
"disabuse Plaintiff, analysts, or journalists of their conclusion
that Qualcomm's 810 would be used in Samsung's Galaxy S6 does not
render the statements actionable." The Court similarly found that
the Company's other forward-looking statements about the 810-for
example, that the 810 remained "on track," that it was expected to
be available in 1H 2015, and that there were no significant
technical issues that would cause a delay-were not actionable,
because they amounted to "puffery" rather than statements of fact,
and because plaintiff failed to allege that defendants knew the
expected release date was "insurmountable or particularly
significant." Moreover, with respect to one of the alleged
misstatements, the Court noted that plaintiff failed to
sufficiently plead loss causation because plaintiff "did not link
economic losses to disclosure of the alleged fraud because the . .
. disclosure d[id] not reference the 810's propensity to
overheat." Having found that plaintiff failed to sufficiently
plead that the four director defendants made actionable materially
false or misleading statements, the Court dismissed the Section
10(b) claims against them with prejudice.

The Court did hold, however, that statements made by the Company
and its CEO on January 28, 2015 -- that the 810 was "performing
well," or "as expected," and that any concerns were related to
"one OEM" -- were actionable based on plaintiff's pleadings. In
particular, the Court found that plaintiff had adequately pleaded
that these statements were materially false or misleading because
news reports prior to January 28, 2015, disclosed that the 810 had
heat emission issues and that the launch of at least one mobile
device was "forced back . . . because of 'manufacturing challenges
with the . . . 810.'" The Court further found that plaintiff
adequately pled scienter, primarily under the "core operations"
theory, whereby scienter may be inferred where the facts critical
to a business' core operations or important transactions are known
to key company officers. Emphasizing that Samsung accounted for
10% of the Company's revenues from 2011-2013 -- and that the 810
was supposed to be the Company's "Cadillac" processor and was the
focus of media scrutiny -- the Court found that "for the purpose
of this motion, it could arguably be 'absurd' to suggest that [the
CEO] was not aware of issues relating to the 810's overheating."
Accordingly, the Court found that the pleadings supported a strong
inference of scienter on the part of the CEO, which it imputed to
the Company. Noting that defendants did not challenge plaintiff's
loss causation allegations related to the January 28, 2015
statements, and having found that plaintiff sufficiently pled that
the January 28, 2015 statements were materially false or
misleading and that those statements were made with the requisite
scienter, the Court then denied the Company's and the CEO's motion
to dismiss the securities fraud claims against the Company and its
CEO related to the January 28, 2015 statements.

In addition, because defendants relied solely on the lack of a
primary violation of Section 10(b) in moving to dismiss
plaintiff's claim under Section 20(a), the Court allowed the
Section 20(a) claims to proceed against the Company and its CEO,
but dismissed that claim with prejudice as to the four director
defendants.

This decision is another example of district courts in the Ninth
Circuit finding scienter to be adequately alleged at the pleading
stage under the "core operations" theory. [GN]


SCANA CORPORATION: "Fox" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCANA Corporation, Kevin B. Marsh, Jimmy E. Addison
and Stephen A. Byrne, Case No. 3:17-cv-03063 (D. S.C., November
10, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired SCANA securities between January 19, 2016 and
September 22, 2017.

Plaintiff Marsha Fox acquired SCANA securities.

Defendant SCANA is an energy-based holding company whose principal
subsidiary, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, is a regulated
public utility engaged in the generation, transmission,
distribution and sale of electricity primarily in South Carolina.

Individual Defendants are officers of SCANA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Dodson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT DODSON, P.A.
      1722 Main Street, Suite 200
      Columbia, SC  29201
      Tel: (803) 252-2600
      Fax: (803) 771-2259
      E-mail: rdodson@rdodsonlaw.com


SHINE GLORY: "Gao" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Shi Qiang Gao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Shine Glory LLC dba MoMo Sushi, Lin Herman, Cahyadi S. Tanjung
and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:17-cv-08791 (S.D. N.Y., November 12,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Shi Qiang Gao was employed by Defendants to work as a
deliveryman at MoMo Sushi located at 239 Park Avenue S, New York,
NY 10003.

