---

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


             Monday, February 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 31



                            Headlines


21ST AMENDMENT: Court Narrows Claims in False Advertising Suit
ABBA BAIL: April 2 Deadline to File Class Certification Bid
ABILENE MOTOR: Gravestock Moves to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
ACOSTA INC: Ezell Seeks to Certify Associates Class Under FLSA
AETNA INC: "Miramond" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to CVS Health

AIRBNB INC: Deadline to Reply to 1st Amended "Ventola" Suit Moved
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in E.D. New York
AMAZON: Court Grants "Ward" Leave to File Amended Class Suit
AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett, Austin Renew Consumer Class Cert. Bid
AMERICAN WATER: Judge to Grant Final Okay of $151MM Settlement

ANDEAVOR: Delaware Merger Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ANDEAVOR: Pays $165,000 to Counsel in "Arias" Suit
ANTHEM INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Atzin" ERISA Suit
ASCENA RETAIL: Settlement in "Linares" Granted Final Approval
ASCENA RETAIL: Distribution to Justice Class Members Conducted

BERKLEY GROUP: Leaton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
BHP BILLITON: Corporate Defendants' Bid to Dismiss Suit Underway
BHP BILLITON: American Depositary Purchasers' Suit Still Ongoing
BRASKEM SA: Petrochem Workers Union's Suit Still Ongoing
BRASKEM SA: Feb. 28 Hearing to Approve $10 Mil. Settlement

CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Court Strikes 3rd Amended "Edwards" Suit
CARGO TRANSPORT: "Styzhak" Disputes Lease/Purchase Agreement
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in E.D. New York
CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Crosson" Suit in Eastern District New York
CHILDRENS PLACE: Definitive Agreement Reached in "Rael" Suit

CITIBANK NA: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Menichino" Suit OK'd
COLLIER FOOD: "Germain" Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla
DEVA INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Robinson" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
DENVILLE LINE PAINTING: "Stubits" Seeks Unpaid Back Wages, OT Pay

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Zimmerman" Suit Denied
DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Certify Calif. Suit as Statewide Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Has Favorable Ruling in Store Manager's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Florida Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement of Family Dollar Suit Still Pending

DOW JONES & CO: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. of New York
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suncoast Credit Suit in N.D. Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Tomas" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Gould" Suit Denied
FASTAFF LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dalchau"

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Supreme Court Appeal Pending
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: New York Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
FINANCE SYSTEM: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Boucher" FDCPA Suit
FIRST CENTRAL: Faces "Dunca" Suit in E.D. of New York
GERMED INC: Fauley Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"

GIBRALTAR PRIVATE: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York
GIORGETTI USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
GOLD COAST BANCORP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
GOPRO INC: Court Extends Time to Reply to "Arora" Securities Suit
GREENWICH INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in PHP Suit Affirmed

HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Ganus" Suit in N.D. Alabama
HENRY COUNTY, IN: Ct. Partly OK's Notice to Jail Class Members
HOME DEPOT: Says Settlements in Data Breach Suits Okayed
JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Says $1.2MM Settlement Still Pending
L&B GARDENS: Denied "Perez" Overtime, Spread-of-Hours, Pay Stubs

LIPOCINE INC: Certification of Class Sought in Securities Suit
LOMA NEGRA: Argentina Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
LUCILLE ROBERTS HEALTH: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
M.Y. SAFRA: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of NY
MAC COSMETICS: Denied Access to Employee Records, Suit Says

MAISON KAYSER LLC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: Filing of Bid to Approve "Story" Deal Extended
MARIO BADESCU SKIN: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
MCS GROUP: Illegally Charged Sales Tax, "Melagrano" Suit Says
MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Clock" Suit in Eastern District New York

MISONIX INC: $500,000 Settlement in "Scalfani" Suit Okayed
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Das" Suit in Eastern District New York
MONSTER DIGITAL: Oludele Drops Class Suit over Merger
MURATA MANUFACTURING: Powerweb Sues Over Inductor Price-fixing
NATIVE COMMERCE: Court Dismisses EFTA Claim in "Wheeler" Suit

NETWORK RECOVERY: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NOMURA & COMPANY: Biscocho Files Brown Rice Mislabeling Suit
NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORT: Garrote Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
OMEGA PROTEIN: Durkee Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
ORTHO SPORT: Feb. 22 Settlement Conference in "Currie" Suit Set

POPULAR NORTH: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of NY
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Pollak"
PREFERRED CARE: "Ramos" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Vayngurt" Suit in E.D. New York
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of "Hawkins" Affirmed

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Schnur" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
ROKA JAPANESE FOOD: Denied OT Pay, Paystubs, "Ramirez" Suit Says
ROYAL EVENTS: Faces "Orozco" Suit in Eastern District New York
SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Suits Proceed into Discovery
SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Underway

SANDERSON FARMS: Oklahoma Class Action Suit Ongoing
SCANA CORP: Faces "Glibowski" Suit in South Carolina
SCORES HOLDING: Settlement of Former Entertainer's Suit Pending
SEVCON INC: "Scarantino" Stockholder Class Action Dropped
SHOE SERVICE: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York

SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Steigerwald" Suit
STAPLES INC: Four Class Action Suits Dismissed
STATE FARM: Faces "Sides" Suit in Middle District Alabama
SUN BANCORP: MOU Reached in NJ Stockholder Class Suit
TERRAFORM POWER: Settlement in "Chamblee" Suit Has Final Okay

THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies "Miller" FLSA Class
THORATEC CORP: Cooper Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class
UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Watson" Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Arthur Moves to Certify Class of Purchasers

US BANK: Court Affirms Denial of "Duran" Class Certification
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Says 3rd Cir. Affirms Case Dismissal
VALENCIA COUNTY, NM: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Wilson"
VERSAR INC: Calif. Employees Class Suit Settled for $0.5M




                            *********


21ST AMENDMENT: Court Narrows Claims in False Advertising Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENDAN PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. THE 21ST AMENDMENT
BREWERY CAFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01918-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Peacock's claims against
it.

In this false advertising action, Peacock alleges that 21st
Amendment's packaging and website led consumers to believe that
its beer is brewed exclusively in the San Francisco Bay Area,
when in fact some of it is brewed in Minnesota.

In July 2016, Peacock purchased packages of two different 21st
Amendment brand beers, "Brew Free! Or Die IPA" and "Hell or High
Watermelon Wheat Beer," from two different stores in Sacramento,
California.  Peacock claims that before he bought this beer, he
was exposed to the Defendant's marketing messaging and
impressions that the beer is exclusively brewed in the Bay Area
of California.

The Plaintiff alleges the following specific misrepresentations:
(1) the beer cartons contained a map of the Bay Area "with an 'X'
designating where the 'brewery' is located"; (2) 21st Amendment's
website contained an origin statement describing the brewery's
beginning in San Francisco; and (3) the label on the cans stated
"Brewed & Canned by 21st Amendment Brewery, San Leandro, CA."

The particular cans of beer purchased by Peacock were actually
brewed in Minnesota.  Peacock claims that he purchased the beer
because of and in reliance on the representations made by 21st
Amendment.  Moreover, he paid a premium price for beer that he
would not have purchased to begin with had he known it was not
exclusively brewed in California.  Peacock alleges that he
suffered harm as a result of 21st Amendment's false, deceptive,
and misleading marketing.

On April 6, 2017, Peacock brought the action against 21st
Amendment for false advertising pursuant to the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").  21st Amendment filed a motion to
dismiss on July 31, 2017.  Peacock then filed a response on Sept.
27, 2017.  21st Amendment filed a brief in support of its motion
on Oct. 11, 2017.  On Oct. 23, 2017, Peacock filed a notice of
supplemental authority.  21st Amendment filed its response to
Peacock's notice of supplemental authority on Oct. 25, 2017.

Before addressing 21st Amendment's motion to dismiss, Judge Tigar
takes judicial notice of all of the exhibits contained in 21st
Amendment's unopposed Requests for Judicial Notice ("First RJN"
and "Second RJN").  Among other things, 21st Amendment asks the
Court to take judicial notice of the following documents
referenced in the complaint: (A) an image of the complete
packaging for "Brew Free! or Die IPA"; (B) images of the complete
packaging for "Hell or High Watermelon Wheat Beer"; (C) an
excerpt from Defendant's website, http://21st-amendment.com/;and
(G) a letter from the Plaintiff's counsel to Nicolas Freccia re:
Notice and Demand Pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1782(a), dated Oct. 31, 2016.  The Judge takes judicial notice of
Exhibits A, B, C, and G.  However, he will not take notice of any
disputed facts contained in these documents.

21st Amendment also requests that the Court take notice of the
following exhibits not referenced in the complaint: (L) letter
from the Defendant's counsel to the Plaintiff's counsel re:
Notice and Demand Pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1782(a), dated Nov. 10, 2016 and (M) e-mail from the Plaintiff's
counsel to the Defendant's counsel re: 21st Amendment Brewery,
dated Dec. 11, 2016.  The Judge finds that Peacock's claim
depends on the contents of the proffered documents and the
parties do not dispute their authenticity.  He will take notice
of Exhibits L and M.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Judge Tigar, among other
things, finds that Peacock has adequately alleged that the map
with "The Brewery" marked with an "x" is an actionable
misrepresentation.  He notes that it does not want this
determination to give the impression that Peacock has a
particularly compelling argument.  However, Peacock has provided
sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.

He also finds that Peacock's Sherman Act allegations suffer from
an additional flaw: he does not explain how the FDA has the
authority to regulate beer in the first place.  The Judge does
not see how the Plaintiffs come to the conclusion that the FDA
would regulate a product that contains beer.

Finally, he finds that injunctive relief is not available without
a showing of an actualized, imminent threat that the same harm
will be suffered again.  Peacock has made no such showing.

For these reasons, Judge Tigar granted in part and denied in part
the Motion.  The Judge granted with leave to amend 21st
Amendment's motion to dismiss (i) Peacock's UCL claims for
failure to satisfy the pleading standards for common law fraud to
the extent that it (1) is predicated on the CLRA claim, and (2)
relies upon California Sherman Law section 110100; (ii) Peacock's
CLRA claims on the grounds of a failure to provide sufficient
notice under California Civil Code section 1782(a); and (iii)
Peacock's claim for injunctive relief on the grounds that he
lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of the
class.

Judge Tigar denied 21st Amendment's motion to dismiss (i) all of
Peacock's claims on the grounds of a failure to allege any
actionable misrepresentations; (ii) on the grounds that its
conduct is protected under the safe harbor doctrine; (iii)
Peacock's claim for equitable relief; and Peacock's claims on
behalf of a nationwide class without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cR1knz from Leagle.com.

Brendan Peacock, on Behalf of Himself, and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Lee Beck --
elizabeth@beckandlee.com -- Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, Jared
Harrison Beck -- jared@beckandlee.com -- Beck & Lee Trial
Lawyers, Cullin Avram O'Brien -- cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com --
Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A., pro hac vice & David Sohn --
david@sohnlegal.com -- Sohn Legal Group, P.C.

The 21st Amendment Brewery Cafe, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Eugene Moon Pak -- epak@wendel.com -- Wendel Rosen Black & Dean
LLP, Jason M. Horst -- jason@horstcounsel.com -- Wendel Rosen
Black & Dean LLP & Katherine Kao -- kkao@wendel.com -- Wendel
Rosen Black & Dean LLP.


ABBA BAIL: April 2 Deadline to File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM VAN HULTEN, individually, and on behalf of the
general public and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ABBA BAIL BONDS, INC., California corporation; JANE UN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02459-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend Deadline For
Plaintiff to File Motion For Class Certification And Extend
Court's Precertification Discovery Cut-Off.

Judge Nunley ordered that (i) the deadline for the Plaintiff to
file his Motions for Class Certification, and (ii) the Court's
precertification discovery deadline both be set for April 2,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/M69nSP from Leagle.com.

Adam Van Hulten, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason -
- David@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason & Archbold.

ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc. & Jane Un, Defendants, represented by
Timothy Ricardo Hanigan -- trhanigan@gmail.com -- Lang Hanigan
and Carvalho LLP.


ABILENE MOTOR: Gravestock Moves to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LARRY GRAVESTOCK,
Individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated v. ABILENE MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., a
Virginia corporation, a DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00170-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order
certifying classes for the Plaintiff's claims that the Defendant
underpaid truck drivers, who performed work in California.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an order appointing the
named Plaintiff as class representative, and the law firm of The
Westrick Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rRcWsT6L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          THE WESTRICK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          11075 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 125
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5303
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3373
          E-mail: swestrick@westricklawfirm.com


ACOSTA INC: Ezell Seeks to Certify Associates Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marguerite Ezell and Sherilyn Silver, together with
Opt-Ins Judy Gambucci, Kay Mader and Shirley Piercy move the
Court for an order granting notice and conditional certification
of the action titled MARGUERITE EZELL and SHERILYN SILVER, on
behalf of themselves and All others similarly situated v. ACOSTA,
INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00870-RLW (E.D. Mo.).

The collective action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of all current and former Wal-Mart Retail
Continuity Associates and Grocery Retail Coverage Merchandisers
who are or were currently employed by Acosta, Inc.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kEXkK3TV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 994-9220
          E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com
                  jak@klafterolsen.com
                  seth@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          W. Christopher McDonough, Esq.
          THE McDONOUGH LAW FIRM, LLC
          16640 Chesterfield Grove Road, Suite 125
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636)530-1815
          Facsimile: (636)530-1816
          E-mail: wcm@mcdlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          9666 Olive Blvd, Suite 690
          St. Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 240-5278
          Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
          E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com


AETNA INC: "Miramond" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to CVS Health
------------------------------------------------------------
Olivier Miramond, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., Mark T. Bertolini,
Ellen M. Hancock, Betsy Z. Cohen, Frank M. Clark, Edward J.
Ludwig, Jeffrey E. Garten, Fernando Aguirre, Molly J. Coye,
Richard J. Harrington, Joseph P. Newhouse, Roger N. Farah and
Olympia J. Snowe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00083, (D. Conn.,
January 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of Aetna by CVS Health Corporation,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each stock of Aetna's public common stockholders will be
converted into the right to receive 0.8378 fully paid and non-
assessable shares of CVS Common Stock and $145.00 in cash. The
Merger would value Aetna at approximately $207.94 per share. The
proposed transaction is valued at approximately $77 billion.

The complaint says the intrinsic value of Aetna and its common
stock is materially in excess of the amount offered given its
prospects for future growth and earnings. The discounted cash
flow analysis of Aetna's financial advisor, Lazard Freeres & Co.
LLC, indicated an Implied Per Share Equity Value as high as $233,
it adda.

Aetna operates a diversified health care benefits companies
offering a broad range of traditional, voluntary and consumer-
directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, medical management capabilities,
Medicaid health care management services, Medicare Advantage and
Medicare supplement plans, workers' compensation administrative
services and health information technology products and services.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: shopkins@zlk.com

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


AIRBNB INC: Deadline to Reply to 1st Amended "Ventola" Suit Moved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN MARSHALL, an individual; CAROLINE VENTOLA, an individual;
CHRIS CHENG, an individual; DANIEL DYKES, an individual; and
WINSTON CHENG, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER GREGORY
ROGERS, an individual; ROGERS HOLDINGS, II, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; BARBARA L. ROGERS, an individual and
Trustee/Beneficiary of The Rogers Family Trust; and DANNIE EARL
ROGERS, an individual and Trustee/Beneficiary of The Rogers
Family Trust; THE ROGERS FAMILY TRUST, an unknown entity; AIRBNB,
INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES 1-50, unknown individuals; and
ROE COMPANIES 1-50, unknown business entities, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00078-JAD-CWH (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Carl W.
Hoffman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
extended Airbnb's time to answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") up to and including
Feb. 2, 2018.

Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1, the parties stipulates and agreed,
and Judge Hoffman approved, that Airbnb's time to answer or
otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's FAC will be extended up to
and including Feb. 2, 2018.  The reason for the stipulation for
extension of time is that the allegations and claims against
Airbnb set forth in the FAC, including class action allegations,
are complex.  Airbnb requested additional time from the
Plaintiffs to formulate its response, and the Plaintiffs
graciously agreed.  It is the first stipulation for extension of
Airbnb's time to file its response to the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HtaCzL from Leagle.com.

Colin Marshall, Caroline Ventola, Chris Cheng, Daniel Dykes &
Winston Cheng, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher D. Kircher
-- cdk@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard, Jarrod L.
Rickard -- jlr@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard &
Lawrence J. Semenza, III -- ljs@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher
Rickard.

AIRBNB, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson & Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano & Wilson.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Stella Feldman, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00666 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 31, 2018).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMAZON: Court Grants "Ward" Leave to File Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER WARD and LINDA QUINTEROS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON,
a business entity of unknown form; GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-MJS (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Parties'
Joint Stipulation for entry of order granting the Plaintiffs
leave to file First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

The Magistrate Judge has considered the Parties' Joint
Stipulation and the proposed FAC in the form attached to the
Joint Stipulation.  With good cause appearing, and pursuant to
the Joint Stipulation, he approved the Joint Stipulation.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Seng granted the Plaintiffs leave
to file their FAC attached to the Parties' Joint Stipulation.
The Defendant will file its responsive pleading within 21 days of
the filing of the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/l49IRB from Leagle.com.

Christopher Ward & Linda Quinteros, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alvin B. Lindsay, David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., David Harmik
Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates,
Inc. & Emil Davtyan, Davtyan Professional Law Corporation.

Amazon, Defendant, represented by Barbara J. Miller , Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Golden State FC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Defendant, represented by Joel M. Purles --
joel.purles@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Theresa Mak -- Theresa.Mak@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
& Barbara J. Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.


AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett, Austin Renew Consumer Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits entitled DONOVAN
HARGRETT, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-
RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.), and MICHAEL AUSTIN and DEOLINDA S.M. BONDE,
et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-2588-T-26JSS
(M.D. Fla.), seek certification of this class of consumers:

     All natural persons in the United States who (1) applied
     online for work at Amazon.com using Salesforce.com; (2) were
     the subject of a consumer report that was procured by
     Amazon.com (or cause to be procured by Amazon) from Accurate
     Background, Inc.; (3) to whom Amazon.com presented the
     disclosure and authorization form attached as Exhibit B to
     Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
     before procuring that report; (4) within two years of the
     filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class List is
     prepared.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Court's directive, Plaintiffs Donovan Hargrett and Michael
Austin, on their own behalf and for all similarly situated
individuals, renew their Motion to certify this Fair Credit
Reporting Act case as a class action for a national class of
consumers, who applied for work with Amazon.com and for whom
Amazon obtained consumer reports for employment purposes without
having a statutory basis for doing so.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UB8Dw1xR

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd.., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com


AMERICAN WATER: Judge to Grant Final Okay of $151MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reported that
U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. told lawyers at a
hearing on Feb. 1, 2018, that he is close to granting final
approval to a $151 million settlement of the class action lawsuit
over the January 2014 water crisis in the Kanawha Valley.