Defendants own and operate a sushi restaurant in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES: "Swartz" Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Swartz, Individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silverstein
Properties, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-08608, (S.D. N.Y., November 7,
2017), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
and New York Civil Rights Law.

Swartz has multiple sclerosis and is mobility impaired and uses an
electric scooter to ambulate. Defendant operates the Four Seasons
NY Downtown Hotel located at 27 Barclay Street, New York, NY, in
the County of New York. Swartz complains about inaccessible
seating at the tables or bars in the hotel, toilets with no
ambulatory stall/grab bars, benches in the spa with no back
support, and heavy toilet room entry doors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
      FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
      North Miami, FL 33181
      Tel: (305) 891-5199
      Fax: (305) 893-9505
      Email: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com


SONY INTERACTIVE: Judge Has Yet to Approve Revised Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins and Dave Simpson, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Nov. 7 held off on approving Sony's
sweetened $3.75 million deal that would end a putative class
action claiming Sony reneged on its promise to let users run other
operating systems on their PlayStation 3s, saying there's a number
of items in the deal they have to "clean up," like consistently
misspelling her name.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she's prepared to
approve the revised deal, under which Sony Interactive
Entertainment America LLC will offer class members up to $65 each.
But she said the parties need to correct a typo in which they
repeatedly misspelled her last name.  She added that she's not in
the habit of issuing orders that misspell her name, and she
emphasized that it's Gonzalez with a 'Z' -- it's "EZ" to remember,
she said.

The judge's comments came during a hearing in Oakland on a motion
to preliminarily approve Sony's revised settlement.  Judge
Gonzalez Rogers had rejected an initial proposed settlement in
January, finding that the projected claims rate -- 11,300 claims
out of about 10 million units sold -- seemed very low.

The revised deal attempts to make it easier for class members to
submit a claim, by requiring them only to sign a testimonial form
and provide their PS3 serial number, their network login ID or
their online ID number.  It also increases the per class member
cash payment to $65, up from the initial proposal of $55 and $9
payouts for two separate classes. The class attorneys also cut
their proposed fees by $1 million.

On Nov. 7, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she wants to see screenshots
of the claims process to ensure it is not onerous for class
members.  The judge said she tried to submit a claim in a
different settlement, but found that the process was terrible.
Since, she's decided she's going to be "a little more hands on" in
the claims process to make sure class members can easily submit
claims, she said.

"I do want to have information from the administrator, so I can
verify for myself that I think it works," the judge said.

Sony's attorney Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- of Sacks
Ricketts Case LLP said the proposed class in this version of the
settlement is identical in terms of its parameters, and they now
believe they've notified 86 percent of the class members.  They're
also launching an ad campaign on Facebook, and they think more
class members will file claims because the cash payment is higher,
she said.

"I expect that we will see better response rates," Ms. Sacks said.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers responded that she appreciates the parties
hard work on the case, but they still need to "try again" and
clean up some things. She also said she wants to see detailed
records of the attorneys' expenses and time keeping, noting that
they're asking 33 percent in fees and expenses -- or $1.25 million
-- when 25 percent in fees is typical.

"You're going to have to justify it," she said.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers continued the hearing for two weeks to let
the parties fix the typo and address her concerns. She set a final
settlement approval hearing for March 20.

If approved, the deal would resolve a dispute that goes back to
2006, when Sony initially promoted its PS3 in 2006 as having
capabilities beyond those of earlier models, allowing users to
install Linux or other operating systems and use the devices as
personal computers.  In 2010, Sony released a software update for
the PS3 that allegedly intentionally disabled the other OS
feature, the initial complaint said.

The suit was dismissed with prejudice by a district court judge in
December 2011, only to be revived by a Ninth Circuit panel's
partial reversal of the ruling in 2014.

The PS3 users were represented by James Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld LLP.

Sony was represented by Luanne Sacks of Sacks Ricketts Case LLP.