According to the report, the judge said the case is "in the
posture for a final order" that would be issued soon.

Judge Copenhaver made his comments during a morning hearing held
after he received updated data from the settlement's
administrator about how many Kanawha Valley residents and
businesses have filed claims for compensation for the loss of
their drinking water following the chemical spill at the Freedom
Industries facility located just upstream from West Virginia
American Water's regional intake on the Elk River.

The most recent data, through the end of the day Wednesday, Jan.
31, 2018, showed that 64,000 claims have been filed so far in the
case, according to John Jenkins from the settlement
administrator's office.

Currently, the deadline for filing claims in the settlement with
West Virginia American and Eastman Chemical is Feb. 21.
Distribution of claims money won't start until after that.

Additional information can be found and claims may be filed at
http://www.wvwaterclaims.com/

Under the settlement, residential households -- homeowners as
well as renters -- may file a simple claim form and obtain $550
for the first resident and $180 for each additional resident.
Residents also may file more-detailed information about their
losses -- for things such as bottled water or replacement
appliances -- if they provide proof of those expenditures on a
separate type of claim form.

Businesses and nonprofit organizations may likewise obtain flat
payments, based on their size, or can submit documentation of
specific losses to have those recouped.

The settlement also provides additional payments to women who
were pregnant at the time of the chemical spill that sparked the
water crisis, residents who had medical expenses and hourly-wage
earners who lost money when businesses they worked in closed
during the crisis. Government agencies also are eligible to
submit claims.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses had alleged
that West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or
respond to the Jan. 9, 2014, spill just upstream from the
company's Elk River regional drinking water intake, and that
MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn Freedom of the dangers
of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials learned
that the Freedom facility was in disrepair.

Residents, businesses and others don't have to have previously
hired a lawyer or signed up for a lawsuit to be eligible, but
they do have to file claims. Anyone who falls within the
definition of the "class" covered by the settlement may file a
claim for compensation. The class includes basically any business
or resident who received tap water from the Elk River intake
plant and any hourly-wage earner whose employer closed because of
the spill and resulting water system contamination.

American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22,
2017, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia granted preliminary approval of a settlement class
and proposed class action settlement for all claims and potential
claims arising out of the January 9, 2014 Freedom Industries,
Inc. chemical spill into the Elk River in West Virginia.

On September 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia granted preliminary approval of a
settlement class and proposed class action settlement (the
"Settlement") with respect to claims against West Virginia-
American Water Company ("WVAWC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
American Water Works Company, Inc. (the "Company"), American
Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and the Company (collectively, the
"American Water Defendants"), by all putative class members
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") for all claims and potential
claims arising out of the January 9, 2014 Freedom Industries,
Inc. chemical spill into the Elk River in West Virginia.

Preliminary approval was granted after the parties to the
Settlement filed with the court a proposed amended settlement
agreement and related materials on August 25, 2017 addressing the
matters set forth in the court's July 6, 2017 order denying
without prejudice the joint motion for preliminary approval of
the Settlement. The economic terms contained in the proposed
amended settlement agreement are materially similar to those
included in the binding global agreement in principle to settle
claims originally approved by the court in October 2016 and
previously disclosed in the Company's Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2016 (the "2016 Form 10-K"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 21,
2017.

The terms of the Settlement propose a global resolution of all
federal and state litigation and potential claims against the
American Water Defendants and their insurers. Under federal class
action rules, a claimant may elect to opt out of the final
Settlement, in which case such claimant will not receive any
benefit from or be bound by the terms of the Settlement. The
American Water Defendants would have the right to withdraw from
the Settlement if more than a certain number of putative class
members opt out of the Settlement. Under the terms and conditions
of the Settlement and the amended settlement agreement, the
American Water Defendants have not admitted, and will not admit,
any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the
Plaintiffs in any of the actions to be resolved.

The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement with
respect to the Company remains at $126 million. However, the
aggregate portion of the Settlement to be contributed by WVAWC,
net of insurance recoveries, has been reduced from $65 million to
$43 million (approximately $26 million after-tax) due to the
recent settlement with one of the Company's general liability
insurance carriers. This reduction will apply to WVAWC's
contributions to the guaranteed fund. The contribution by another
defendant to the Settlement remains at $25 million. If any final
approval order by the court with respect to the Settlement is
appealed and such appeal would delay potential payment to
claimants under the Settlement, WVAWC and the other defendant to
the Settlement will contribute up to $50 million and $25 million,
respectively, to the Settlement (not including, in the case of
WVAWC, any contributions by the Company's general liability
insurance carriers which would not be made until such time as a
final, non-appealable order is issued) into an escrow account
during the pendency of such appeals. For certain claims, WVAWC
and the other defendant to the Settlement may, in lieu of these
escrowed contributions, make advance payments of such claims if
agreed to by the parties. All administrative expenses of the
Settlement and attorneys' fees of class counsel related thereto
would be paid from the funds designated to pay claims covered by
the Settlement.

Notice of the terms of the Settlement will be provided to members
of the settlement class within 21 days of the court's preliminary
approval order. Following the notice period, the court will hold
a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or "MCHM", and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers,
into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia.
After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), WVAWC
took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM,
augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin
consultations with federal, state and local public health
officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that the
augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a
joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia
Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of
its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West
Virginia counties served by the Charleston treatment plant. By
January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the
Do Not Use order.

American Water Works recounted in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that following the
Freedom Industries chemical spill, numerous lawsuits were filed
against WVAWC and certain other Company affiliated entities
(collectively, the "American Water Defendants") with respect to
this matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha,
Boone and Putnam counties, and to date, 74 cases remain pending.
Four of the cases pending before the U.S. district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal
action") was filed in December 2014 by several plaintiffs.

On January 28, 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were
referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further
proceedings, which have been stayed pending the negotiation by
the parties and approval by the court in the Federal action of a
global agreement to settle all of such cases.

On July 7, 2016, the court in the Federal action scheduled trial
to begin on October 25, 2016, but the court has granted several
continuances of the trial, which is currently postponed
indefinitely in light of the preliminarily approved global
settlement agreement. The Mass Litigation Panel has also stayed
its proceedings until January 23, 2018.

American Water Works said "There can be no assurance that the
Settlement will not be amended further or that the court will
provide its final approval as to any agreement negotiated between
the parties reflecting the terms of the Settlement."

American Water Works Company, Inc. is an American public utility
company operating in the United States and Canada. It was founded
in 1886 as the American Water Works & Guarantee Company. In 1947
it was reorganized as American Water Works Company, Inc.


ANDEAVOR: Delaware Merger Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Andeavor disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that a merger-related class
action lawsuit in Delaware has been dismissed.

Andeavor, citing Western Refining's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2016, said that on August 24,
2016, an alleged Northern Tier Energy LP unitholder filed a
purported class action complaint in the Arizona District Court,
against Western Refining, NTI, certain members of the board of
directors of NTI's general partner and other parties involved
with Western Refining's acquisition of NTI, challenging the
adequacy of disclosures made in connection with the acquisition.
On July 19, 2017, the case was transferred to the Delaware
District Court pursuant to a forum selection clause. The case has
been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

Andeavor is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum
products, operating ten refineries in the Western United States
with a combined rated crude oil capacity of approximately
1,200,000 barrels (190,000 m3) per day. Formerly known as Tesoro
Corporation, or simply as Tesoro, the company is a Fortune 100
and a Fortune Global 500 company headquartered in Texas at San
Antonio, with 2013 annual revenues of $37 billion, and over
13,000 employees worldwide.


ANDEAVOR: Pays $165,000 to Counsel in "Arias" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Andeavor has agreed to pay $165,000 to plaintiff's counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the case, Carl Arias v.
Gregory J Goff, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0094-AGB.

Andeavor said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in September that on November 16, 2016,
Andeavor (the "Company") and Western Refining, Inc. ("Western
Refining") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby
the Company agreed to acquire Western Refining through a mixed
consideration deal valued at approximately $6.4 billion (the
"Merger"). On December 14, 2016, the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a Form S-4 Registration
Statement that, among other things, made certain disclosures
regarding the Merger (the "Original Registration Statement").

On February 7, 2017, the members of the Company's board of
directors were named as defendants in a purported stockholder
class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court") by one of the Company's stockholders. The suit is
captioned Carl Arias v. Gregory J Goff, et al., C.A. No. 2017-
0094-AGB. The complaint alleged that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith
and/or disclosure by failing to disclose to the Company's
stockholders all material information necessary to make an
informed decision regarding the Company's proposal to issue
common stock in connection with the Merger. Among other remedies,
the plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger and to hold the
Company's directors liable for allegedly breaching their
fiduciary duties.

After the complaint was filed, the Company determined to include
additional disclosures in the Original Registration Statement,
which the Company made in a supplement to the Original
Registration Statement filed on February 14, 2017 (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

On February 24, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation under
which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with
prejudice as to himself only, but without prejudice as to all
plaintiffs and any other putative class member. The Court
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating
plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
the Supplemental Disclosures.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $165,000 to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The
Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on,
the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.

Andeavor is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum
products, operating ten refineries in the Western United States
with a combined rated crude oil capacity of approximately
1,200,000 barrels (190,000 m3) per day. Formerly known as Tesoro
Corporation, or simply as Tesoro, the company is a Fortune 100
and a Fortune Global 500 company headquartered in Texas at San
Antonio, with 2013 annual revenues of $37 billion, and over
13,000 employees worldwide.


ANTHEM INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Atzin" ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, LACY ATZIN; MARK ANDERSEN, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC and ANTHEM UM SERVICES, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-CV-06816-ODW (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.).

Atzin and Andersen bring the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated against the Defendants.
Atzin alleges claims against the Defendants for: (1) the denial
of plan benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"); and (2) breach of fiduciary duty
in violation of ERISA.

Anthem provides health benefit plans that are administered by its
wholly owned subsidiaries, including AUMS which serves as the
claims administrator for all Anthem plans.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants wrongfully denied them benefits by refusing
to grant their requests for microprocessor controlled prostheses,
an artificial extension that replaces a missing body part.

The Plaintiffs allege that OR-PR.00003 -- which applies to all
Anthem plans -- is wrongful because it contradicts their plans'
definition of the "medical necessity" and "investigational"
exclusions.  OR-PR.00003 sets forth four criteria to determine
whether a microprocessor controlled prostheses is "medically
necessary" for any given claimant.

The policy only covers claimants if the individual: (1) is
physically and mentally capable of using a microprocessor
controlled prosthesis; (2) is able to ambulate faster than their
baseline rate using a standard prosthesis; (3) has a need for
daily long distance ambulation at variable rates outside of their
home; and (4) has a need for regular ambulation on uneven terrain
or regular use on stairs outside of their home or place of
employment.

The Plaintiffs contend that the policy unreasonably strict and
therefore "erroneous."  They also contend that Or-PR.00003
contains a blanket policy of denying all requests for
microprocessor controlled foot-ankle prostheses, which flies in
the face of medical studies demonstrating the benefits of such
prostheses.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint because: (1) Anthem
is not is not a proper Defendant; and (2) the Plaintiffs' breach
of fiduciary duty claim is duplicative of their claim for plan
benefits.

Judge Wright finds that the Plaintiffs allege that Anthem had a
hand in developing coverage guidelines that determine what types
of claims should be granted or denied.  He says there is no
dispute that Anthem is neither the plan nor plan administrator.
However, the Plaintiff alleges that Anthem is a de facto
administrator due to the control it wields over the policy making
process.  By creating such policies, the Plaintiffs contend that
Anthem collaborates with Anthem UM on the types of claims that
will be approved or denied.  For these reasons, he finds that
Anthem is a proper Defendant for the Plaintiffs claims under
Sections 1132(a)(1)(B) and 1132(a)(3).

The Judge also finds that although some of the requested relief
for their Section 1132(a)(3) claim -- an injunction requiring
reevaluation of the Plaintiffs' claims, for example -- may be
duplicative, the Plaintiffs request relief under Section
1132(a)(3) that plainly is not.  For instance, injunctive relief
precluding the Defendants from relying on specific reasons not
recited in their form denial letters is distinct from payment of
unpaid benefits.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Section 1132(a)(3)
claim is not duplicative of their Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim.

For the reasons, Judge Wright denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9K93QH from Leagle.com.

Lacy Atzin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Mark Andersen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Seth Davis
-- Joshua.Davis@gmlawyers.com -- Gianelli and Morris ALC, Robert
S. Gianelli, Gianelli and Morris ALC, Adrian J. Barrio, Gianelli
and Morris ALC, Conal F. Doyle -- conal@conaldoylelaw.com --
Doyle Law & J. Stephen Beke -- sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com -- Doyle
Law.

Anthem, Inc. & Anthem UM Services, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Karen A. Braje -- kbraje@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


ASCENA RETAIL: Settlement in "Linares" Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended July 29, 2017, that the court has granted the unopposed
motion for final approval of Joint Stipulation for Class Action
Settlement and Release.

On December 29, 2015, plaintiff, Steven Linares, a former sales
associate, filed a class action complaint on behalf of all sales
leads, sales associates and stock associates working in
California from December 29, 2011 through the present, in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleges on behalf of
the class that ANN did not properly provide overtime pay, minimum
wage pay, meal and rest breaks, and waiting time pay, among other
claims under the California Business and Professions Code and
California Labor Code.

At mediation, the parties agreed to settle all claims in the suit
for a total of $3.5 million to settle both the pending claims and
other wage-and-hour claims that could have been brought as part
of the lawsuit (including claims for penalties under the Private
Attorneys' General Act). The Company believes that such amount
reflects a liability that is both probable and reasonably
estimable, thus a reserve for approximately $3.5 million was
established in the first quarter of Fiscal 2017. The parties
executed a formal Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement
and Release, dated February 6, 2017. The Joint Stipulation for
Class Action Settlement and Release was preliminarily approved by
the Court on April 25, 2017.

On August 22, 2017, the Court granted the unopposed motion for
final approval of Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement
and Release. Within thirty days of the Court's final approval,
provided that there are no objections or appeals of the
settlement by the class members, the settlement funds shall be
deposited with the appointed settlement administrator.
Distributions to class members pursuant to the Joint Stipulation
for Class Action Settlement and Release are expected to take
place within approximately sixty days following the entry of the
Court's final approval of the Joint Stipulation for Class Action
Settlement and Release.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women
and tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. It
operates through six segments: ANN, Justice, Lane Bryant,
maurices, dressbarn, and Catherines.  The Company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc. and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011.  Ascena Retail Group, Inc. was
founded in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ASCENA RETAIL: Distribution to Justice Class Members Conducted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
Quarterly Period Ended October 28, 2017, that distributions to
class members pursuant to the settlement began to take place on
or about September 18, 2017 and continued through mid-October in
advance of the deadline of October 27, 2017.

According to the Company, to the extent some of the pricing
lawsuits previously discussed are still stayed, it is likely that
they will be formally dismissed within the coming months. If the
matters described do not occur and the pricing lawsuits are not
finally resolved on a class basis for approximately $51 million
in accordance with the settlement, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may or may not result in an additional material
loss which cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Ascena previously said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended July 29, 2017, that distributions related to the
Justice pricing deal, to class members pursuant to the settlement
are expected to take place before the deadline of October 27,
2017.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege, among other claims, that Justice's promotional
practices violated state comparative pricing laws in connection
with advertisements promoting a 40% discount.

In July 2015, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on a class
basis for the period of January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2015
for approximately $51 million, including payments to members of
the class and payment of legal fees and expenses of settlement
administration. The parties executed a formal Settlement
Agreement dated September 24, 2015.

The Company paid approximately $51 million representing the
agreed settlement amount into an escrow account on November 16,
2015. Formal notice of settlement was sent to the class members
on December 1, 2015. The final approval hearing was held on May
20, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of settlement and dismissed the case with
prejudice. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected all of
the objections to the settlement that had been raised, but did
reduce the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid to plaintiffs'
counsel out of the settlement amount. The Court's deduction of
attorney's fees to be paid to plaintiff's counsel will have no
impact on the agreed upon settlement amount of approximately $51
million.

The Court's decision granting final approval was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After a
court-ordered mediation session on March 24, 2017, the appeals
were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice. The class settlement
is now final and non-appealable.

Distributions to class members pursuant to the settlement began
to take place on or about September 18, 2017 and continued
through mid-October in advance of the deadline of October 27,
2017.

The Company noted that potential claims related to purchases made
in 2010 and 2011 have been raised, including in the Metoyer case,
although no additional lawsuits have been filed.

The Company believes it has strong defenses to any such claims
and is prepared to defend any such claims. If the plaintiffs in
the other Justice cases do not agree to dismissal, the Company
will move to dismiss those cases in light of the binding release
of all class members affected by the settlement. There is some
possibility that individual class members who excluded themselves
from the settlement may seek to pursue their own or additional
claims, although the Company believes that the liability
associated with those cases would not be material.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women
and tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. It
operates through six segments: ANN, Justice, Lane Bryant,
maurices, dressbarn, and Catherines.  The Company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc. and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011.  Ascena Retail Group, Inc. was
founded in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


BERKLEY GROUP: Leaton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Leaton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Berkley Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-60090 (S.D. N.Y., January 16, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief and statutory damages arising out of and relating to the
conduct of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting Plaintiff on his telephones using an artificial or
prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent
within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Berkley Group -- https://www.bgllc.net -- is a private
timeshare resort development firm operating under its Vacation
Village Resorts and Affiliates brand.

Leaton is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


BHP BILLITON: Corporate Defendants' Bid to Dismiss Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
BHP Billiton Limited disclosed in a Form 6-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that on November 16, 2017,
Samarco Mineracao S.A. and its shareholders, Vale S.A. and BHP
Billiton Brasil, entered into an agreement with the Federal
Prosecutors' Office in Brazil and the Minas Gerais State
Prosecutors Office (Amendment Agreement). The Amendment
Agreement, subject to ratification by the 12th Federal Court of
Minas Gerais, amends the Preliminary Agreement(5) entered into on
January 18, 2017 in relation to the Samarco dam failure.  The
Amendment Agreement provides for the State Prosecutors to become
a party to the Preliminary Agreement and provides for additional
community consultation.

Samarco, Vale S.A., BHP Billiton Brasil and the Federal
Prosecutors also jointly requested, and the 12th Federal Court
has approved, an additional 150 days, ending on April 20, 2018,
for the parties to continue negotiations for the settlement of
the Public Civil Claims.

BHP also disclosed that on December 22, 2017, the Company
announced a total of US$181 million in further financial support
for the Renova Foundation and Samarco until June 30, 2018. This
comprises US$133 million to fund the Renova Foundation which will
be offset against the Group's provision for the Samarco dam
failure, US$6 million of fees payable to experts appointed in
connection with remediation and compensation programs and a
short-term facility of up to US$42 million to be made available
to Samarco.

Samarco is jointly owned by BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda and Vale
S.A.  BHP's 50% interest is accounted for as an equity accounted
investment.

BHP said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended June 30, 2017, that
on November 14, 2016, a putative class action complaint
(Complaint) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Samarco's
ten-year bond notes due 2022-2024 between October 31, 2012 and
November 30, 2015 against Samarco and the former chief executive
officer of Samarco. The Complaint asserts claims under the U.S.
federal securities laws and indicates that the plaintiff will
seek certification to proceed as a class action.

On March 6, 2017, the Complaint was amended to include BHP
Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton Plc, BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda and
Vale S.A. and officers of Samarco, including four of Vale S.A.
and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda's nominees to the Samarco Board.

On April 5, 2017, the plaintiff dismissed the claims against the
individuals. The remaining corporate defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint on June 26, 2017.

The amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs on behalf of the
putative class is unspecified. Given the preliminary status of
this matter, it is not possible at this time to provide a range
of possible outcomes or a reliable estimate of potential future
exposures to Samarco.

BHP Billiton PLC is a global resources company.


BHP BILLITON: American Depositary Purchasers' Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
BHP Billiton PLC said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended June 30,
2017, that the company continues to defend a putative class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American
Depositary Receipts of BHP Billiton Limited and BHP Billiton PLC.

In February 2016, a putative class action complaint (Complaint)
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of American Depositary Receipts
of BHP Billiton Limited and BHP Billiton Plc between 25 September
2014 and 30 November 2015 against BHP Billiton Limited and BHP
Billiton Plc and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors. The Complaint asserts claims under US
federal securities laws and indicates that the plaintiff will
seek certification to proceed as a class action.

The amount of damages sought by the plaintiff on behalf of the
putative class is unspecified. On 14 October 2016, the defendants
moved to dismiss the Complaint. In a decision of the District
Court dated 28 August 2017, the claims were dismissed in part,
including the claims against the current and former executive
officers and directors.

BHP Billiton said "Given the preliminary status of this matter,
it is not possible at this time to provide a range of possible
outcomes or a reliable estimate of potential future exposures to
BHP Billiton Limited and BHP Billiton Plc."

BHP Billiton PLC is a leading global resources company. The
company's purpose is to create long-term shareholder value
through the discovery, acquisition, development and marketing of
natural resources.


BRASKEM SA: Petrochem Workers Union's Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the company continues to defend itself in
a class action filed by the Trade Union of Petrochemical and
Chemical Workers of Triunfo.

In the class action suits filed by the Trade Union of
Petrochemical and Chemical Workers of Triunfo, Rio Grande do Sul
("SINDIPOLO"), in the third quarter of 2010, claiming the payment
of inclusion of overtime in the calculation of the weekly
remunerated rest ("WRR"), in the restated amount of R$44.6
million, the following developments occurred in the period: (i)
WRR: judgment for plaintiff in the suit involving the inclusion
of overtime in the calculation of the weekly remunerated rest,
which was upheld by the Regional Appellate Labor Court ("TRT"),
for which Braskem appealed to the TST, which ordered the case to
be sent back to the TRT for a new trial. However, as the TRT did
not judge on the merits, Braskem appealed once again to the TST.
After examining the appeal, the TST handed down a new decision
granting the claim. Braskem will enter into motion for
clarification and special appeal at the Supreme Court ("STF"). In
light of the most recent decision of TST, the process had its
evaluation changed to probable loss and was recorded a provision
of R$27.600 million. Braskem gave collateral in the form of 7,413
tons of ethylene.

Braskem S.A. is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered
in Sao Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical company in
Latin America and has become a major player in the international
petrochemical market, 8th largest resin producer worldwide.


BRASKEM SA: Feb. 28 Hearing to Approve $10 Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 6-K Report of Foreign Private
Issuer, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that a U.S. Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for
February 21, 2018 to determine whether a proposed class action
settlement should be approved.

Braskem said that, in accordance with accounting standard IAS 37
(Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets), the
Company recorded a provision in the amount of US$10 million
(R$31,680) in the item "Other income (expenses), net", and that
on October 2, the amount involved in the class action was
deposited in court.

Braskem said it has made no admission of any wrongdoing or
liability as part of the Proposed Settlement, and entered into
the Proposed Settlement solely to avoid the risk, uncertainty,
and expense of further litigation.

Braskem previously said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that in July 2015, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against our company and certain of
our then-current and former officers and directors. The lawsuits
were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Braskem,
S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-5132."

In the operative complaint in the action, the Lead Plaintiff,
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, alleges that the
Defendants made misrepresentations or omissions that inflated the
price of the Company's stock in violation of U.S. securities
laws.

In November 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint, which asserted claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of the company's ADRs from June 1, 2010 to March
11, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2016,
which amended the class period to July 15, 2010 to March 11,
2015.

The Company engaged a U.S. law firm to represent it and filed
motion to dismiss an amended complaint on July 6, 2016.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2017, the court granted
in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss.

Braskem said, "The claims that remain in the case following the
court's decision allege that the defendants are liable for making
misrepresentations and omissions that allegedly concealed a
purported scheme by which the company made improper payments in
order to receive favorable naphtha pricing from Petrobras.
Following the Court's decision on the motion to dismiss, the
action is now in the discovery stage.

"The parties are also currently engaged in settlement
negotiations and have signed a proposed settlement agreement and
submitted it to the U.S. court for preliminary approval on
September 14, 2017. Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
we would pay US$10million to resolve all claims of the settlement
class consisting of purchasers of our ADRs during the period from
July 15, 2010 through March 11, 2015, that arise out of or relate
to the subject matter of the class action, with the exception of
any such claims belonging to purchasers who file valid and timely
requests to opt out of the settlement class.

Braskem said "We have made no admission of any wrongdoing or
liability as part of the proposed settlement, and it is subject
to a number of conditions, including court approval."

Braskem S.A. is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered
in Sao Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical company in
Latin America and has become a major player in the international
petrochemical market, 8th largest resin producer worldwide.


CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Court Strikes 3rd Amended "Edwards" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADDIE EDWARDS, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Ozie Edwards and on behalf of the wrongful death
beneficiaries of Ozie Edwards and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a Ouachita Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-01054
(W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.

The Defendants removed the matter from the Circuit Court of
Ouachita County, Arkansas, on Aug. 14, 2017.  The Plaintiff
subsequently filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on
Sept. 5, 2017.  In the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, the
Plaintiff adds Debra Wheelington, who is the personal
representative of the Estate of Buele Cross, as a Named
Plaintiff.  The Third Amended Class Action Complaint states that
the Plaintiffs bring the action individually and in a
representative capacity.

The Defendants now move the Court to strike the Plaintiff's Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing that (1) the Plaintiff's
amendment to add Ms. Wheelington as a Plaintiff is made for the
purpose of destroying diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a) and should be stricken; and (2) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1447(e), the Plaintiff may not join additional
parties without the Court's leave.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that she filed the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint as a matter of course pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) 15 days after the
Defendants filed a 12(b) motion to dismiss.  She further argues
that the Third Amended Class Action Complaint was not filed as a
means of destroying diversity jurisdiction.  Finally, in regard
to the Defendants' argument that 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(e)
required her to seek leave of court before filing her amended
complaint, she states that the plain language of 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(e) makes clear that it applies only to the joinder
of additional Defendants and, accordingly, is inapplicable.

As an initial matter, Judge Hickey finds it unnecessary to
further inquire into issues concerning diversity jurisdiction.
Thus, she will not address the Defendants' argument that the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint should be stricken because
the Plaintiff added Wheelington to destroy diversity.

Moving on to Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiff was
required to seek leave before joining parties under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(e), the Judge finds the Defendants' arguments on
this point unpersuasive.  As Plaintiff notes, the plain language
of this statute explicitly applies to joinder of additional
Defendants, not joinder of the Plaintiffs.

Turning to the issue of whether leave was required under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Judge finds that the plain
language of Rule 15 makes clear that a party may amend its
pleading only once as a matter of course.  The Plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, having filed two previous
amended complaints in state court.  Thus, it is clear that the
Plaintiff has amended her pleadings more than once and,
accordingly, was required to obtain the Defendants' written
consent or leave of court before she filed her Third Amended
Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiff did neither before filing
her Third Amended Class Action Complaint.  Therefore, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff's Third Amended Class Action Complaint
should be stricken.

For these reasons, Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiff's Third
Amended Class Action Complaint should be and is stricken from the
docket.  If the Plaintiff wishes to be given leave to file her
Third Amended Class Action Complaint she must so move in
compliance with the Court's local rules within seven days of the
date of the Order.  The Defendants will have seven days to
respond.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eGAWto from Leagle.com.

Addie Edwards, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ozie
Edwards and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Ozie
Edwards and all other similarly situated Estate of Ozie Edwards,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Reddick --
brian@reddickmoss.com -- Reddick Moss, PLLC, H. Gregory Campbell
-- greg@gcampbell-law.com -- Campbell Law Firm P.A. & Robert
William Francis, Reddick Moss PLLC.

Camden Operations, LLC, doing business as Ouachita Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center & Sub-Ten Holdings, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Andrew King -- Andrew.King@KutakRock.com -- Kutak
Rock LLP, Vicki Bronson -- vbronson@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, LLP, Dale W. Brown, II -- Dale.Brown@KutakRock.com --
Kutak Rock LLP, Jeff Fletcher -- Jeffrey.Fletcher@KutakRock.com -
- Kutak Rock LLP & Mark W. Dossett -- Mark.Dossett@KutakRock.com
-- Kutak Rock LLP.

Camden Progressive Eldecare Services, Inc., doing business as
Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Camden II Operations,
LLC, doing business as Pine Hills Health and Rehabilitation
Center, Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc., Advanced Practice
Solutions, LLC, Procare Therapy Services, LLC, Southern
Administrative Services, LLC, Ponthie Holdings, LLC, Professional
Nursing Solutions, LLC, Care Plus Staffing, LLC, Ross Ponthie,
John Ponthie & JEJ Investments, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Amy M. Wilbourn -- awilbourn@cwlaw.com -- Conner Winters LLP,
Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP & Vicki Bronson, Conner & Winters,
LLP.


CARGO TRANSPORT: "Styzhak" Disputes Lease/Purchase Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Petro Styzhak and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Cargo Transport Alliance LLC and Anatoly Galunov,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-18-001076 (Fla. Cir., January 16,
2018), seeks compensatory damages, restitution, punitive damages,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of agreement.

Styzhak agreed to work for the Cargo Alliance as a truck driver,
and in exchange, Defendants agreed to deduct from Plaintiff's
weekly check a sum that would go towards the purchase price of a
2013 Kenworth T660 Truck for the Plaintiff. Defendant disputes
that this was only a lease agreement. Plaintiff is Russian and
speaks poor English, thus claiming that the Defendants took
advantage of this. Styzhak claims that the agreement is not
titled nor stipulates it is a lease agreement and confusingly
states "Purchase Price" near the top of the page and it is titled
"Letter of Intend/Approval. Plaintiff was not compensated for
mileage, tolls, gas nor car maintenance thus rendering his pay
less than the mandated wage rates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      421 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC.  The case is styled as John Sarmiento, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00700
(E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

Central Credit Services, Inc. is an accounts receivable
management company. It specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Crosson" Suit in Eastern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chico's FAS, Inc.
doing business as: Soma. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Chico's FAS, Inc. doing business
as: Soma, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644 (E.D. N.Y., January
30, 2018).

Chico's is a retail women's clothing chain founded in 1983 by a
three-person operation on Sanibel Island, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHILDRENS PLACE: Definitive Agreement Reached in "Rael" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties have reached
a definitive agreement to settle the case entitled Rael v. The
Children's Place, Inc.

The Children's Place is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's
Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California.  In the initial
complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the
Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of
other state consumer protection laws.  In August 2016, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional
plaintiff and removing the other state law claims.  The
plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class
of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive
relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs
in December 2016 and April 2017. In April 2017, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class
basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying
purchase at The Children's Place between February 11, 2012
through the date of preliminary approval by the court of the
settlement. The proposed settlement provides for merchandise
vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as well as
payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration
expenses.

Children's Place said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2017, that, "The proposed settlement, if
ultimately entered into by the parties and approved by the court,
will result in the dismissal of all claims through the date of
the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. However, if
the proposed settlement is rejected by the court, the parties
will likely return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter." In
connection with the agreement in principle regarding a proposed
settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in
its consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of
fiscal 2017.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the parties signed a definitive
settlement agreement in November 2017.

The Children's Place, Inc. and subsidiaries is the largest pure-
play children's specialty apparel retailer in North America. The
Company provides apparel, accessories, footwear, and other items
for children.


CITIBANK NA: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Menichino" Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA MENICHINO ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A.
ET AL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-58 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.

The action alleging unlawful practices related to mortgage
insurance practices is once again front and center on the Court's
docket after the Defendants filed the instant Motion.  The
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SACAC")
contains one count for violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974 ("RESPA"), and one count for common law
unjust enrichment.

The Court granted a motion to stay the case on March 26, 2014
pending the disposition by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit of the appeal in Riddle v. Bank of America Corp.
That case was decided by a non-precedential opinion filed on Oct.
15, 2014.

A case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which the parties
agreed involved certain questions of law similar to those in the
instant case, also went up on appeal to the Court of Appeals.
That district court opinion was reported at Cunningham v. MI'&T
Bank Corp.  On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment on the RESPA claim.

The parties sought to stay the action in light of the mutual
understanding that the Plaintiffs allege the same causes of
action (RESPA and unjust enrichment), and rely upon similar
arguments in favor of equitably tolling those claims as did the
Plaintiffs in Cunningham.  The parties, together, asserted to the
Appellate Court that the ultimate resolution of the central issue
in the Cunningham action, i.e., the applicability and application
of the doctrine of equitable tolling, has a very reasonable
likelihood of informing the Court on the resolution of such
matters in the case, and advancing the ultimate disposition of
the action.

Indeed, the facts in the case parallel the factual record in
Cunningham.  Among other things, in both cases, the plaintiffs
obtained residential mortgage loans to finance the purchase of
their homes.  The plaintiffs in both cases allege the scheme is
really a form of collusion (prohibited by RESPA's anti-kickback
and anti-fee splitting provisions) between the mortgagee and the
PMI insurer, in which the mortgagee is referring its borrowers to
specific PMI companies in order to then cash in on reinsurance
agreements without taking on any real risk.

The Cunningham plaintiffs also filed a putative class action
complaint alleging violations of RESPA, and unjust enrichment.
The Cunningham defendants responded that RESPA's one-year statute
of limitations barred the plaintiffs' RESPA claim and they were
not entitled to equitable tolling of that limitations period.
The district court concluded that the claims were indeed time
barred and that the plaintiffs could not equitably toll the
limitations period because none of the plaintiffs had exercised
reasonable diligence in investigating any potential RESPA claims
within the statute of limitations.

Acknowledging that their claims fall outside of RESPA's one-year
statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs in the instant case too
rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling in an effort to save
their RESP A claim.

In light of these similarities and the request of the parties,
the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of
Cunningham at the Court of Appeals.  That final disposition
arrived on Feb. 19, 2016.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's holding in Cunningham, noting each plaintiff was
on notice through plain language disclosures from the time of
closing that reinsurance on their mortgage could be with an
affiliate of the mortgagee.  After closing, the plaintiffs took
no steps to investigate or question the reinsurance scheme or
take any steps to discover if they had a claim under RESPA.
Thus, the plaintiffs failed to show reasonable due diligence, the
third element of a fraudulent concealment basis of tolling.

The stay in the case was lifted on June 19, 2017.  The Defendants
then filed their instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Judge Hornak granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleading.  He concludes that, in light of Cunningham, the
Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead and show reasonable due
diligence with respect to their RESPA claim, and cannot use
equitable tolling to rescue otherwise time-barred claims.  As
with the plaintiffs in Cunningham, the Plaintiffs had all the
facts necessary to develop their claims under RESPA.  Yet they
failed to take any steps to investigate during the period between
the time of the closing and the time that they were approached by
counsel.  This inaction was not reasonable diligence.  Without a
plausible showing of due diligence, the Plaintiffs cannot
establish an equitable tolling defense.  It is thus plain on the
record that the limitations period cannot be tolled.

Because the Court can and does reach the conclusion based on the
pleadings and record as they stand, and the Plaintiffs' proposed
discovery would be futile.  Therefore, the claim is barred by the
statute of limitations and cannot be saved by equitable tolling.
Judgment will be entered in favor of all the Defendants on Count
I of the SACAC.

The Judge also concludes that concludes the SACAC does not
establish subject matter jurisdiction.  While the Plaintiffs may
be able to show subject matter jurisdiction in an amended
complaint, such amendment would be futile because the unjust
enrichment claim is barred by the statute of limitations and the
"filed rate" doctrine.  Thus, judgment will be entered in favor
of the Defendants on Count II.

An appropriate Order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/f57Wh9 from Leagle.com.

LINDA MENICHINO & VINCENT MENICHINO, Plaintiffs, represented by
Amanda Trask -- trask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen J.
O'Brien -- sjobrien@sobrienlaw.com -- Stephen J. O'Brien and
Associates, Terence S. Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Barlieb --
ebarlieb@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Jacob M. Polakoff -- jpolakoff@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., pro hac vice, Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C.

JEFFREY PROFFITT, KAREN RULISON, JEREL T. SIMONDS, JOSEPH
RULISON, NATISHA B. SLOLEY & KEVIN M. MULLIN, Plaintiffs,
represented by Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Ethan Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice & Terence S. Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

ROSEMARY JACKSON, MICHAEL HAMILTON & TRACI LOMBRE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Ethan Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Terence S.
Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

CITIBANK, N.A., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., (individually and as
successor-by-merger to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.), CITIBANK
MORTGAGE REINSURANCE, INC, ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. & AAMBG
REINSURANCE, Defendants, represented by Patrick Sorek --
psorek@burnswhite.com -- Burns White, David M. Souders --
souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice &
Sandra B. Vipond -- vipond@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC, pro hac vice.