The case is In re: Sony PS3 "Other OS" Litigation, Case No.
4:10-cv-01811, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The case is assigned to Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers.  The case was filed April 27, 2010. [GN]


SOUTH SHOR INC: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Williamson, On behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. South Shor, Inc. (d/b/a The Peddler
Steakhouse), Alan G. Barefoot and Charles Grant, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-03026, (D. S.C., November 7, 2017), seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief from willful failure
to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly-situated individuals with
minimum wage and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for impermissible deductions in violation of the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Defendants own and operate The Peddler Steakhouse in Dillon, South
Carolina where Williamson worked as a server. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick McLaughlin, Esq.
      WUKELA LAW FIRM
      403 Second Loop Rd.
      PO Box 13057
      Florence, SC 29504-3057
      Tel: (843) 669-5634
      Fax: (843) 669-5150
      Email: Patrick@wukelalaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Eric Kmetz, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      Email: akimble@msdlegal.com
             ekmetz@msdlegal.com


STARION LLC: "Camuso" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Anthony Camuso and Gail Boone, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Starion LLC aka Starion Energy, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12215 (D. Mass., October 24, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Anthony Camuso is a resident of Malden, Massachusetts.

Plaintiff Gail Boone is a resident of York, Pennsylvania.

Defendant Starion is a supplier of electricity and natural gas to
residential and business consumers.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SWEETGREEN INC: "Cintron" Suit Hits Retention of Biometrics Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cintron, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Sweetgreen, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2017CH14820 (Ill. Cir., November 7, 2017), seeks injunctive and
equitable relief, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs, and other litigation expenses, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other relief for violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant operates a restaurant chain under the name "Sweetgreen"
with over 75 locations in several states, including four
restaurants in Chicago, Illinois. Cintron worked as a prep cook at
Defendant's restaurant at 623 N. State St, Chicago, IL 60654.

Defendant uses a biometric time-keeping system to record their
employees' time worked. Defendant never provided Plaintiff any
written materials about its collection, retention, destruction,
use or dissemination of Plaintiffs fingerprints. Sweetgreen never
obtained Plaintiffs written consent, or release as a condition of
employment, before collecting, storing, disseminating, or using
Plaintiffs fingerprints, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Werman Salas P.C.
      77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008


TEZOS: TOA Indicates Backer Waives Class Action Right
-----------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that recently
someone forwarded a copy of the Tezos Terms of Allocation
regarding their spectacularly successful Initial Coin Offering
(ICO).  To update anyone that has not followed the odyssey of the
high profile ICO, Tezos -- a self amending cryptographic ledger",
raised $232 million this past summer in a tokenized offering.  A
couple of months later, the whole thing started to fall apart as
Tezos creators publicly squabbled with the head of the Tezos
foundation, an entity established by the aforementioned Tezos
creators to help foster the development and adoption of the Tezos
protocol.  The dispute? Well think about it, $232 million is a lot
of money . . .  Tezos founders are questioning "the value of a
bonus he attempted to grant himself." Ok.

Things got worse for team Tezos as one of the backers filed a
Class Action against the company and everyone else involved.  The
filing in the state of California accused Tezos of selling
unregistered securities, along with fraud in the offer, sale of
securities, false advertising and more.

Jumping back to the Terms of Allocation for Tezos it is
interesting to note the document describes backers as donors.  To
quote;

"Any contribution made to TEZOS during the Contribution Period as
described below is qualified as a non-refundable donation . . ."
So is Tezos actually a charity then?

Additionally, the Terms indicate a backer (or donor) waives the
right to a Class Action lawsuit:

"the Contributor waives the right to participate in a class action
lawsuit or a classwide arbitration against any entity or
individual involved with the Contribution to TEZOS, with the
allocation of XTZ and with the operation of the Tezos Network."
Beyond that, the Terms require a contributor to take a trip to
Zug, Switzerland if they want to challenge the Tezos team in court
as the 'applicable law is Swiss law."

So what exactly does this mean?