COLLIER FOOD: "Germain" Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Wilnord Germain and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees, Plaintiff(s), v. Collier Food and Beverage,
Inc. and Jospeh N. Dinunzio, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00008
(Fla. Cir., December 6, 2017), was removed from the 20th Judicial
Circuit, Collier County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on January 4, 2018 under Case No.
2:18-cv-00008.

Germain seeks declaratory, injunctive, legal and equitable relief
together with attorneys' fees, costs and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff the required overtime and/or minimum wages at a rate of
one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty within a single work week, says the complaint.
Germain worked as a cook for Collier, claiming 15 hours of
overtime per week which remain to be unpaid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      421 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Jeffrey D. Fridkin, Esq.
      GRANT, FRIDKIN, PEARSON, ATHAN & CROWN, PA
      Suite 501, 5551 Ridgewood Dr.
      Naples, FL 34108
      Tel: (239) 514-1000
      Fax: (239) 514-0377
      Email: jfridkin@gfpac.com


DEVA INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deva, Inc. The case
is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deva, Inc. and Tod's S.p.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00875 (S.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

Deva, Inc. is an electronics manufacturer in Tustin,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Robinson" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau
Associates. The case is styled as James Robinson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Credit Bureau Associates, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00493-LMM-
WEJ (N.D. Ga., January 31, 2018).

Credit Bureau Associates provides credit reporting and collection
services to credit grantors locally and nationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Misty Ann Oaks, Esq.
   The Oaks Firm
   3515 Charlston Court
   Decatur, GA 30034
   Tel: (404) 725-5697
   Fax: (775) 320-3695
   Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

      - and -

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus Zelman, LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


DENVILLE LINE PAINTING: "Stubits" Seeks Unpaid Back Wages, OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Stubits, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Denville Line
Painting, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00649, (D. N.J., January
16, 2018), seeks unpaid back wages and overtime due with
corresponding liquidated damages, taxable costs and allowable
expenses of this action, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and such
other and further relief resulting from breach of contract and
violation of New York Labor Laws.

Stubits performed pavement marking work in New York and New
Jersey such as installation or application of paint, epoxy,
thermoplastic, polyurea, installation of tape, pavement
reflectors, lens replacement and similar tasks. Denville
allegedly failed to pay contractually and/or statutorily required
prevailing wages and supplemental benefits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      Email: jnewhouse@vandallp.com

             - and -

      Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Zimmerman" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID N. ZIMMERMAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY,
INC., PHILIP R. HAGERMAN, and SEAN M. WHELAN, Defendants, Case
No. 16-14005 (E.D. Mich.), Judge John Corbett O'Meara of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied the Defendants' May 26, 2017 Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint.

This is a shareholder class action suit in which the Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is
governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In late 2015, the Defendants were notified by Caremark, the
largest pharmacy benefits manager through which Diplomat
dispensed its Part D prescriptions, that starting Jan. 1, 2016,
direct and indirect remuneration ("DIR") fees assessed by
Caremark would go from a flat $3 to $7 amount to a percentage
range of 3% to 5% on the cost of each billed prescription's
ingredients.  Diplomat knew that unlike in prior years, when
Caremark would have deducted only $3 to $7 from a $30,000 Part D
prescription dispensed by Diplomat, in 2016, the change to the 3%
to 5% range meant that the DIR fee would skyrocket to between
$900 and $1,500 on that same prescription.

Despite knowing about the financial havoc these Caremark DIR fees
would wreak on Diplomat's profitability, the Defendants concealed
this information from investors by failing to timely record
adequate accruals for DIR fees in Diplomat's publicly filed 1Q16
and 2Q16 financial results, in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles, and misleadingly omitting material
information about DIR fees from the Company's 2015 10-K and 1Q16
and 2Q16 10-Qs.  And because Diplomat never even mentioned DIR
fees or related accruals in any of its financials filed before
the end of the Class Period, there is no reason to believe that
CVS was alerted to the Defendants' failure to properly accrue DIR
fees assessed by Caremark.

Investors began to learn the truth when, after the close of
trading on Oct. 25, 2016, Diplomat announced that Defendant
Whelan had resigned without a successor in place and just days
before the release of 3Q16 financial results.  In response, on
Oct. 26, 2016, Diplomat's stock tumbled more than 12% on
unusually heavy trading volume.  The full truth of the
Defendants' previously concealed scheme was revealed when after
the close of trading on Nov. 2, 2016, Diplomat announced its 3Q16
results, reporting that the third quarter revenue and profit
measures were negatively impacted by an incremental $8 million of
DIR fees, of which $4 million was retroactive to Q1 and Q2 2016.
In response, on Nov. 3, 2016, Diplomat's stock plummeted more
than 40%, falling from $22.38 to $12.95 on heavy volume, thereby
harming investors.

The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Class Action Complaint.  In their motion to dismiss, the
Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead,
among other things, a strong inference of scienter, the knowing
and deliberate intent to manipulate, deceive, or defraud, or
highly unreasonable conduct which is an extreme departure from
the standards of ordinary care.  They argue that instead, the
Plaintiffs have pleaded "fraud by hindsight."

Construing the amended complaint in the case in the light most
favorable to the purported Plaintiff class and accepting all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, Judge O'Meara finds
that it does contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim
for relief.  Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' May 26, 2017
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/l9NaVZ from Leagle.com.

David N. Zimmerman, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt
-- dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Jonah H.
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Down
LLP, Joshua L. Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Matthew I. Alpert -- malpert@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode --
ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & E. Powell
Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm.

Government Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands,
Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law
Firm, P.C., Joshua L. Crowell , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Thomas C. Michaud , VanOverbeke, Michaud & Matthew I. Alpert ,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

William Kitsonas, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Matthew I. Alpert, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Philip R. Hagerman, Gary W. Kadlec &
Sean M. Whelan, Defendants, represented by Andrew M. Pauwels --
apauwels@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, James
W. Ducayet -- JDUCAYET@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Nicholas
B. Gorga -- ngorga@honigman.co -- Honigman, Miller & Nilofer I.
Umar -- NUMAR@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Certify Calif. Suit as Statewide Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the court is now considering the motion to
certify the case as a state-wide class action.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class
action in California state court with allegations concerning
wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements
and timely termination pay. The employee filed an amended
complaint in which he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-
wide class of non-exempt distribution center employees for
alleged improper calculation of overtime compensation. The
Company removed this lawsuit to federal court. The court is now
considering the employee's motion to certify the case as a state-
wide class action.

Dollar Tree is an operator of more than 14,500 retail discount
stores and conducts its operations in two reporting segments. The
Dollar Tree segment is the leading operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of $1.00. The
Family Dollar segment operates general merchandise retail
discount stores providing consumers with a selection of
competitively-priced merchandise in convenient neighborhood
stores. The company is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Has Favorable Ruling in Store Manager's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. won a favorable jury ruling in a class action
lawsuit by a former store manager, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in
California federal court alleging, among other things, that the
Company failed to make wage statements readily available to
employees who did not receive paper checks. The wage statement
class is certified and scheduled for trial in October 2017,
Dollar Tree said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended July 29, 2017.

On November 7, 2017, the jury found in favor of the Company. The
time for plaintiff to appeal that verdict has not yet run, Dollar
Tree said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017.

Dollar Tree is an operator of more than 14,500 retail discount
stores and conducts its operations in two reporting segments. The
Dollar Tree segment is the leading operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of $1.00. The
Family Dollar segment operates general merchandise retail
discount stores providing consumers with a selection of
competitively-priced merchandise in convenient neighborhood
stores. The company is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Florida Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company is still defending a class
action suit in Florida state court.

In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action in Florida state court brought by a former store employee
asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in
the way it handled background checks. Specifically, the former
employee alleged the Company used disclosure forms that did not
meet the statute's requirements and failed to provide notices
accompanied by background reports prior to taking adverse actions
against prospective and existing employees based on information
in the background reports. The plaintiff is seeking statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation.

Dollar Tree is an operator of more than 14,500 retail discount
stores and conducts its operations in two reporting segments. The
Dollar Tree segment is the leading operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of $1.00. The
Family Dollar segment operates general merchandise retail
discount stores providing consumers with a selection of
competitively-priced merchandise in convenient neighborhood
stores. The company is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Settlement of Family Dollar Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that a preliminary settlement has been reached.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices
with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers.
Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief. In June 2016, the United States District Court
in North Carolina ordered that the case be continued for merits
discovery. The court also certified the case as a class action of
approximately 30,000 current and former female store managers
employed as far back as July 2002. A preliminary settlement has
been reached in the case and has been properly recorded by the
Company. Other aspects of the settlement agreement are still
being finalized.

Dollar Tree is an operator of more than 14,500 retail discount
stores and conducts its operations in two reporting segments. The
Dollar Tree segment is the leading operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of $1.00. The
Family Dollar segment operates general merchandise retail
discount stores providing consumers with a selection of
competitively-priced merchandise in convenient neighborhood
stores. The company is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOW JONES & CO: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dow Jones &
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. doing business as: The Wall Street
Journal, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00863 (S.D. N.Y., January
31, 2018).

Dow Jones & Company is an American publishing and financial
information firm that has been owned by News Corp. since
2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suncoast Credit Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Suncoast Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated financial institutions,
Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00478-TWT
(N.D. Ga., January 30, 2018).

Equifax Inc. is a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Reginald L. Snyder, Esq.
   260 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 502
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (678) 732-0146
   Email: rsnyder@dyesnyder.com

      - and -

   Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
   The Coffman Law Firm
   505 Orleans Street, Suite 505
   Beaumont, TX 77701
   Tel: (409) 833-7700
   Email: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Tomas" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Patrick Tomas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00466-
MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga., January 30, 2018).

Equifax Inc. is a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
   Nashville, TN 37203
   Tel: (615) 434-7001
   Fax: (615) 434-7020
   Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Gould" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Farmers'
motion to dismiss the case, CATHERINE GOULD, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants, Case No. 4:17 CV 2305 RWS (E.D.
Mo.).

Gould alleges in the putative class action matter that the
Farmers sent her text messages in contravention of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Gould's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") pleads that between May
2, 2017 and July 27, 2017, Gould received and reviewed a series
of 10 text messages on her cell phone which were allegedly sent
by Farmers and/or its insurance agents.  She did not expressly
consent to be called or texted by Farmers.  The messages stated,
inter alia, that the insurance agents wanted to follow up with
Gould in order to update and finalize her insurance quote.  The
messages were sent in three separate sets with nearly identical
repeating content during the months of May, June, and July 2017.

Gould alleges that the text messages were sent en masse by an
automatic telephone dialing system to several phone numbers,
including hers using the software called "Touchpoints."  She
alleges that the text messages violated her privacy rights and
those of the other class members, and constituted an annoying and
harassing nuisance.  Gould states that she and other class
members wasted time addressing or otherwise responding to the
texts.  She also suggests that some class members suffered
economic harm by being charged for the text messages.

Farmers moved to dismiss Gould' FAC with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of
action and failure to establish Article III standing.

Judge Sippel finds that (i) Gould's allegations concerning the
invasion of privacy, nuisance, and wasted time constitute an
injury in fact which is adequate to establish Article III
standing; (ii) Gould has presented sufficient facts, if accepted
as true, to support at least an inference that an ATDS was used
to send the text messages; (iii) Gould has presented plausible
facts demonstrating that Farmers can be held directly or
vicariously liable for sending the text message and as a result,
her claim is plausible on its face.

For these reasons, Judge Sippel denied Farmers' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's FAC.  He directed the Defendants to file an
answer to the Plaintiff's FAC no later than 14 days from the date
of the Order.  The case will be set for a Rule 16 scheduling
conference by a separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/fZ45IY from Leagle.com.

Catherine Gould, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E.
Roberts -- croberts@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC & David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com --
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC.

Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. &
Fire Insurance Exchange, Defendants, represented by Franz Phillip
Hosp -- phosp@lockelord.com -- V , LOCKE LORD, LLP & Timothy J.
Wolf -- twolf@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..


FASTAFF LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Dalchau"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE DALCHAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FASTAFF,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of their FLSA claim.

Dalchau and Michael Goodwin bring a putative class action and a
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated hourly employees of
defendants U.S. Nursing Co. and its subsidiary, Fastaff.  They
allege that as a part of their pay, employees receive either a
weekly stipend or in-kind housing, and that Fastaff illegally
excludes the value of the housing benefit from the regular rate
when calculating overtime.  According to the Plaintiffs, because
the value of the housing benefit is tied to hours worked,
excluding the value from the regular rate to calculate overtime
results in Fastaff underpaying overtime to its employees.  The
Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is based on alleged company-wide Fastaff
policies.

The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of their
collective action under Section 216(b) of FLSA.  They seek to
conditionally certify a collective of all individuals who, at any
time within three years prior to the date of conditional
certification, worked an assignment pursuant to an Assignment
Agreement Letter with Fastaff, during which they received a
housing stipend or in-kind housing, worked in excess of 40 hours
in one or more workweeks, and had the value of their housing
benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime.

Fastaff argues that a heightened certification standard should
apply in the instant case given that some discovery has already
taken place.  It also opposes the motion for conditional
certification, asserting that (1) some putative class members do
not have a viable FLSA claim even if the Plaintiffs' theory of
underpayment is correct; and (2) the Plaintiffs failed to show
that putative class members were "uniformly victims of a common
policy."  And if the class is certified, Fastaff requests that
the class period be limited to two years, and that the collective
period should end in May 2017, when Fastaff altered the policy in
question.

Judge Orrick finds that (i) a heightened certification standard
does not apply; (ii) that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that
they are similarly situated to each other and to potential class
members; and (iii) the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a
common policy or plan and that they are similarly situated to the
potential class members.

With respect to Fastaff's request to limit the class period to
two years, the Judge finds that Fastaff has not presented any
evidence that would allow him to make such a finding.  He says
Fastaff's change in policy does not exclude the policy from the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability in the case.  And it does not
provide a reason to limit the class time period.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Orrick granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional collective action certification for all
individuals who, at any time within three years prior to the date
of conditional certification, worked an assignment pursuant to an
Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff, during which they
received a housing stipend or in-kind housing, worked in excess
of 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the value of their
housing benefit excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Z2ixyi from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Dalchau, individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated & Michael Goodwin, individual on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Matthew Bryan Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko
LLP & Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes
sPawlenko LLP.

Fastaff, LLC & U.S. Nursing Corporation, Defendants, represented
by John S. Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Anne-Marie Estevez --
annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,
LLP & Shannon B. Nakabayashi --
shannon.nakabayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Supreme Court Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. has elevated a dispute with direct
customer plaintiffs to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
October 31, 2017, that it has filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The direct customer plaintiffs have agreed to a stay of the case
pending a decision on the petition and, if granted, the appeal.

Ferrellgas said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2017, that Ferrellgas Partners has been named as a
defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action
lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which
were consolidated in the Western District of Missouri on October
16, 2014, allege that the company and a competitor coordinated in
2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined
to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction,
resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct customers and
end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys'
fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative
class.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a
multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western
District of Missouri has dismissed all claims brought by direct
and indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect
customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The direct
customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal
of the district court's dismissal.

The Company also said an appeal by the indirect customer
plaintiffs remains pending.

Ferrellgas Partners said "We believe we have strong defenses to
the claims and intend to vigorously defend against the
consolidated case. We do not believe loss is probable or
reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuit."

Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. serves as a co-issuer and co-
obligor for debt securities of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. in the
United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Overland Park, Kansas. Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. is a
subsidiary of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.



FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: New York Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
October 31, 2017, that it continues to defend a putative class
action filed in the Southern District of New York.

The company has been named, along with several current and former
officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of
certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and
misleading statements in certain of our public disclosures. The
lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in the
Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages. Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been
filed naming Ferrellgas and several current and former officers
and directors as defendants.

Ferrellgas Partners said "We believe that we have defenses and
will vigorously defend these cases. We do not believe loss is
probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the
putative class action lawsuits or the derivative action."

Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. serves as a co-issuer and co-
obligor for debt securities of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. in the
United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Overland Park, Kansas. Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. is a
subsidiary of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.


FINANCE SYSTEM: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Boucher" FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's judgment dismissing the case, RYAN BOUCHER, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC.,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-2308 (7th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant, a debt collection agency, for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's dunning
letters were false and misleading because they threatened to
impose "late charges and other charges" that could not lawfully
be imposed.

The Plaintiffs are Wisconsin residents who incurred and defaulted
on debts for medical services.  Their creditors assigned these
debts to the Defendant.  In turn, FSGB sent them a letter
informing them of their principal balance, their interest
balance, and their total account balance.

In its motion to dismiss, FSGB argued that it complied with the
FDCPA as a matter of law because the allegedly false statement
tracks the safe harbor language provided by the Court in Miller
v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, LLC.  It
further asserted that, although it may not lawfully impose "late
charges and other charges," the reference to such charges was not
materially misleading because it is entitled to charge interest.

The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In
doing so, it acknowledged that some of the Miller safe harbor
language -- namely, the phrase "late charges and other charges" -
- does not "strictly" apply in the case.  However, it reasoned
that the central purpose of Miller's safe harbor formula is to
provide debt collectors with a way to notify debtors that the
amounts they owe may ultimately vary.

Accordingly, the district court concluded that debt collectors
like FSGB may rely on the Miller safe harbor language as long as
the debt is variable in some way -- regardless of whether the
increase occurred because of interest, late charges, other
charges, some combination thereof, or all of the above.  Because
FSGB's letter conveyed "the crucial fact" that the Plaintiffs'
debts were variable, the court concluded that FSGB was entitled
to safe harbor protection under Miller.  The appeal followed.

Judge Flaum finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that
the dunning letter was materially false and misleading to an
unsophisticated consumer in violation of Section 1692e.  The
letter does not say how much the "late charges" are or what
"other charges" might apply, so consumers are left to guess about
the economic consequences of failing to pay immediately.  But
regardless of the amount of such charges, an unsophisticated
consumer understands that these additional charges could further
increase the amount of debt owed, thus potentially making it
"more costly" for the consumer to hold off on payment.  Even if
these additional charges are minimal, such that they might not
alter the consumer's course of action, they are still material
because they would be a factor in his decision-making process.

The Judge also finds that debt collectors cannot immunize
themselves from FDCPA liability by blindly copying and pasting
the Miller safe harbor language without regard for whether that
language is accurate under the circumstances.  Therefore, the
district court erred by dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims on this
ground.