Crowdfund Insider reached out to Amy Wan, a securities attorney
and Crowdfund Insider Senior Contributor.  Ms. Wan challenged the
agreement, specifically the description of contributions to Tezos
as donations, stating;

"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it is probably
a duck.  Just because the Tezos Contribution Terms say
contributors were making a donation did not make it so.  Donations
are usually gifts with no reciprocal exchange.  One usually doesnt
receive tokens that presumably will skyrocket in value when making
a "donation."  Supporters were likely backing Tezos because they
were speculating about its tokens as an investment opportunity.
In the legal system, we have these pesky concepts like "equity"
and "public policy."  Just because a contract says, for example,
that one cannot sue as part of a class action and must arbitrate
does not mean that is so.  That is especially the case in
securities laws, where judges often find a public policy reason
not to enforce a binding arbitration clause."

Regarding a legal vacation to Zug, Switzerland, Ms. Wan said
plaintiffs don't have to dig for their passport quite yet;

"Just because the defendants set up their entity under Swiss law
does not mean U.S. securities laws do not apply.  Rather, to the
extent that the token sale was a security under U.S. law and to
the extent they took investments from U.S. investors, U.S.
securities law does apply."

Crowdfund Insider also contacted Joshua Ashley Klayman, a
securities attorney, CI Contributor and legal lead with the
Wallstreet Blockchain Alliance.  Mr. Klayman was cautious in her
comments;

"At this point, in my view, it is too early to draw any
conclusions about the outcome of this case," explained
Mr. Klayman.  "The company and the founders have not yet had a
chance to respond to the complaint.  And a complaint necessarily
reflects only one side of the story, and only one version of the
facts.  Moreover, stepping back, it is important to bear in mind
generally that a full analysis of any given token and token sale
would be needed in order to determine whether such a given token
is likely to be a security.  In my view, it is not enough simply
to skip the analysis and summarily conclude that a given token is
a security."

So why would a Tezos backer agree to donating their money to
Tezos? While waiving their right to important possible legal
actions? That's hard to tell.  Regardless, Tezos will be lawyering
up -- most likely in both Switzerland and California.

This one is developing. [GN]


TFSK INDUSTRIES: "Herrera" Suit Asserts Ca. Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel E. Herrera as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. TFSK Industries and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC682577 (Cal. Super.,
November 7, 2017), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to
provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime,
complete and accurate wage statements and reimbursement of
necessary business expenses including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees, resulting
from unfair business practices in violation of the California
Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code.

TFSK Industries deals in waste management and remediation services
and is located at 3534 Whittier Blvd., Los Angeles.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Dionisios Aliazis, Esq.
      Shawn Pardo, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
             daliazis@mahoney-law.net
             SDardo@mahonev-law.net


TRIVAGO NV: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Nov. 7 filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired Trivago's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
("Trivago" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TRVG) pursuant and/or
traceable to Trivago's Registration Statement and Prospectus,
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on
or about December 16, 2016 (the "IPO" or the "Offering") and/or on
the open market between December 16, 2016 and October 27, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Trivago investors have until
December 29, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.  To obtain
information or participate in the class action, please visit the
Trivago page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/trivago-nv-
0.

Investors suffering losses on their Trivago investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On December 16, 2016, the Company completed its initial public
offering ("IPO"), issuing 26,110,118 American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") at $11.00 per ADR. Then, on October 27, 2017, the United
Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") announced that
it was investigating the manner in which Trivago displays
information to customers.

On this news, Trivago's shares dropped $0.36 per share, or 4.54%,
to close at $7.57 on October 27, 2017, thereby damaging investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that during the
Class Period Trivago made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Trivago engaged in
deceptive sales practices; (2) such practices were almost certain
to bring Trivago under enhanced regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Trivago's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Trivago during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than December 29, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


TROY NURSERIES: "De Paz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoselin Del Rosario Lopez De Paz, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. Troy Nurseries, Inc., and Cathy Brown, individually,
and Julissa Silfa, individually, Case 17-cv-06622 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 13, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages and any
other statutory penalties, costs and disbursements incurred in
connection with this action, including expert witness fees and
other costs, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, award of
a service payment to Plaintiff, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Troy is a reseller of trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals and
grasses serving customers located in New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
as a gardener until September 15, 2017.

Plaintiff claims overtime, alleges unlawful deductions without
written consent, last pay upon termination and redress for failure
to provide wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Female Engineers Sue Over Pay Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
already lengthy legal docket for embattled Uber Technologies Inc.
is only continuing to grow, it seems.  Three female engineers --
two former employees and one current -- filed a lawsuit in
California court on Oct. 24 alleging unequal pay at the company.

Ingrid Avendano, Roxana del Toro Lopez and Ana Medina claim in
their suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, that they were
paid less than their male counterparts working in similar roles.

"As a result of Uber's policies, patterns, and practices, female
engineers and engineers of color receive less compensation and are
promoted less frequently than their male and/or white or Asian
American counterparts," the lawsuit stated.

The three women, all Latina, alleged that Uber uses a "stack
ranking" system to evaluate employee performance.  Supervisors are
required to rank employees from worst to best, according to the
lawsuit.

"This process is an invalid performance measurement system, as it
sets arbitrary cutoffs among performers with similar performance.
. . . Uber implements this performance measurement system in a way
that disadvantages female employees and employees of color," the
lawsuit said.

An Uber spokesperson declined to comment on the allegations.

At least two of the engineers, Ms. Avendano and del Toro Lopez,
filed additional complaints with the state of California this
summer, as first reported on Oct. 24 by tech news website The
Information.

One complainant, according to the report, alleged that "male
technical employees made disparaging and discriminatory comments
about her, including that the only reason she was successful at
the company was because she is 'hot.'  In addition, male employees
would 'rank' female employees', including del Toro Lopez's,
attractiveness and physical appearance." (These particular claims
were not addressed in the lawsuit filed on
Oct. 24.)

The former engineers' claims with the state were revealed after
The Information submitted a public records request to obtain the
complaints, which were filed with the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency this summer through the state's
Private Attorneys General Act.

The Information reported that this legal maneuver has proven
effective in avoiding arbitration clauses, which Uber at one time
required new employees to agree to if they wanted to submit a
workplace complaint.  The arbitration policy at Uber was changed
last year, but regardless, complainants are permitted to file a
lawsuit under PAGA if the state fails to take action on the
complaint within 60 days.

"The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for women and people of
color who have been underpaid at Uber, and they're attempting to
help Uber repair the problems that have led to devaluation of
women and people of color in the past," said Jahan Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- partner at Outten & Golden, who is
representing the women.

According to a June article from The Information, Uber changed its
pay policies to ensure that employees were not discriminated
against based on gender or race.  The following month, a
spokesperson for Uber told CNN that "to date, our compensation
approach has been similar to that of other pre-IPO companies, but
as we've grown it's become clear that we need to adjust our
philosophy and continue to increase transparency going forward.

This story has been updated to include the filing of the San
Francisco Superior Court claim and to add comment from Sagafi.


UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Sues Over Retention of Biometrics Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Johnson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. United Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2017CH14832 (Ill. Cir., November 7, 2017), seeks
injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and other litigation expenses, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and such other relief for violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendants are in the airline industry, operating a global fleet
of aircraft making thousands of flights around the world per day.
Johnson worked as a baggage handler for Defendants at O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. He was required to
provide his biometric information as a condition of his
employment. Defendants did not inform Plaintiff in writing that a
biometric identifier or biometric information was being captured,
collected, stored, or used, nor did Defendants make their policy
about collection, retention, and use of such information publicly
available, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      David L. Gerbie, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             emeyers@mcgpc.com


UNITED STATES: Court Approves $1.7MM Settlement in CBPOs' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement in the case
captioned ALMANZA, et al., AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, No. 13-
130C (Fed. Cl.).

Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees will be held in
abeyance pending the filing of supplemental briefs.

The original plaintiffs in this case were 290 Customs and Border
Protection Officers (CBPOs) and Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) who
are now or were formerly employed by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security (CBP). They filed this
action to recover overtime pay for time that they spent studying
outside of regular working hours while attending CBP's Detection
Canine Instructor Course.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to
the claims of the CBPOs. Under the settlement, Plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss their COPRA and FLSA claims with prejudice in exchange
for payment by the government of $1,716,000.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and costs in the amount of $3,011,788.82. The government
filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. In its opposition, the
government argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any fee
award at all.