Finally, the Judge finds that the claims under Section 1692e and
Section 1692g(a)(1) overlap because the Plaintiffs allege that
FSGB violated both provisions by misrepresenting the amount of
the debt.  Thus, as the Plaintiffs point out, their discussion of
whether the statement was misleading under Section 1692e goes
hand-in-hand with whether the amount of the debt has been
accurately disclosed under Section 1692g(a)(1).  Moreover, the
safe harbor analysis is the same because, as FSGB argues in its
briefing, Miller applies equally to claims brought under both
provisions.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not forfeited their
claims under Section 1692g(a)(1).  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have
stated a claim under both Sections 1692g(a)(1) and 1692e.

For these reasons, Judge Flaum reversed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qZKbZP from Leagle.com.

Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Cathleen M. Combs, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James O. Latturner, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Kimberly A. Jansen -- kjansen@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Brett B. Larsen -- blarsen@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Andrew T. Thomasson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Philip D. Stern, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


FIRST CENTRAL: Faces "Dunca" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Central
Savings Bank. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First
Central Savings Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00608 (E.D.
N.Y., January 29, 2018).

First Central Savings Bank provides business and personal banking
products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GERMED INC: Fauley Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAUN FAULEY, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons v. GERMED INC., a Delaware corporation; and GERMED LTD, a
New York corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00065 (N.D. Ill.), moves
for certification of a class defined as:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) from whom Defendants did not
     obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
     advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an
     established business relationship, or (5) where the fax
     advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant
     with 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

Mr. Fauley filed the Motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiffs "can
move to certify the class at the same time that they file their
complaint" and "[t]he pendency of that motion protects a putative
class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs"), overruled
in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to the extent [it] hold[s] that a
defendant's offer of full compensation moots the litigation or
otherwise ends the Article III case or controversy" but not
commenting on effect of a "placeholder" motion if plaintiff's
individual claim becomes moot for some other reason); Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding
"an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not
moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative
with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity
to show that certification is warranted").

Mr. Fauley also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint his attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


GIBRALTAR PRIVATE: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gibraltar Private
Bank & Trust Company. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00600 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2018).

Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Company, an integrated private
banking and wealth advisory company, provides residential and
commercial lending, private banking, and wealth management
services to professionals and professional service firms,
foundations, nonprofit organizations, corporate executives,
families, and entrepreneurs and their businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


GIORGETTI USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giorgetti USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Giorgetti USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00832 (S.D. N.Y., January 30, 2018).

Giorgetti USA, Inc. manufactures furnitures.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GOLD COAST BANCORP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Coast Bancorp,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gold Coast
Bancorp, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00599 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 29, 2018).

Gold Coast Bank (Chicago, IL), an Illinois-chartered community
bank, provides personal and business banking services. Its
personal banking services include checking, money market,
savings, certificate of deposit, and individual retirement
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


GOPRO INC: Court Extends Time to Reply to "Arora" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VIKAS ARORA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS D.
WOODMAN AND BRIAN T. McGEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00265-
WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, has entered an order (i) extending the Defendants' time
to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint; and (ii)
continuing case management conference and associated deadlines.

On Jan. 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On Jan. 16, 2018, the Court issued an Order Setting Initial case
Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, setting the following
deadlines:

    a. March 27, 2018 for the parties to comply with certain
requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Northern District of California Civil Local Rules (Local Rules or
Civ. L.R.) and Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Local Rules
regarding discovery, early settlement, and the ADR Multi-Option
Program;

    b. April 10, 2018 for the parties to file a Rule 26(f)
Report, complete initial disclosures or state objections in the
Rule 26(f) Report, and file a Joint Case Management Statement;
and

    c. April 17, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. for an initial case management
conference.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws
that are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 which sets forth specialized procedures for the
administration of securities class actions, including a specific
process for the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and a Lead
Counsel to represent the putative class.

The Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel have not yet been
appointed pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act.
The deadline to move for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff is
March 12, 2018.  Once selected, the Lead Plaintiff will then
appoint a Lead Counsel, subject to the Court's approval, and
identify an operative complaint or file an amended complaint that
becomes the operative complaint.

The Parties agree that in the interests of judicial economy,
conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of the
action, no response to any pleading in this action by any
Defendant should occur until after (i) a Lead Plaintiff and a
Lead Counsel are appointed by the Court pursuant to the PSLRA,
and (iii) such Lead Plaintiff serves an operative complaint.

They respectfully submit that good cause exists to vacate the
April 17, 2018 initial case management conference and associated
ADR deadlines until such time as the Court has the opportunity to
rule on the appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and approval of the
Lead Counsel.

The Parties stipulated and Judge Orrick approved as follows:

     a. Within 14 days of an order by the Court appointing the
Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel, the Defendants and any Lead
Plaintiff(s) appointed by the Court shall, through their
respective counsel, confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule
for the filing of any amended complaint and for the filing of a
responsive pleading, including a briefing schedule with respect
to any anticipated motions to dismiss;

     b. The Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or
otherwise substantively respond to the Complaint or any amended
complaint until the date agreed upon by the Parties in the
proposed schedule, if approved by the Court, or until such other
further order by the Court.

     c. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the initial case management
conference scheduled for April 17, 2018 will be vacated, along
with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for a date after the
filing of any amended complaint or after the Court rules on the
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, as the Court
determines to be appropriate; and all associated ADR Multi-Option
Program deadlines likewise be deferred.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/D5dBt3 from Leagle.com.

Vikas Aora, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Hui M. Chang --
hchang@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP & Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC.

GoPro, Inc., Brian T. McGee & Nicholas D. Woodman, Defendants,
represented by Catherine Duden Kevane -- ckevane@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP.


GREENWICH INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in PHP Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHP INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.; PHP GROUP, INC.; TRUNG
TRAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 16-15083 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.

Greenwich appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of the Appellees, contending that the district court
erred in holding that it had a duty to defend a class action
complaint filed by PHP employees premised on various California
Labor Code violations.  According to Greenwich, the district
court erroneously held that allegations of discrimination and
harassment were potentially covered under the Employment
Practices Liability Insurance Policy issued by Greenwich.

Judge Vance disagrees.  She says the district court properly held
that Greenwich had a duty to defend based on allegations in the
first amended complaint that were potentially covered by the
policy's definitions of discrimination and harassment.  The first
amended complaint alleges that PHP employees were predominantly
Vietnamese-speaking individuals that PHP purposefully hired
recent immigrant workers to improperly take advantage of their
lack of knowledge regarding labor and employment rights, and that
the employees were forced to change their Vietnamese names to
American names that were selected by Tran.

The Judge finds these allegations sufficiently triggered a duty
to defend based on the policy's definition of discrimination due
to the segregation, classification or modification of any term or
condition of employment of any Employee because of race or
national origin.  As a result of these allegations, the district
court properly granted summary judgment in favor of PHP on its
duty to defend claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/QzTWsm from Leagle.com.


HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Ganus" Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hendrick Automotive
Group. The case is styled as Pam Ganus and Gary Smith, an
individual and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Hendrick Automotive Group doing business as: Hendrick Auto Group
doing business as: Hendrick Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Hoover a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00162-RDP (N.D.
Ala., January 31, 2018).

Hendrick Automotive Group, Inc. operates automotive dealerships
representing nameplates, franchises, and collision centers and
accessories distribution installers in Alabama, California,
Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James H McFerrin, Esq.
   MCFERRIN LAW FIRM
   265 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 202
   Birmingham, AL 35244
   Tel: (205) 870-5704
   Fax: (205) 985-5093
   Email: jhmcferrin@bellsouth.net


HENRY COUNTY, IN: Ct. Partly OK's Notice to Jail Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER BAKER, individually and on behalf of the
present and future inmates of Henry County Jail, Plaintiff, v.
RICHARD McCORKLE, individually and in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Henry County, BRUCE BAKER, KIM CRONK, ED YANOS,
RICHARD BOUSLOG, ROBIN RENO-FLEMING, STEVEN DUGGER, NATHAN LAMAR,
CLAY MORGAN, MICHAEL THALLS, HAROLD GRIFFIN, HENRY COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and HENRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-03026-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, granted in part and denied in part Baker's
Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail Class Members.

Baker brings the action on behalf of current or future persons
confined at the Henry County, Indiana Jail, and alleges that the
Jail is overcrowded in violation of his and the class members'
constitutional rights.  Presently pending before the Court is
Baker's Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail Class
Members.

In his motion, Baker sets forth several issues unrelated to class
notice, including that his counsel anticipates receiving
information from individual inmates regarding complaints of
inadequate medical care, and that he believes that video
surveillance at the Jail will not provide protection to
individual inmates who are attacked.  He also advises that he has
provided the Defendants' counsel with a copy of his proposed
Class Notice, and that the Defendants' counsel really doesn't
have standing to object to the notice.  Baker argues that his
proposed Class Notice informs the class members about the nature
and status of the litigation and what rights they have as the
litigation continues.

Baker provides a copy of his proposed Class Notice, which defines
the class as all inmates in the care and custody of Henry County,
Indiana from Nov. 4, 2016 to the present, including the current
and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the Henry
County Jail and all current and future individuals who were
transported to other county jails as a result of the overcrowding
in the Henry County Jail.

In their response, the Defendants argue that Baker's proposed
Class Notice includes an inaccurate definition of the class,
misstates the Defendants' position regarding a new jail facility,
attempts to expand the definition of the class to include inmates
housed in other correctional facilities, and changes a statement
regarding the Case Management Plan in the case from the proposed
Class Notice that Baker provided earlier.  They request that the
Court approves a Class Notice which contains a definition of the
class certified by the Court, that said notice contain no
inaccurate statements as to the state of the litigation, and that
it not contain information designed for inappropriate purposes,
whether it be the proposed notice submitted by the Defendants or
one devised by the Court.

Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that several of the Defendants'
objections to Mr. Baker's proposed Class Notice are well-taken.
Among other things, Baker's proposed Class Notice contains a
definition of the class that is much broader than the class the
Court has certified in the matter, which is any and all persons
currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the
Henry County Jail as of the date the Complaint was filed, Nov. 4,
2016.  The Judge says this is the class definition that must be
included in the Class Notice.

The Judge also finds that Baker's proposed Class Notice states
that county officials oppose building a new jail facility at the
present time, but the statement appears to be inaccurate based on
recent discussions between Baker's counsel and the Defendants'
counsel.  In any event, she says, this information is not
relevant to the Class Notice, which is intended to inform class
members regarding the subject of the lawsuit and their rights.

Finally, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds the statement in Baker's
proposed Class Notice regarding contacting an attorney or class
counsel to discuss personal injury claims to be appropriate as
the statement is made in connection with advising class members
that adjudication of the class claims does not include
adjudication of any individual personal injury claims.  She does,
however, finds that providing legal advice regarding the statute
of limitations for personal injury claims is not appropriate to
include in the Class Notice, and that the Class Notice should
provide a clear statement advising that Baker only seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the class.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Magnus-Stinson denied in part
Baker's Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail Class
Members to the extent that it does not approve Baker's proposed
Class Notice, but granted in part the motion to the extent that
it approves the Class Notice, which incorporates language from
both Baker's proposed Class Notice and the Defendants' proposed
Class Notice.  To the extent any party objects to the Class
Notice, it must file an objection by Feb. 2, 2018.  If no
objections are filed, notice will be provided in a manner agreed
upon by the parties, and the parties will file a report
reflecting their agreement on or before Feb. 23, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0TkByj from Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Individually and on Behalf of the Present and
Future Inmates of Henry County Jail, Plaintiff, represented by
Julie A. Newhouse, NEWHOUSE AND NEWHOUSE, Michael K. Sutherlin --
msutherlin@gmail.com -- MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC &
Tracy J. Newhouse, NEWHOUSE & NEWHOUSE.

RICHARD MCCORKLE, Individually And In His Official Capacity As
Sheriff of Henry County, BRUCE BAKER, Henry County Commissioner,
KIM CRONK, Henry County Commissioner, ED YANOS, Henry County
Commissioner, RICHARD BOUSLOG, Henry County Council, ROBIN RENO-
FLEMING, Henry County Council, STEVEN DUGGER, Henry County
Council, NATHAN LAMAR, Henry County Council, CLAY MORGAN, Henry
County Council, MICHAEL THALLS, Henry County Council, HAROLD
GRIFFIN, Henry County Council, HENRY COUNTY, INDIANA
COMMISSIONERS & HENRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, represented by
James S. Stephenson, STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER & Pamela G.
Schneeman, STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER.


HOME DEPOT: Says Settlements in Data Breach Suits Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 29, 2017, that as of the end of the first quarter of
fiscal 2017, the Company has resolved the most significant claims
relating to a data breach.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company confirmed that
its payment data systems were breached, which potentially
impacted customers who used payment cards at self-checkout
systems in the Company's U.S. and Canadian stores.

As reported in the 2016 Form 10-K, in the first quarter of fiscal
2017, the company agreed to settlement terms that, upon approval
of the court, will resolve and dismiss claims asserted in the so-
called financial institutions class actions. In addition, in the
first quarter of fiscal 2017, the parties to the two purported
shareholder derivative actions agreed to settlement terms that,
upon approval of the court, will resolve and dismiss the claims
asserted in those actions.

Home Depot says there were no material changes during the first
nine months of fiscal 2017 to the Company's loss contingency
assessment relating to any remaining matters. The Company does
not believe that the ultimate amounts paid with respect to any
remaining matters will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows in future periods.

Home Depot is an American home improvement supplies retailing
company that sells tools, construction products, and services.
The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


JOHN B SANFILIPPO: Says $1.2MM Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2017, that the non-monetary
terms of a class action settlement are still being finalized.

John B. Sanfilippo & Son said, "We are subject to a class-action
complaint for an employment related matter. Mediation for this
matter occurred in June 2017, which for the first time we were
provided with an initial monetary demand. In August 2017, we
agreed in principle to a $1.2 million settlement for which we are
fully reserved at June 29, 2017. The non-monetary components of
the settlement are still being finalized."

John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. is one of the leading processors
and distributors of peanuts, pecans, cashews, walnuts, almonds
and other nuts in the United States. These nuts are sold under a
variety of private brands and under the Fisher, Orchard Valley
Harvest and Sunshine Country brand names. The company was formed
as a corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1979
as the successor by merger to an Illinois corporation that was
incorporated in 1959.


L&B GARDENS: Denied "Perez" Overtime, Spread-of-Hours, Pay Stubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L&B Gardens, Inc. and Camille McDonald,
Case No. 18-cv-00267 (E.D. N.Y., January 16, 2018), seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid overtime
wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York
Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

L&B Gardens, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns, operates,
and does business as "L&B Spumoni Gardens," an Italian restaurant
located at 2725 86th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11223.  Isaac
Perez regularly worked between 50-65 hours per workweek as a cook
at Spumoni Gardens but was not paid overtime or spread-of-hours
wages, says the complainy. Defendants also failed to provide
Perez with a wage notice whenever his wage rate changed and with
wage statements at the end of each pay period.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Gianfranco Cuadra, Esq.
      Pechman Law Group PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      Fax: (212) 308-8582
      Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
             cuadra@pechmanlaw.com


LIPOCINE INC: Certification of Class Sought in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs Quantum Partners, Ltd., DPC
Partners, Ltd. and John William Burke move for an order
certifying the action captioned IN RE LIPOCINE INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00182-DB (D. Utah), as a class
action.

The Lead Plaintiff filed this securities fraud class action
against Lipocine Inc. for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  Lead Plaintiff seeks
certification of the action as a class action consisting of:

     All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired the securities of Lipocine, Inc. between June 30,
     2015 and June 28, 2016, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
     (the "Class").  Excluded from the Class are Lipocine, Patel,
     and Brown; the officers and directors of the Company during
     the Class Period; the immediate family members of any of the
     foregoing individuals; any affiliate of Lipocine; any entity
     in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and
     the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of
     any of the foregoing excluded persons and entities.  Also
     excluded from the Class will be any person or entity that
     timely and validly seeks exclusion from the Class, as
     ordered by the Court.

The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify them as
representative of the Class, and to appoint Pomerantz LLP as
Class Counsel and Christensen Young & Associates as Local Counsel
for the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PMc5PtNV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  migross@pomlaw.com
                  taweinrib@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          9980 S 300 W, Suite 200
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: (866) 861-3333
          E-mail: zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com


LOMA NEGRA: Argentina Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in
its Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that the company continues to defend itself from a
class action filed by Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil,
in Argentina.

In February 27, 2007, Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil
filed a class action as representative of the holders of the
notes issued by Inversora Electrica de Buenos Aires S.A., or
IEBA, in an aggregate principal amount of Ps.200,000,000, in
1997, or the IEBA Notes, against several defendants (including
us, as a former minority shareholder of IEBA). Plaintiff seeks to
extend liability to the defendants for the lack of payment of the
IEBA Notes alleging, among other things, under-capitalization of
IEBA, as issuer.

Loma Negra said "We filed several defenses, including, without
limitation, lack of standing to sue, statute of limitations, that
we were no longer shareholders of IEBA at the time of the
issuance of the IEBA Notes and that the IEBA Notes have been
successfully restructured through a reorganization plan duly
endorsed by the competent court with effect against all holders
of the IEBA Notes and declared fulfilled by resolution of the
same court dated April 18, 2008."

On August 28, 2017, the court admitted the class action and we
are in the process of appealing the court's decision.

Loma Negra said "Based on the foregoing and on our Argentine
litigation counsel's opinion, we believe that the chances of
success of the claim against us are remote."

Loma Negra Compania is an Argentine manufacturer and the
country's leading maker of cement, concrete, and lime.


LUCILLE ROBERTS HEALTH: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucille Roberts
Health Clubs, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00674 (E.D. N.Y., January 31,
2018).

Lucille Roberts Health Club, Inc. operates a chain of health
clubs for women in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


M.Y. SAFRA: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of NY
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.Y. Safra Bank,
FSB. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.Y. Safra Bank,
FSB, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00607 (E.D. N.Y., January 29,
2018).

M.Y. Safra Bank, FSB provides personal and business banking
products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


MAC COSMETICS: Denied Access to Employee Records, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Najla Fearington, Plaintiff, v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv- 07322 (N.D. Cal., December 27, 2017), is a class
and collective action that seeks redress for Defendant's failure
to furnish proper and complete itemized wage statements, failure
to produce personnel file, payroll records and sick leave records
upon request under California Labor Code and the applicable
California Industrial Wage Commission orders.

Defendant is a cosmetics company based out of Manhattan NY where
Fearington worked at its Contra Costa County CA store. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      John P. Briscoe, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
      Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
             wgorham@mayallaw.com
             nscardigli@mayallaw.com
             jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


MAISON KAYSER LLC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maison Kayser, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maison
Kayser, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00759 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 29, 2018).