Plaintiffs contend that the Court should issue an order that
approves the terms of the settlement on the grounds that earlier
in this litigation the parties stipulated that the Court would
take such action in the event a settlement agreement was reached.
The government, for its part, contends that Plaintiffs' motion
seeking the Court's approval of the terms of the settlement
agreement is inconsistent with legal arguments that counsel
referenced during a status conference.  The government further
argues that, in any event, Judge Allegra (to whom this case was
originally assigned) expressly rejected any proposal that the
court be involved in approving a settlement agreement in this
action when he struck from the parties' proposed notice to the
class.

The Court finds that the proposed and final notices to the class
and the colloquies between the parties and Judge Allegra do not
control the Court's disposition of Plaintiffs' motion. Thus, it
rejects Plaintiffs' contention that the parties stipulated that
they would submit any settlement agreement to the Court for
approval. It also finds unpersuasive and irrelevant the
government's argument that counsel for Plaintiffs conceded that
such approval would not be required or appropriate if a settlement
was reached.

The Court similarly rejects the government's contention that
counsel for Plaintiffs has argued or conceded that judicial
approval of a settlement agreement is not required in FLSA cases.
Counsel's exposition of the trending case law at the status
conference was informal and intended to educate Judge Allegra
about how courts have dealt with settlement agreements in FLSA
cases.

The issue of the enforceability of FLSA settlements that have not
been subject to judicial approval was not briefed and no decision
was made as to whether and what extent court approval would be
necessary for any FLSA settlement agreement to be valid. Indeed,
even after the status conference, both parties submitted the
Notice of Compliance and the proposed notice to class members
which anticipated that the court would review and approve any
settlement agreement.

In any event, the Court is of the view that the Court's review and
approval of the settlement agreement is a prerequisite to its
enforceability as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. In fact, the Court
cannot approve the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice that is contemplated by the agreement unless it reviews
and approves the settlement. It is therefore irrelevant what
position Plaintiffs' counsel might have taken at a status
conference held in the early stages of this case.

Plaintiffs argue that agreements between individual plaintiffs and
the government which settle FLSA claims are not valid and
enforceable unless they are approved by a court. Therefore,
Plaintiffs contend, this Court should review the proposed
settlement agreement between the parties and, if it determines
that the Agreement is fair and reasonable, approve the same.

The Court agrees.

There is no merit to the government's argument that there is no
reason for the Court to approve the parties' Settlement Agreement
because the governing statute and clear Federal Circuit precedent
mandates that plaintiffs' backpay claims be reimbursed under COPRA
and not the FLSA. Because this case was not decided on the merits,
there is no way of knowing whether if Plaintiffs prevailed their
entitlement to overtime pay would have been grounded in COPRA or
in the FLSA.

The key point is that Plaintiffs brought their claims under both
COPRA and the FLSA as alternative theories of entitlement to
overtime for hours they allegedly worked after their regular tour
of duty hours while attending the DCIC.  Further, in the
settlement agreement, Plaintiffs released, waived, and abandoned
all claims relating to COPRA or FLSA back-pay claims. And the
settlement agreement itself characterizes a portion of the
settlement monies as liquidated damages, a form of relief that is
available under the FLSA, but not COPRA.

In short, the settlement agreement in this case purports to
resolve Plaintiffs' claimed entitlement to back pay and liquidated
damages under the FLSA. The Court thus concludes, consistent with
the weight of authority, that absent this Court's review and
approval there can be no valid waiver or release of Plaintiffs'
FLSA claims.

Further, even if there was nothing in the FLSA itself that
required a court to review and approve a settlement of claims
arising under the statute, various cases including Hohnke,
Brooklyn Savings Bank, and Lynn's Food Stores suggest the wisdom
of conducting such review, Order Directing Entry of J.,
Christofferson v. United States, No. 01-495 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 17,
2010) and the government does not deny that the Court has the
discretion to do so.

The Court concludes that it is proper for the Court to review the
settlement agreement, and, if appropriate, approve it.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' November 6, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya8trnas
from Leagle.com.

MANUEL ALMANZA, Plaintiff, represented by David Luis Kern, Kern
Law Firm, 309 E. Robinson Ave, El Paso, TX 79902

USA, Defendant, represented by Albert Salvatore Iarossi, U.S.
Department of Justice -- Civil Division.


VALEANT PHARMA: Florida to Sue Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Turner, writing for CBS12, reports that acting on its own,
Florida will take on an international pharmaceutical company,
alleging the state's pension fund lost more than $62 million in
stock value because of federal securities violations by the
company.

Gov. Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and state Chief
Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, who comprise the State Board of
Administration, agreed on Nov. 7 to hire a New York-based law firm
to take on Canada-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc., rather than participate in a class-action lawsuit with other
stockholders.

Valeant has been accused of violating federal securities
regulations by marking up drug prices and then selling the drugs
through a pharmacy network, without disclosing the full scope of
the transactions to stockholders.

Ash Williams, executive director of the State Board of
Administration, said the state may not recover all $62 million but
maintained Florida could do better in terms of recovery than being
part of the class action.

"I think we'll get a higher proportion out of our losses this way
than if we had stayed in the class," Mr. Williams said after the
Cabinet meeting.  "And whatever the recovery is, we'll get to keep
more of it because we'll have better terms."

Valeant is facing numerous lawsuits, including an $80 billion
claim filed in August by Lord Abbett & Co., a mutual-fund firm.
Wanting to review law firms that could handle the case, Ms. Bondi
asked for a delay in hiring the firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann.  Terms have yet to be finalized, but Williams said the
firm is asking for a percent of any reward above what the state
could receive from being involved in a victorious class-action
suit.

Ms. Bondi declined to say on Nov. 7 what, from her review of the
case, made her agree to proceed with the solo approach.

"We feel we have enough to go forward, and we're very pleased that
we are," Ms. Bondi said after a state Cabinet meeting.

The case is expected to be filed in federal court in New Jersey,
where the company has its U.S. headquarters.

In a report to the state, Bernstein Litowitz said Florida's $154
billion pension fund "incurred significant damages as a result of
the fraudulent misrepresentations at Valeant."  The law firm
identified at least $62 million in "potential recoverable
damages," based on Valeant stock transactions between January 2013
and August 2016.

In a review of records at the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the law firm said the Florida losses were "among the
largest of any public fund investor."

About $7.5 million of the Valeant transactions were on the
Canadian stock exchange, which is not expected to be the focus of
the lawsuit.

In an indication of how much Florida might recover from the
litigation, Bernstein Litowitz said it recovered 37.5 percent of
investors' estimated damages in a securities lawsuit against the
Cendant Corp. and 18.5 percent of investors' claims against the
Biovail Corp.
Both were class-action lawsuits and Bernstein Litowitz noted it
"has achieved substantially higher recovery percentages when
selectively representing prominent institutional investors
(including the SBA) in direct actions."

In releasing its third-quarter numbers on Nov. 7, Joseph Papa, the
chief executive officer of the embattled company, highlighted
Valeant's "continued progress."

"Valeant is a very different company today than it was a year ago.
Under a new management team, we have strengthened our balance
sheet and stabilized the company by simplifying our business and
allocating resources more efficiently," Mr. Papa said in a
prepared statement.  "We realize there is more progress to be
made, and we will continue to hold ourselves accountable for
delivering on our commitments to best serve our shareholders,
employees, customers, and most importantly, patients." [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dieselgate Class Actions to Kick Off This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Feann Torr, writing for Motoring, reports that Australians who
feel deceived by Volkswagen's #dieselgate emissions scandal will
have their day in court later this month when several class
actions kick off against the German car-maker and its sister
brands Audi and Skoda.

For more than two years the grubby cloud of dieselgate has damaged
Volkswagen's reputation.  In one of the biggest scandals ever to
hit the automotive industry, senior heads rolled not long after
news broke of the emissions cheating rort in September 2015.

In Australia -- where more than 90,000 VW, Audi and Skoda vehicles
powered by EA189 1.6- or 2.0-litre diesel engines are affected --
there are a total of five federal court class actions conducted by
two law firms.

The ACCC is also taking Volkswagen to court over the dieselgate
issue.