Founded by Eric Kayser in Paris in 1996, Maison Kayser is an
authentic artisanal French Boulangerie.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: Filing of Bid to Approve "Story" Deal Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL STORY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC,
a Delaware limited-liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-
cv-02422-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California has entered
an order granting the Plaintiff a four-day extension of time to
and including Jan. 26, 2018 to file and serve the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

On Nov. 9, 2017, the Court issued its Order Granting Preliminary
Approval Of Class-Action Settlement of the within matter.
Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement
Administrator duly sent out the Class Notice on Dec. 20, 2017.
All papers in support of final approval of the Settlement are
currently due to be filed by Jan. 22, 2018, providing that all
papers in support of final approval of the Settlement will be
filed 32 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator sends
the Class Notice.

Due to the press of business and to permit time to receive and
analyze a detailed status report from the Claims Administrator,
the Class Counsel desires a brief four-day extension of time to
file the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees.

The brief four-day extension stipulated to will not prejudice any
Class Member given that the deadline to file an objection to the
Settlement or submit a Request for Exclusion is not until Feb.
20, 201, providing that the Class Members will have 60 calendar
days after the Settlement Administrator sends the Class Notice to
object or opt out of the Settlement.  Thus, even if the brief
extension requested is granted, the Class Members will have over
three weeks to review the Plaintiff's papers before the
objection/exclusion deadline.

Therefore, the parties have agreed and stipulated, and Judge
Mendez approved, that the Plaintiff will have a four-day
extension of time to and including Jan. 26, 2018 to file and
serve the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MP0Twj from Leagle.com.

Paul Story, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP;
Abigail Ameri Zelenski -- abigail@jlglawyers.com -- David S
Zelenski -- david@jlglawyers.com -- Michael Joe Jaurigue --
michael@jlglawyers.com -- at Jaurigue Law Group.

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
L. Willian -- jeffrey.willian@kirkland.com -- John Richard
Edwards -- john.edwards@kirkland.com -- Jordan M. Heinz --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.


MARIO BADESCU SKIN: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mario Badescu Skin
Care, Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00640 (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2018).

Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. sells skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MCS GROUP: Illegally Charged Sales Tax, "Melagrano" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Melagrano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The MCS Group, Inc., Case No. 18-0133
(Mass., January 16, 2018), seeks actual and nominal damages, all
amounts (together with associated loss of use thereon) unlawfully
collected resulting from unjust enrichment and for violation of
Massachusetts law.

Plaintiff alleges that MCS unlawfully charges sales tax on the
purchase of transcription services and financially benefits from
the unlawful collection of sales tax and the interest derived
therefrom.

Melagrano was involved in a motor vehicle accident where MCS
provided the reporting/transcription service for the deposition
of its case. MCS's Invoice represented a debt in the amount of
$733.95 was owed by Melagrano where $41.70 was for sales tax.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Yasi, Esq
      Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
      Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
      Brian P. McNiff, Esq.
      Forrest, LaMothe, Mazow, McCullough, Yasi & Yasi, P.C.
      2 Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Tel: (617) 231-7829
      Email: jyasi@forrestlamtrthe.com
             rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
             mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
             bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com


MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Clock" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Harrison
Attorney at Law. The case is styled as Tammy R. Clock,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Michael Harrison Attorney at Law, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00688 (E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

Michael Harrison Attorney at Law is a law firm specializing in
collecting bad debts for healthcare providers and businesses in
the Northeast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MISONIX INC: $500,000 Settlement in "Scalfani" Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder lawsuit filed by Richard Scalfani against
Misonix, Inc., has been dismissed following approval of a case
settlement.

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual
shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and
its former CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges that the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated between November 5, 2015 and
September 14, 2016 as a result of alleged false and misleading
statements in the Company's securities filings concerning the
Company's business, operations, and prospects and the Company's
internal control over financial reporting. Scalfani filed the
action seeking to represent a putative class of all persons
(other than defendants, officers and directors of the Company,
and their affiliates) who purchased publicly traded Misonix
securities between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016.
Scalfani seeks an unspecified amount of damages for himself and
for the putative class under the federal securities laws.

On March 24, 2017, the Court appointed Scalfani and another
individual Misonix shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, as lead
plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the
putative class. The lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative
class, and the Company have reached a settlement in principle
under which the Company would pay $500,000 to resolve the matter,
Misonix said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2017.

The district court approved the settlement and dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice in an order dated December 16, 2017, The
Company said in a Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017.  The Company has paid its $250,000,
representing its insurance retention. The balance was paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.

Misonix designs, manufactures, develops and markets therapeutic
ultrasonic devices. These products are used for precise bone
sculpting, removal of soft and hard tumors, and tissue
debridement, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and wound and
burn care. The company is based in Farmingdale, New York.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Das" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is styled Eiti Das, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00676
(E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment processing services in various asset classes and industry
sectors, including auto deficiencies, commercial paper, credit
union accounts, and government receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


MONSTER DIGITAL: Oludele Drops Class Suit over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff on Nov. 16, 2017, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of the merger-related case, Emmanuel Oludele v. Monster Digital,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06810-DMG-FFM (C.D. Calif., Sept.
15, 2017).

Monster Digital, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 19, 2017,
that the company has learned that a putative class action
complaint was apparently filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

Monster Digital said that on September 15, 2017, a putative class
action complaint (the "Complaint") was apparently filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company, David H. Clarke, its Chief
Executive Officer and a member of its Board of Directors,
Jonathan Clark ("Clark"), its Interim President and a member of
the Board, Robert Machinist ("Machinist"), a member of the Board,
Christopher Miner ("Miner"), a member of the Board and Steven
Barre ("Barre"), a member of the Board.

The Complaint purportedly seeks class status on behalf of all of
the Company's public shareholders persons and alleges violations
by the Company and the Individual Defendants of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and the rules promulgated thereunder, and secondary control
person liability against the Individual Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act primarily related to that Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization pursuant to which a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company will merge with and into Innovate
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Innovate"), with Innovate surviving
the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant (the
"Merger"). The Complaint seeks to enjoin the Company and the
Individual Defendants from proceeding with an anticipated
stockholder vote on the Merger or consummating the Merger, unless
and until the Company discloses certain alleged material
information which the Complaint alleges has been omitted from the
Proxy Statement or in the event the Merger is consummated, to
recover an unspecified amount of damages resulting from the
Individual Defendants' alleged violations Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Monster Digital said "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined with certainty, the [Company]
believes that the allegations stated in the Complaint are without
merit and the [Company] and the Individual Defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against such allegations and
claims."

On Jan. 30, 2018, Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:INNT)
announced the successful completion of its merger agreement with
Monster Digital.

Monster Digital, Inc. focuses on the design, development, and
marketing of products under the "Monster Digital" brand for use
in consumer electronics, mobile products, and computing
applications in the United States and internationally. The
company is based in Simi Valley California.


MURATA MANUFACTURING: Powerweb Sues Over Inductor Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Powerweb, Inc. and Powerweb Energy, Inc., Plaintiffs, on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated, v. Murata Manufacturing
Co., Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation Of North America, Panasonic
Electronic Devices Co. Ltd, Panasonic Electronic Devices
Corporation Of America, Sumida Corporation, Sumida Electric Co.,
Ltd., Sumida America Components, Inc., Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.,
Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc., TDK Corporation, TDK-EPC Corporation
and TDK U.S.A. Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00349
(N.D. Cal., January 16, 2018), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations
of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are manufacturers of discrete inductors and are
accused of fixing and stabilizing the prices of inductors.
Discrete inductors are passive electronic components fixed to a
circuit board and are ubiquitous in thousands of products that
rely on electronic circuits for power including laptop and
desktop computers, cars, televisions, wireless handsets, video
game consoles and wireless LAN boxes. Defendants allegedly formed
a cartel in the late 1990s resulting from increased competition
from Korean and Taiwanese manufacturers.

Powerweb, Inc. and Powerweb Energy, Inc. offer energy cost
control applications for commercial businesses. They purchased
inductors directly from one or more of the Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Samantha J. Stein, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             sstein@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      GRABAR LAW OFFICE
      1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 507-6085
      E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


NATIVE COMMERCE: Court Dismisses EFTA Claim in "Wheeler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gordon J. Quist of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted in part and
denied in part Native's motion to dismiss the case, JAMES
WHEELER, Plaintiff, v. NATIVE COMMERCE STUDIOS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-CV-51 (W.D. Mich.).

Wheeler, brought a class action complaint against the Defendant,
alleging four claims.  First, that Native violated the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act; second, that Native committed fraudulent
concealment against Wheeler; third, that Native breached a
contract between the two parties; and fourth, that Native
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA").  Native has
filed a motion to dismiss all claims.

Wheeler does not deny he filed his complaint more than a year
after the first of the alleged recurring violations -- the first
time Native first withdrew the allegedly unconsented -- to funds
from his bank account.  His cause of action accrued then, and the
statute of limitations period was not tolled for the duration of
his membership in the Family Protection Association.  Therefore,
Wheeler's EFTA claim will be dismissed because it is barred by
the statute of limitations, as interpreted by Wike v. Vertrue,
Inc., and the majority of district courts.

For these reasons, Judge Quist concluded that Wheeler's EFTA
claim is barred by the statute of limitations.  Therefore, he
granted in part and denied in part Native's motion to dismiss.
He granted the motion as to Count 4.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/UD6Aen from Leagle.com.

James Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson, P.C.

Native Commerce Studios, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman --
anrothman@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, H. Rhett Pinsky --
hrpinsky@psfklaw.com -- Pinsky Smith Fayette & Kennedy LLP &
Shahin Oloumi Rothermel -- sorothermel@Venable.com -- Venable
LLP.


NETWORK RECOVERY: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Menachem Taubenfliegel, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Network Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00626 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2018).

Network Recovery Services, Inc. offers adjustment and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NOMURA & COMPANY: Biscocho Files Brown Rice Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Biscocho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nomura & Company, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-CIV-00223 (Cal.
Super., January 16, 2018), seeks actual damages, full restitution
of all illegally-acquired funds from the sale of misbranded rice,
punitive damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and
costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and all other
relief, general or special, legal and equitable for violation of
California's False Advertising Act and Unfair Business Practices
Act.

Defendant is engaged in the sale and distribution of rice. Nomura
states explicitly in bold lettering on the front and back of its
rice bags "California's Premier Brown Rice" despite containing a
mix of brown and white rice. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORT: Garrote Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Rogelio Garrote and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. North American Transport Services, LLC and Lincoln
Fontanilla, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 20109 (S.D. Fla., January
10, 2018), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages
still owing along with court costs, interest and any other
relief.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a driver from on or about
January 4, 2016 through on or about November 8, 2017. Garrote
claims to have worked an average of 48 hours per week, all
without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: Durkee Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Daniel Durkee, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omega
Protein Corporation, Gary R. Goodwin, Bret D. Scholtes, Stephen
C. Bryan, Michael N. Christodolou, Celeste A. Clark, David H.
Clarke, David Owen, And David W. Wehlmann, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-02849, (D. Nev., November 13, 2017), filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal on January 30, 2018.

The civil case is terminated per notice of voluntary dismissal
with prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and without prejudice as to
his claims on behalf of the putative class in the action,
according to the case docket.

The action seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of Omega Protein Corporation by Cooke Inc.
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Alpha MergerSub, Inc.,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The action
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.

Cooke, Inc. was to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
common stock of Omega Protein for $22.00 per share. The deal is
valued at approximately $500 million.

The Plaintiff had argued that Defendants filed a proxy statement
that failed to include financial projections and valuation
analyses performed by its financial advisor, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, critical to making their decision on the said
merger including the unlevered free cash flows for years 2017
through 2026.

Omega produces animal and human nutrition products derived from
fish, as well as plants and dairy sources. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq.
     MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC
     6077 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste. 140
     Las Vegas, NV 89148
     Phone: (702) 907-0097
     Fax: (702) 938-4065
     Email: martin@muckleroylunt.com


ORTHO SPORT: Feb. 22 Settlement Conference in "Currie" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement conference in the case captioned Tiffany Currie,
Cara N. Washington and Deana C. Anderson, Plaintiffs and
employees similarly-situated who opt in to this action v. Ortho
Sport & Spine Physicians, LLC and Armin Oskouei, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03532 (N.D. Ga., September 14, 2017), has been
rescheduled for February 22, 2018, at 9:30 AM, in ATLA Courtroom
1875 before Magistrate Judge Justin S Anand. Settlement
statements are now due on or before February 20, 2018.

The action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as for damages in
violation of the FLSA antiretaliatory provision under Section
15(a)(3).

Currie and Washington worked for the Defendants as Case Managers
while Anderson as an HR Manager. They all claim to have rendered
unpaid off-the-clock work and have been terminated for
complaining. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Regina S. Molden, Esq.
      MOLDEN & ASSOCIATES
      Peachtree Center - Harris Tower
      233 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 1245
      Atlanta, Georgia 30303
      Telephone: (404) 324-4500
      Facsimile: (404) 324-4501
      Email: reginamolden@moldenlaw.com


POPULAR NORTH: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popular North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Popular
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00594 (E.D.
N.Y., January 29, 2018).

Popular North America, Inc. is a community bank in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Pollak"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRACHA POLLAK and DAVID BENELI, Plaintiffs, v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-4025-BRM-DEA (D. N.J.), Judge
Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part PRA's Motion
for Summary Judgment, (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment, and (iii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.

On June 15, 2015, Pollak filed a putative class action on behalf
of herself and all U.S. Bank debtors residing in New Jersey who
received LL1 Letters, alleging PRA violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e et seq.
("FDCPA").  Beneli commenced a separate putative class action on
March 9, 2016, on behalf of himself and all Citibank debtors
residing in New Jersey who received LL1 Letters, alleging PRA
violated the FDCPA.  On Aug. 22, 2016, the matters were
consolidated.  On Sept. 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a joint
Amended Complaint.  On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs and PRA
filed motions for summary judgment.  Both motions are opposed.
On that same date, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify
Class.  PRA opposes this Motion.

The Plaintiffs assert the LL1 Letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e, the provision of the FDCPA dealing with communications
from debt collectors to debtors.  Specifically, they argue the
LL1 letter violated the FDCPA because it emphasized (1) the
involvement of a Litigation Department, (2) the need to respond
by a stated deadline set 30-day in the future, and (3) the
implication that failure to respond by the stated deadline may
result in potential legal action.

Judge Martinotti will deny the Plaintiffs' and PRA's motions for
summary judgment as to the issue of whether the LL1 Letter
violated Section 1692e(10) by threatening legal action.  However,
the Judge finds PRA did not intend to and was not authorized to
file a lawsuit at the time it sent the LL1 Letter.  Therefore, if
the jury determines PRA threatened any legal action in their LL1
Letter in violation of Section 1692e(5), it must find PRA also
violated Section 1692e(10).

The Judge finds that a reasonable juror applying the "least
sophisticated debtor" standard may find the LL1 Letter threated
immediate or imminent litigation, which by default would render
it contradictory to the safe harbor language because it implies
the Plaintiffs would forego any opportunity to settle if they
missed the deadline and were sued immediately.  Therefore,
because he has denied the Plaintiffs' and PRA's motions as to the
issue of whether the LL1 Letter threatens potential litigation or
immediate legal action, the Plaintiffs' and PRA's motions for
summary judgment as to whether the LL1 Letter violates Section
1692e(10) by setting a 30-day deadline to respond will also be
denied.

Judge Martinotti finds a reasonable juror applying the "least-
sophisticated debtor standard" standard could not find the
statements in the LL1 Letter stating, "Account Transferred to
Litigation Department," and "Your account has been transferred to
the Litigation Department," violate Section 16923(10) as a matter
of law.  Therefore, the "price of poker" had gone up since the
account was transferred to the Litigation Department since
litigation was a possibility.  Accordingly, PRA's motions for
summary judgment will be granted as to this issue.

The Judge will PRA's Motion for Summary Judgment and will deny
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of
whether PRA violated Section 1692e(3) by referencing the
Litigation Department.  Because he finds PRA did not violate
Section 1692e(3), the Judge must reach the same conclusion with
respect to the claim brought under Section 1692e(10), since the
Plaintiffs' claims are based upon the same facts and theories.
The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

For the reasons he stated, Judge Martinotti: (1) denied the
Plaintiffs' and PRA's motions for summary judgment as to the
issue of whether the LL1 Letter violated Section 1692e(5) and
Section 1692e(10) by threatening imminent or immediate legal
action; (2) denied the Plaintiffs' and PRA's motions for summary
judgment as to whether the LL1 Letter violates Section 1692e(10)
by setting a 30-day deadline to respond; (3); granted PRA's
Motion and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as
to the issue of whether PRA violated Section 1692e(3) and Section
1692e(10) by referencing the "Litigation Department"; (4) granted
PRA's Motion as to the issue of whether it violated Section
1692e(10) by stating the account was transferred to the
Litigation Department; and (5) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will submit an
appropriate motion for approval of class notification for the
Court's approval within 30 days of entry of the accompanying
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/5AZG9c from Leagle.com.

BRACHA POLLAK, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

DAVID BENELI, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by YITZCHAK
ZELMAN, Marcus Zelman, LLC.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
AMANDA LYN GENOVESE -- amanda.genovese@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP.


PREFERRED CARE: "Ramos" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Enrique Ramos, Diana Bilbao and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Preferred Care Home Health Services,
Inc. and Vivian C. Melly, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-20192, (S.D.
Fla., January 16, 2018), requests double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing,
along with court costs, interest and any other relief.

Ramos worked for Defendants as a coder from on or about December
2013 through the present while Bilbao worked as a Quality
Assurance Nurse, caring for the aged and infirmed, from on or
about April 19, 2013 through the present. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Vayngurt" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Biana Vayngurt, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00699 (E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

Professional Claims provides receivable collection and management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of "Hawkins" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Frederick Sharer of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing without
leave to amend the case, STACEY J. HAWKINS, v. REGIONAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2550 (Md. Spec. App.).

On Feb. 4, 2013, Hawkins entered into a one-year residential
lease agreement with RMI, a property management company, for an
apartment located at 4418 Franconia Drive in Baltimore City.  In
February 2014 Hawkins renewed the lease for a second year, but
was evicted a few months later.

Following the eviction, RMI sued Hawkins in the District Court
for Baltimore City for damages including: unpaid rent; carpet
replacement; painting; replacing locks and keys; and trash and
eviction charges.  The matter proceeded to trial on the merits in
the District Court, following which, judgment was rendered in
favor of RMI and against Hawkins for $2,509.06, plus counsel fees
and court costs.  The court excluded from RMI's claim $158.78,
representing the cost of painting and replacement of locks and
keys.

Hawkins appealed the District Court judgment, but did not appear
for the scheduled trial in the circuit court, resulting in
dismissal of the appeal and entry of a final judgment.

On May 4, 2015, while the District Court matter was still
pending, Hawkins filed a class action lawsuit in the circuit
court, alleging that RMI violated Md. Code (1975, 2013 Repl.
Vol.) Commercial Law Article ("C.L."), the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Act ("MCDCA"), and C.L. Sections 13-101-13-501, the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), by routinely charging
former tenants unjustified fees for damages not in excess of
ordinary wear and tear after the lease term has ended or the
tenant has been evicted.

Hawkins averred that RMI violated C.L. Section 14-202(8) of the
MCDCA, and C.L. Section 13-301(14)(iii) of the MCPA by knowingly
attempting to collect rent from her by suing her in the District
Court of Maryland for Baltimore City when it knew that such
'damages' did not exist beyond ordinary wear and tear.
Concurrently with the class action filing, Hawkins filed a motion
to stay the proceedings in the District Court collection action,
which the District Court denied on May 14, 2015, the day of
trial.

On June 12, 2015, prior to answering the class action complaint,
but after judgment had been entered in the District Court action,
RMI responded to the class action complaint by moving to dismiss
all counts for failing to state a claim.  Hawkins responded,
opposing the motion and contending she had adequately pleaded her
causes of action.  On Aug. 7, 2015, the court entered a
Memorandum and Order granting RMI's motion to dismiss the
complaint, finding that Hawkins had failed to allege sufficient
facts to support a cause of action under either the MCDCA or the
MCPA.

On Aug. 24, 2015, Hawkins moved for reconsideration, attaching a
proposed amended complaint.  The circuit court summarily denied
Hawkins' motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, Hawkins presents two questions (i) whether the circuit
court erred in dismissing her complaint for failure to state a
claim; and (ii) whether the circuit court abused its discretion
in dismissing her complaint without leave to amend.

Judge Sharer agrees with the circuit court that there are very
few factual assertions presented within the four corners of the
complaint to support either actual or constructive knowledge of a
lack of right.  Having failed to demonstrate a lack of right to
collect the additional damages, Hawkins also fails to demonstrate
knowledge of the lack of right.  By failing to timely amend the
complaint, Hawkins was left to rely on her assertion that on
information and belief, RMI did not actually incur any of these
charges.

However, because the District Court found that RMI was entitled
to collect all but the painting and key and lock replacement
fees, the Judge says, that assertion would then be limited to
only those two charges.  Without providing support for a lack of
legal or contractual right, where knowledge can be imputed, and
without providing factual support that RMI did not actually incur
the charges, thereby demonstrating fraudulent claims for damages,
there is nothing in the complaint to demonstrate RMI had
knowledge of a lack of right to attempt collection.

In view of his finding that Hawkins failed to sufficiently plead
a claim for a violation of the MCDCA, the purely derivative MCPA
claim also fails.

Finally, the Judge finds that it is apparent that Hawkins failed
to remedy the deficiencies of the original complaint.  The
proposed amended complaint fails to assert the reason for RMI's
underlying District Court lawsuit or to clearly articulate RMI's
lack of right to collect the additional damages and provide
authority for the lack of right.

For these reasons, Judge Sharer affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  Costs to be paid by the
Appellant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rmiS7d from Leagle.com.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Schnur" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau Inc. The case is styled as Danielle Schnur, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc. doing
business as: American Medical Collection Agency, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00657 (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2018).

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc. is a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ROKA JAPANESE FOOD: Denied OT Pay, Paystubs, "Ramirez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Santos Mauricio Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roka Japanese Food Inc.
and Dian Chi Zhou and Joyce Lin, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00296, (E.D. N.Y., January 16, 2018), seeks
compensatory damages and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other injunctive and equitable relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the
New York Wage Theft Protection Act.

Zhou owns and maintains control, oversight and the direction of
Tomo Japanese Cafe, a restaurant located at 89-14 Queens
Boulevard, Queens, NY 11373 where Ramirez worked as a dishwasher
from on or about November 25, 2006, through October 20, 2017, and
was only paid for the first 40 hours he worked each week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


ROYAL EVENTS: Faces "Orozco" Suit in Eastern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Events
Flowers Inc. d/b/a Royal Events. The case is styled Jean Carlo
Orozco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Royal Events Flowers Inc. d/b/a Royal Events and
Michael Sachakov, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00688 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 31, 2018).

Royal Events is a national event planning and rental company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Suits Proceed into Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of broiler chickens remain pending after a U.S. court
denied Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in regulatory filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that between September 2, 2016
and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative
class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of
broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the
defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating
federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege
certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that
the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive
conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek
damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims,
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The court has
consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one
case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one
on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial
and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases.
These motions were fully briefed, Sanderson Farms said in its
Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2017.

The Company said, "The lawsuits will now move into discovery, and
we intend to continue to defend them vigorously; however, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in regulatory filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company and several
individual defendants continue to defend a securities class
action lawsuit in New York.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Sanderson Farms, Inc., Joe F. Sanderson, Jr.,
the Chairman of the Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief
Executive Officer and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief
Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March
30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and President,
as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws described above. The complaint also alleges that
the material misstatements were made in order to, among other
things, "artificially inflate and maintain the market price of
Sanderson Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants
thereby violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual
defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on August 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
their response.

The Company said in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2017, that on September 15, 2017, the
defendants filed a reply to the response. The motion is now fully
briefed and awaiting decision.

Sanderson Farms said "The lawsuit is in an early stage and the
defendants intend to defend it vigorously; however, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were
to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could
have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and
results of operations."

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Oklahoma Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
in Oklahoma against poultry producers.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on January 27, 2017, the Company and its
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other
poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017,
Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain
of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. The court ordered the suits consolidated
into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to
broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the
farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated
amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended
complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company said in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2017, that on September 8, 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on
October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on
November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. Oral argument on
the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 19, 2018.

Sanderson Farms said "The lawsuit is in its early stages, and we
intend to defend it vigorously; however, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to
prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could
have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and
results of operations."

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SCANA CORP: Faces "Glibowski" Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCANA Corporation.
The case is styled as Timothy Glibowski, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCANA Corporation,
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Kevin Marsh, Jimmy
Addison, Stephen Byrne, Martin Phalen, Mark Cannon, Russell
Harris, Jeffrey B Archer, Sarena Burch, W Keller Kissam, Ronald T
Lindsay and James Micali, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-00273-TLW
(D.S.C., January 31, 2018).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Algernon Gibson Solomons , III, Esq.
   Speights & Runyan
   200 Jackson Ave East
   Hampton, SC 29924
   Tel: (803) 943-4444
   Fax: (803) 943-4599
   Email: gsolomons@speightsrunyan.com

      - and -

   Daniel Alvah Speights, Esq.
   Speights and Runyan
   PO Box 685
   Hampton, SC 29924
   Tel: (803) 943-4444
   Fax: (803) 943-4599
   Email: dspeights@speightsandsolomons.com


SCORES HOLDING: Settlement of Former Entertainer's Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have reached a settlement in principle to resolve
the claims.

On or about July 25, 2017, plaintiff Dislenia Munoz
("Plaintiff"), who formerly performed as an adult entertainer at
Scores New York, owned in its entirety by I.M. Operating LLC
("I.M. Operating"), commenced a putative class action lawsuit
(the "Lawsuit") against the Company, I.M. Operating, Robert Gans
and Mark Yackow (collectively, "Defendants") in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.  Plaintiff alleges
that she and other similarly situated entertainers at Scores New
York were misclassified as independent contractors, that they
should have been classified as employees, and as a result, the
defendants violated, among other things, applicable state wage
and hour laws.  The Lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  The company, along with all of the Defendants, intend to
vigorously defend themselves against the claims asserted against
them in the Lawsuit.

At this time, the parties have reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the claims in the Lawsuit which is being memorialized
in a written agreement to be submitted to an Arbitrator for
approval.

Scores Holding is an adult entertainment company. The company is
engaged in the business of licensing the Scores brand name and
other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with adult
entertainment in the United States. The company was formerly
known as Adonis Energy, Inc. and in adopted its current name in
July 2002. The company is based in New York.


SEVCON INC: "Scarantino" Stockholder Class Action Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino on Jan. 11, 2018, filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of the class action lawsuit, entitled Louis Scarantino
v. Sevcon, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11580 (D. Mass., August
22, 2017).

Sevcon, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that on August 22, 2017, Louis Scarantino
filed a purported stockholder class action lawsuit against the
Company and its directors and BorgWarner Inc. and one of its
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. In the case, captioned Louis Scarantino v. Sevcon,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11580, plaintiff alleges that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement filed on August 8, 2017,
which concerns the proposed acquisition of the Company by
BorgWarner Inc., omits or misrepresents material information with
respect to certain financial data and analyses underlying
Rothschild Inc.'s opinion, the possible terms of any
nondisclosure agreements that may have been entered into by the
Company with certain other parties, and purported conflicts of
interest on the part of the Company's officers and directors and
Rothschild Inc.

Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the acquisition or, in the
alternative, rescission or rescissory damages if the acquisition
closes.

Sevcon said at that time, "The outcome of this lawsuit cannot be
predicted with certainty. However, the Company believes that it
is without merit. If additional similar complaints are filed, the
Company will not necessarily announce such additional filings."

A Dec. 12, 2017 docket entry provided that, "a Notice of
potential dismissal of action pursuant to FCRP 4(m) and Local
Rule 4.1(b): This action will be dismissed in twenty-one days
unless proof of service is filed."

Sevcon has been at the forefront of electric vehicle technology
for over half a century and in that time has partnered with many
of the world's leading companies to achieve their low-carbon
ambitions. The company is based in Southborough, Massachusetts.


SHOE SERVICE: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoe Service Plus,
Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Shoe Service Plus, Inc. doing business as: Leather
Spa, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00786 (S.D. N.Y., January 29,
2018).

Shoe Service Plus, Inc. is in the shoe repair shop business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Steigerwald" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case, STEPHANIE L. STEIGERWALD, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV-1516 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Steigerwald brings the class action complaint against
the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant has repeatedly failed
to properly calculate and disburse Social Security benefits when
a claimant's representative receives attorneys' fees.

The Defendant has previously found Plaintiff Steigerwald entitled
to both retroactive disability benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act and retroactive supplemental security income
("SSI") under Title XVI of that Act.  Neither party contests
these benefit awards.

Eligibility for SSI benefits and the amount of those benefits are
both affected by an individual's income, including income from
Title II disability benefits.  For this reason, when a claimant
qualifies for both retroactive Title II and SSI benefits, Social
Security Agency ("SSA") performs a calculation to ensure that the
claimant is not paid a greater amount than they would have
received if the claimant's benefits were paid when originally
owed.  This is known as a windfall offset calculation.

When a claimant hires an attorney or other representative to aid
them in obtaining Title II disability benefits, the claimant can
pay the representative from her awarded Title II benefits.  When
this happens, SSA deducts the attorney representative payment
amount from the claimant's income calculation for SSI purposes.
After the representative's fee is finalized, a second windfall
offset calculation can result in SSA paying the claimant
additional benefits.

Plaintiff Steigerwald alleges that in a large number of cases,
including her own, SSA has failed to perform a second windfall
offset calculation after the final representative's fee is
determined.  Because of this failure, Plaintiff Steigerwald
alleges that the Defendant Commissioner has wrongfully withheld
retroactive Title II benefits potentially totaling millions of
dollars.

Plaintiff Steigerwald hired her attorneys in September 2009, and
agreed to pay her attorneys 25% of the benefits they recovered
for her.  In July 2014, her attorneys successfully recovered
approximately five years of back SSI and Title II disability
payments.

SSA then paid all past-due SSI benefits to her, and withheld all
past-due Title II benefits in order to make the first windfall
offset calculation and to account for approximately $17,000 in
potential attorneys' fees that Steigerwald might have to pay.  In
February 2015, SSA made the initial windfall offset calculation.

Under her attorneys' agreement with Steigerwald, their successful
representation entitled them to approximately $17,000, which is
the amount they sought in a January 2015 petition.  SSA, however,
reduced this amount and ultimately awarded $13,500 in fees to
Steigerwald's attorneys in August 2016.

In September 2016, SSA contacted Steigerwald's attorneys to ask
whether Steigerwald's attorneys would petition the district court
for the remainder of the fee that SSA had not awarded them.  It
also notified the attorneys that the agency was withholding
approximately $3,500 (the difference between Steigerwald's
attorneys' full fee and the amount SSA awarded them) from
Steigerwald's benefits.  Ateigerwald's attorneys responded within
a few days, informing SSA that they would not petition for any
additional fees, that their fee was therefore finalized, and that
SSA should release the withheld funds to Plaintiff Steigerwald.

As of the filing of this suit, SSA had not performed the second
windfall offset calculation.  Had it done so, Steigerwald would
have been entitled to an additional $5,392.08 in past-due
benefits.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, saying
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  The Defendant
argues that Plaintiff Steigerwald failed to present and exhaust
her claim before the SSA, as required by statute, and that
Plaintiff Steigerwald's claim is moot.

Judge Gwin finds that by making SSA aware that the attorneys'
fees issue was final and that SSA should release her withheld
benefits, Plaintiff Steigerwald presented her claim.  He also
finds that exhaustion in this instance is futile because there is
no SSA action to challenge through the administrative review
process.  Instead, SSA has simply delayed performing, or failed
to perform, part of its required review of a claimant's benefits
and provided no notice to claimants that further review had
ended.  Therefore, the Judge will require the Defendant to excuse
Section 405(g)'s exhaustion requirement.

Finally, the Judge finds that the "picking off" exception applies
and so Plaintiff Steigerwald's claim is not moot.  He says the
Defendant had the opportunity and ability to pay Plaintiff
Steigerwald and the other potential class members the benefits
allegedly owed to them any time after their attorneys' fees were
finalized.  The Defendant only paid Steigerwald, however, shortly
before filing the motion to dismiss.  This timing is suspect
because the payment occurred after Plaintiff Steigerwald filed
her class action complaint, but before the Court had a reasonable
opportunity (or, indeed, any opportunity) to rule on a motion for
class certification.

For these reasons, Judge Gwin denied Defendant Commissioner's
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/FK83iA from Leagle.com.

Stephanie L. Steigerwald, Plaintiff, represented by Bezalel A.
Stern -- bstern@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye & Warren, pro hac
vice, Ira T. Kasdan -- ikasdan@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye &
Warren, pro hac vice, Jon H. Ressler -- jressler@rooselaw.com --
Roose & Ressler, Joseph D. Wilson, III -- jwilson@kelleydrye.com
-- Kelley, Drye & Warren, pro hac vice & Kirk B. Roose, Roose &
Ressler.

Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Emily
Sue Newton, U.S. Department of Justice - Federal Programs Branch,
Erin E. Brizius, Office of the U.S. Attorney & Ruchi V. Asher,
Office of the U.S. Attorney.


STAPLES INC: Four Class Action Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel entered Orders dated Nov. 15, 2017, granting
separate stipulations dismissing four class action lawsuits:

     -- Raymond Haag v. Staples, Inc. et al.,
     -- Bushanksy v. Staples, Inc. et al.,
     -- Michael Huntley v. Staples, Inc. et al., and
     -- Leif Haugen v. Staples, Inc. et al.

Staples, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the company is still defending on the class
actions suits filed against it.

On August 4, 2017 a purported class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger was filed against the Company, each of its directors,
Sycamore, Merger Sub and Parent, captioned Raymond Haag v.
Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11447 ("Haag").

Three additional purported class action lawsuits were also filed
against the Company and each of its directors, on August 8, 2017
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 1:17-cv-11464 ("Bushansky"), on August 8, 2017 captioned
Michael Huntley v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-
cv-11467 ("Huntley"), and on August 10, 2017 captioned Leif
Haugen v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11480
("Haugen"). Each of the lawsuits was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the
defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the Merger.

Each of the plaintiffs seeks to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the Merger.  In addition, plaintiffs variously
seek other forms of injunctive and declaratory relief, including
declaring that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or
20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder; declaring that the proxy statement is materially
false or misleading; enjoining the defendants from proceeding
with any vote on the Merger; directing the defendants to
disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue
statements of material fact and that states all material facts
required in it or necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading; rescinding the Merger or awarding
rescissory damages to the extent already consummated; and
requiring an accounting of all damages caused and profits
obtained by the defendants.  In addition, each of the plaintiffs
seeks an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company and its directors believe all four of these lawsuits
are without merit.

Staples, Inc. is an American multinational office supply
retailing corporation, with over 1,500 stores in North America.
Headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, Staples also does
business extensively with enterprises in the United States and
Canada, and as Staples Business Advantage. Staples sells supplies
which include staples, office machines, promotional products,
technology, and business services both in stores and online.


STATE FARM: Faces "Sides" Suit in Middle District Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as George A. Sides,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. State Farm Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00060-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala., January 31, 2018).

State Farm Life Insurance Company Inc. provides life insurance
products and annuities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brooke BoucekRebarchak, Esq.
   METHVIN TERRELL YANCEY STEPHENS & MILLER PC
   2201 Arlington Ave S
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: brebarchak@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq.
   McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: cgipson@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   James Michael Terrell, Esq.
   McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: jterrell@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   Perry Michael Yancey, Esq.
   Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C.
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: myancey@mmlaw.net


SUN BANCORP: MOU Reached in NJ Stockholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sun Bancorp, Inc. said in a Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Company, OceanFirst and the
plaintiffs in each of the Class Actions on October 13, 2017,
entered into a memorandum of understanding which provides for the
settlement of the Class Actions.

The MOU contemplates, among other things, that the Company would
make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger. The
Company believes that the claims asserted in the Class Actions
are without merit and that no further disclosure is required
under applicable law.  However, to avoid the risk that the Class
Actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation
of the Merger and to minimize the burden and expense of further
litigation, the Company agreed to voluntarily make supplemental
disclosures related to the Merger.

Furthermore, pursuant to the MOU, the plaintiffs in each of the
Class Actions voluntarily dismissed their individual claims with
prejudice their and the claims asserted on behalf of a putative
class of the Company's shareholders without prejudice. No
liability or reserve has been recognized in the Company's
unaudited condensed consolidated statements of financial
condition at September 30, 2017 with respect to these matters.

Sun Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing dated October 13, 2017,
that as disclosed in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, Sun,
the members of the Sun board of directors (the "Sun Board"),
OceanFirst and Merger Sub have been named as defendants in three
substantially similar putative class action lawsuits filed by
alleged shareholders of Sun in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Burlington County, Chancery Division, captioned Bruce Oswald v.
Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al., Docket No. C 000070 17; Robert Rumsey
v. Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al., Docket No. C 000071 17; and Paul D.
Chetcuti v. Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al., Docket No. C 000072 17.