The class actions include Bannister Law's Cantor v Audi Australia
and Tolentino v Volkswagen Group Australia, which do not make any
claims against the VW, Audi or Skoda parent companies.

The other public class actions are Maurice Blackburn's Dalton &
Anor v Volkswagen AG and VAG, Richardson v Audi AG and Audi
Australia, and Roe v Skoda Auto, Volkswagen AG and VGA.

Unless owners of affected vehicles chose to "opt-out" of the class
action before October 18, they are understood to be part of the
civil law suit.  The hearings will initially take around four
weeks.

Originally slated for a hearing on October 30, the cases are
believed to have been pushed back due to flood damage in the
courts.  But not even an act of God will stop aggrieved Volkswagen
owners having their day in court.

Volkswagen Group Australia says it has nothing to answer for and
that it will not be paying compensation to affected vehicle owners
-- as occurred in the US, where NOx emissions laws were breached.

The global car giant's Australian managing director told
motoring.com.au that, despite the billions of dollars in
compensation that has been paid in Europe and US, his company
acted lawfully.

"We go back to our original position: There's no reason for there
to be a class action," said Michael Bartsch when we asked him
about the potentially costly and negative outcomes of the court
actions.

Mr. Bartsch said the recall to remove the "defeat device" in
affected vehicles is sufficient to deal with the issue locally,
adding that there are "protocols and procedures for the
rectification of the engine management unit, to make sure it
doesn't have that [emissions] bypass system in it."

Sales of Volkswagen vehicles in Australia -- and globally for that
matter -- have not been severely affected by the dieselgate
emissions cheating scandal, which led to several arrests and
executive sackings.

In fact, despite the negative headlines and looming class actions,
over the past two years Volkswagen Australia insists that resale
values of affected vehicles are not impacted and that its dealers
remain more profitable than most.

"If you have a look at the values of the vehicles . . . [they are]
unaffected," said Mr. Bartsch.

"The values of the vehicles reflect normal lifecycle and our
dealerships are profitable.  They're performing at a level above
most franchises in Australia in terms of return on sales." [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Female Employees File Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordyn Holman, writing for Bloomberg News, report that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is being sued once again by a group of women
who say they faced gender discrimination while working for the
world's biggest retailer.

In the complaint filed on Nov. 6 in federal court in Florida, the
defendants say they were denied opportunities for promotion and
weren't paid equally to male colleagues in both hourly retail
store positions and certain salaried management positions. Many of
the women started working at the retailer in the 1990s.

The case is part of the legacy of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a
2001 suit that claimed the company had a pattern of discriminating
against women in promotion, pay, training and job assignment.  The
suit gained class certification in 2004, representing 1.6 million
female employees.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision to grant
class certification and imposed revised guidelines for class
actions related to employment discrimination.  Wal-Mart worker
Betty Dukes, whose name was attached to the class-action claiming
discrimination, died in July.

"The class the plaintiffs now allege is no more appropriate than
the nationwide class the Supreme Court has already rejected,"
Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in a statement.  "These
claims are unsuitable for class treatment because the situations
of each individual are so different, and because the claims are
not representative of the hundreds of thousands of women who work
at Wal-Mart."

'Not Justified'

The seven plaintiffs in the latest case, Forbes v. Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., were members of the national class certified in Dukes.
Addressing the Supreme Court's revised guidelines, the complaint
focuses on allegations of workers within the southeastern U.S.

"Wal-Mart maintained a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination in compensation and promotion," according to the
complaint.  "And, in each of the above regions, the compensation
and promotion policies and practices of Wal-Mart had a disparate
impact, not justified by business necessity, on its female
employees in the region."

Among these practices were the company's promotion policies, its
failure to post job openings openly and its relocation and travel
requirements for management positions, the complaint says.

These allegations are just one of about 2,000 claims have been
filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging bias in pay and promotions at Wal-Mart after the national
class action was discarded in 2011.  Wal-Mart has 94,000 employees
and 293 stores, including Sam's Clubs, in Florida, where the suit
was filed.

The plaintiffs are asking for a monetary award, including back pay
and damages for lost compensation and job benefits. [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  * * *