On July 31, 2017, the plaintiffs in such class action lawsuits
filed a motion to consolidate all three actions, and for the
appointment of interim lead counsel. On August 28, 2017, the
court granted the motion to consolidate, consolidating all three
actions under the caption In re Sun Bancorp, Inc. Consolidated
Stockholder Litigation, Docket No. C-70-17.

These actions allege, among other things, that the members of the
Sun Board breached their fiduciary duties, including by failing
to disclose material information about the transaction.

In addition, on September 22, 2017, another alleged shareholder
of Sun filed a putative class action lawsuit against Sun, the Sun
Board, Ocean First and Merger Sub in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Paul Parshall v.
Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-07368, in which the
plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
certain rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by not
disclosing certain allegedly material facts about the
transaction.

Sun believes that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are
without merit and that no further disclosure is required under
applicable law.  However, to avoid the risk that the lawsuits may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the
transaction and to minimize the burden and expense of further
litigation, Sun wishes to voluntarily make the supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger.

In light of the supplemental disclosures, the plaintiffs in the
lawsuits have agreed to dismiss their individual claims with
prejudice. Sun specifically denies that any further disclosure is
required to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under
applicable law.

Sun Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company. The Company's
principal subsidiary is Sun National Bank (the Bank). Through the
Bank, the Company provides an array of community banking services
to consumers, small businesses and mid-size companies.

A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure on Form 8-K is
available at https://goo.gl/GhnxHK


TERRAFORM POWER: Settlement in "Chamblee" Suit Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel on Jan. 31, 2018, entered an Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement in the case, Chamblee v.
TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM
(S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Castel also entered an Order awarding Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses.  Plaintiffs' Counsel
is awarded 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $3,687,500, as
attorneys' fees in this action, together with a proportionate
share of the interest earned on the fund, at the same rate as
earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of the
establishment of the fund to the date of payment. Plaintiffs'
Counsel shall be reimbursed out of the Gross Settlement Fund in
the amount of $84,894.02 for its expenses and costs.

The Court held that the amount of fees awarded is fair and
reasonable in light of the time and labor required, the novelty
and difficulty of the case, the skill required to prosecute the
case, the experience and ability of the attorneys, awards in
similar cases, the contingent nature of the representation and
the result obtained for the Class.

TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on April 4, 2016, a securities class action
under federal securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) (the "Chamblee Class Action")
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland against the Company and two of its former officers (one
of which was also a director of the Company) asserting claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including with respect to
disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal controls and the
Company's reliance on SunEdison.

An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former
officer and director of the Company were added as defendants. On
October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 19, 2016, an
initial case management conference was held in the multidistrict
litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The Court entered an order
requiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation to mediate
and entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March 31,
2017. On March 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding three additional directors and officers of the
Company as defendants, as well as additional factual allegations.

On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
After mediation, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement
of $14.8 million on behalf of a putative settlement class
containing all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between
July 18, 2014 and March 15, 2016, conditioned on, among other
things, funding of the settlement by the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance providers to the satisfaction of
the Company. As of the date hereof, the parties have agreed that
$13.63 million of the settlement will be covered by the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance providers.

On September 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted approval of
the use of $13.63 million of proceeds to fund the settlement. The
Company, the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance providers and the Company's co-defendants are in the
process of finalizing documentation governing the use of the
$13.63 million of proceeds from the insurance. On September 14,
2017, the U.S. District Court for the SDNY preliminarily approved
the settlement and provided the Company with an express
termination right in the event that the settlement is not timely
funded with proceeds from the directors' and officers' liability
insurance. A hearing on final approval of the settlement was
scheduled for January 31, 2018.

The Company has agreed to issue additional shares of Class A
common stock to Orion Holdings for no additional consideration in
respect of the Company's net losses, such as out-of-pocket
losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses, upon the final
resolution of the Chamblee Class Action. If a final resolution is
achieved on the settlement on the terms described, the Company's
contribution to the settlement amount, net of the amount to be
covered by insurance, would be $1.13 million. The Company and
TerraForm Global, Inc. have entered into an agreement pursuant to
which TerraForm Global, Inc. has agreed to indemnify and
reimburse the Company for certain costs, fees and expenses
related to the defense or settlement of the Chamblee Class Action
that are not covered by insurance (excluding the $1.13 million
settlement contribution). As a result, as of the date hereof, the
Company does not expect to incur any material fees or expenses
(excluding the $1.13 million settlement contribution) in
connection with the Chamblee Class Action that would not be
covered by insurance or indemnified and reimbursed by TerraForm
Global, Inc. The Company reserved for its estimated loss related
to this complaint of $1.13 million as of December 31, 2016.

TerraForm Power, Inc. ("TerraForm Power") and its subsidiaries
(together with TerraForm Power, the "Company") is a dividend
growth-oriented company formed to own and operate contracted
clean power generation assets. The Company's business objective
is to acquire assets with high-quality contracted cash flows,
primarily from owning clean power generation assets serving
utility and commercial customers.

TerraForm Power is a holding company and its sole asset is an
equity interest in TerraForm Power, LLC, or "Terra LLC."
TerraForm Power is the managing member of Terra LLC and operates,
controls and consolidates the business affairs of Terra LLC.


THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies "Miller" FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUELAINE MILLER et al., Plaintiffs, v. THEDACARE
INC., Case No. 15-C-506 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
(i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for final certification and to
certify a class; and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to
decertify.

This is a wage-and-hour collective and putative class action
alleging that ThedaCare, a major health care provider in
northeast Wisconsin, failed to pay hourly employees for time
spent working during meal breaks.  As a result of such failure,
ThedaCare is alleged to have violated its employees' rights to
regular and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Wisconsin wage law.

The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective class under the FLSA
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) consisting of those
individuals employed at ThedaCare's hospitals, now known as
Regional Medical Centers, in Appleton and Neenah.

The class is defined as all persons who have been or are employed
by ThedaCare at the Appleton Medical Center or Theda Clark
Medical Center hospitals on an hourly basis as direct patient
care providers, administrative associates, unit resource
associates and employees of the Staffing Resources department at
any time three years prior to the commencement of the lawsuit to
the present whose scheduled hours included an automatic deduction
for unpaid meal breaks and who were denied minimum wage or
overtime wages for hours for compensable on-call time and/or
hours performing work during unpaid meal periods.

The entire class totals approximately 2,400 employees, most of
whom are nurses, paramedics, certified nursing assistants, and
other hourly employees who provide direct patient care at its
hospitals.  It also includes a smaller number of employees who
work as registrars/administrative associates, unit resource
associates, or hourly employees within the Staffing Resources
department.

The case is now before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for
final certification of their FLSA collective action and for
certification of their state law claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.  Also before the Court is ThedaCare's motion
to decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA conditional collective action.

Judge Griesbach finds that the evidence presented does not
support the Plaintiffs' allegations that ThedaCare management had
a de facto policy to deprive its employees of compensation to
which they are entitled.  This is not to say that there were not
employees who worked during their meal breaks and were not
compensated for it.  But to the extent this occurred, it was due
to the myriad of factors each employee faced over the period of
time covered by this lawsuit.  Given the variability that each of
these elements may have had on each employee on any given day,
the Judge says the Plaintiffs are unable to satisfy the
commonality/typicality requirements for Rule 23 certification.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to offer
persuasive evidence that ThedaCare's upper management adopted a
de facto policy of denying its employees compensation for work
performed over their unpaid lunch breaks.  In this respect, the
case differs from Bell v. PNC Bank on which the Plaintiffs place
significant weight.  In Bell, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's certification of a class of employees at twenty-
seven banks in Illinois based on strong evidence of an explicit
official policy on the part of management to deny employees
compensation for overtime.  Here, there is no persuasive evidence
of such a policy.

The Plaintiffs propose that in the event the Court does not find
sufficient commonality in its proposed class to meet the
requirements of Rule 23, it should certify three subclasses
consisting of (1) employees with direct patient care
responsibilities who use "zone phones," (2) those who monitor
acute patients, and (3) schedulers with indirect patient care
duties.

Judge Griesbach holds that this would not cure the essential
problem: that the question of how many, if any, of the meal
periods of each employee within the class over the period of time
covered by the complaint were interrupted and are therefore
compensable because of work performed does not lend itself to a
single adjudication.  He says while the employees who worked and
yet were unpaid may have suffered the same injury, the
determination of each violation for each employee within the
class turns on too many variable factors to allow consideration
as a class.  He therefore concludes that class certification of
the Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to Rule 23 should be
denied.

Finally, with respect to ThedaCare's motion to decertify the FLSA
collective action, the Judge explains that FLSA collective
actions differ from Rule 23 class actions in that Rule 23 sets
forth a set of detailed procedural provisions that have no
counterpart in the FLSA.  But despite these differences between
the two, there isn't a good reason to have different standards
for the certification of the two different types of action, and
the case law has largely merged the standards, though with some
terminological differences.  Therefore, the Seventh Circuit has
indicated, albeit in dicta, that the standards for certification
under the FLSA Section 216 and Rule 23 should be treated as the
same.  Treating them as the same, he finds that the opt-in
Plaintiffs are not similarly situated for the reasons described
in the Rule 23 analysis.  Even if he applied the FLSA's
"similarly situated" standard, as a separate, lower standard, the
end result would be the same.  The Judge therefore concludes that
ThedaCare's motion to decertify should be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Griesbach denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for final certification and to certify a class and granted the
Defendant's motion to decertify.  The Judge decertified the
collective action and dismissed without prejudice the claims of
the opt-in Plaintiffs.  He directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to
notify the opt-in Plaintiffs of the Order decertifying the class
and informing them of their ability to bring individual claims
and warning them that the statute of limitations on their ability
to file suit has resumed running.  He directed the Clerk to set
the matter on the Court's calendar in not less than ten days for
a telephone conference to address further scheduling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SuyJdQ from Leagle.com.

Juelaine Miller, Kathleen Albers & Linda Auler, Plaintiffs,
represented by Barry P. Gill -- bpgill@gillandgillsc.com -- Gill
& Gill SC, Erin F. Medeiros -- efm@previant.com -- The Previant
Law Firm SC, Gregory B. Gill, Sr. -- gillsr@gillandgillsc.com --
Gill & Gill Law Firm, Nathan D. Eisenberg -- nde@previant.com --
The Previant Law Firm SC & Sara J. Geenen , The Previant Law Firm
SC.

ThedaCare Inc, Defendant, represented by Sean M. Scullen --
sean.scullen@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP & Christopher L.
Nickels -- christopher.nickels@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP.


THORATEC CORP: Cooper Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Cooper and Todd Labak, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
captioned BRADLEY COOPER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. THORATEC CORPORATION, GERHARD F.
BURBACH, TAYLOR C. HARRIS, and ROXANNE OULMAN, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00360-CW (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying the
Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants to be litigated as a
class action on behalf of this class:

     all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
     the common stock of Thoratec Corporation between May 11,
     2011 and August 6, 2014, both dates inclusive.  Excluded
     from the Class are any parties who are or have been
     Defendants in this litigation, the present and former
     officers and directors of Thoratec and any subsidiary
     thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal
     representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity
     in which any current or former Defendant has or had a
     controlling interest.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Todd Labak as class
representative, and to appoint Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel.

Should the Court grant the Motion, as provided in the [Proposed]
Order, the Court should direct the parties to meet and confer on
the form and manner of providing notice and require the parties
to file their proposal for providing notice to the Class for
Court approval within 60 days from entry of the Order granting
class certification, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 1, 2018, 2:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FoY862wa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lsmollar@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com


UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Watson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment dismissing the case, KATHLEEN M. WATSON, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
BARTON M. WATSON, as an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 17-15890 (9th Cir.), alleging federal and
state law claims arising from the Defendant's baggage policy.

The Appellate Court finds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in (i) dismissing the Watson's complaint without
leave to amend because (i) the deficiencies of the complaint
could not be cured by amendment; and (ii) not converting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment
because the district court did not rely on materials outside of
the pleadings.

The Court does not consider arguments and allegations raised for
the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief.  It rejects as
unsupported by the record the Watson's contentions that the
district court applied the incorrect law regarding their breach
of contract claim and ignored claims related to the third class
action members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aZXWQO from Leagle.com.


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Sigmund Buxbaum, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v
United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00701
(E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018).

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial
service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Arthur Moves to Certify Class of Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GREGORY ARTHUR, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v.
UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
(C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying a class of:

     All persons who, on or after September 21, 2013 (the "Class
     Period"), purchased in California, for personal or household
     use and not for resale or distribution, Spectracide
     Concentrate products in packaging stating that the product
     "Makes up to" a specified number of gallons as follows:

     Product                          Label Statement
     -------                          ---------------
     Spectracide Concentrate 16 oz.   "Makes up to 5 gallons"
     Spectracide Concentrate 32 oz.   "Makes up to 10 gallons"
     Spectracide Concentrate 40 oz.   "Makes up to 13 gallons"
     Spectracide Concentrate 64 oz.   "Makes up to 20 gallons"

     Excluded from the Class are governmental entities,
     Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
     interest, its employees, officers, directors, legal
     representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly
     owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies, including all
     parent companies, and their employees; and the judicial
     officers, their immediate family members and court staff
     assigned to this case.

In his complaint, Mr. Arthur asserts claims for alleged violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Mr. Arthur also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
as Class Counsel.  In addition, he moves for an order approving
notice to the Class in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 26, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mqLURTE8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


US BANK: Court Affirms Denial of "Duran" Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL DURAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. A148817 (Cal. App.), Judge Robert L. Dondero of the Court of
Appeals of California for the First District, Division One,
affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification.

In its second encounter with the class action case, Plaintiffs
Duran and Matt Fitzsimmons appeal from the trial court's order
denying class certification.  The case is a wage and hour class
action challenging whether the Defendant had properly classified
its business banking officers ("BBOs") as exempt employees under
the outside salesperson exemption.  This exemption applies to
employees who spend more than 50% of their workday engaged in
sales activities outside their employer's place of business.

Like the trial court, the Appellate Court incorporates by
reference pages 13 through 24 of the Supreme Court's opinion in
Duran.  That decision affirmed the Appellate Court's opinion
reversing the judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs after a
bench trial, leaving open that the trial court could "entertain a
new class certification motion."  That new motion is the subject
of the present appeal.

On July 7, 2014, the remittitur from Duran was filed and the case
was reassigned to a new judicial officer on Sept. 8, 2014,
following the Bank's challenge to the original trial judge.

On Dec. 18, 2014, the Bank filed a motion to deny class
certification.  On Jan. 21, 2015, the trial court denied the
Plaintiffs' request to reopen discovery, finding that the prior
discovery was "very extensive."  The Plaintiffs retained survey
expert Jon A. Krosnick in connection with their opposition to the
Bank's motion.

On Feb. 1, 2015, Krosnick sent an "advance letter" to the
putative class members, alerting them to an impending survey and
the fact that they might be contacted.  The letter enclosed $2 as
a "thank you" and promised an additional $25 to $35 for answering
a 20-minute phone survey that would be "completely confidential."
On Feb. 13, 2015, Ted Biggs, a senior vice president of the Bank,
sent a letter to the putative class members informing them of the
Bank's belief that Krosnick's letter had been sent in connection
with the pending lawsuit.

On Feb. 27, 2015, the trial court granted, in part, the
Plaintiffs' ex parte application seeking, among other things, the
authority to send a corrective mailing.  The court denied the
Bank's corresponding ex parte application, finding that the
Plaintiffs had a right to conduct the survey in order to support
their opposition to the Bank's motion.  At the same time, the
court observed it was unclear how a survey of putative class
members in this unique context could help resolve the
manageability issues identified by the Supreme Court in Duran.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Bank's motion to deny certification, characterizing their
opposition as a cross-motion for class certification.  In support
of their motion, the Plaintiffs included, among other things, an
April 2015 survey report prepared by Krosnick.  In his report, he
indicated his task had been to conduct a survey of members of the
Duran class with which to generate a menu of margins of errors
for various possible numbers of witnesses who could testify at
trial and answer questions to reveal the average number of hours
they worked per week, the proportion of their work hours that
were spent performing sales-related activities, and the
proportion of their work hours that were spent performing outside
sales-related activities.

On June 5, 2015, the trial court granted in part, a motion to
compel filed by the Bank, ordering the Plaintiffs to produce the
identities of the 2015 Survey respondents and their survey
responses.  The court also ordered the Plaintiffs to produce the
identities of those respondents to an earlier Krosnick survey
(2008 Survey) who had also responded to the 2015 Survey, together
with the 2008 Survey responses of those respondents.  In its
order, the court observed the Plaintiffs had failed to provide a
separate detailed trial plan, even though this was one of the
most important take-aways from the Supreme Court's decision in
the case.

On Aug. 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs submitted an expanded trial
plan.  The Plaintiffs proposed a bifurcated trial, with the
liability phase focusing on the ultimate question of whether the
Bank had realistic expectations that BBOs could perform their job
duties and meet the production goals of their position while
spending more than half of their working time away from the
office.  The Plaintiffs proposed allowing the Bank to litigate
its affirmative defense by calling BBOs outside the random
sample, subject to the trial court's discretion to cut off the
Banks' presentation of evidence under Evidence Code section 352.

On Oct. 2, 2015, the Bank filed its reply brief, expanding the
evidentiary record to include 66 additional declarations from
BBOs who testified that they regularly spent the majority of
their time outside Bank locations.  The Bank also included a
declaration prepared by its expert, Andrew Hildreth, which
criticized the 2015 Survey and its methodology.  In brief,
Hildreth concluded the survey suffered from self-selection bias,
as well as serious measurement and estimation errors.

On Nov. 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of
their cross-motion for class certification, along with a third
Krosnick report that addressed Hildreth's criticisms.  On March
25, 2016, the trial court, pursuant to Evidence Code section 730,
appointed an independent expert, Kent D. Van Liere, to advise it
on the survey science underpinning the parties' motions.

On March 29, 2016, the Bank submitted a second declaration from
Hildreth addressing new material contained in the third Krosnick
report.

On May 19, 2016, the trial court filed its order denying class
certification.  In its order, the court concluded the pertinent
factual questions present severe manageability problems.  The
court thus denied certification on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate common issues would
predominate or that individual issues could be effectively
managed.  The appeal followed.

In sum, Judge Dondero holds that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding that the wide discrepancy between
the 2015 and 2008 survey results demonstrated that the 2015
Survey was unreliable, and served as tangible evidence that the
survey results were tainted by bias.  Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the court's finding that the survey data was
unreliable as evidence of uniformity in how BBOs spent their
time, and unreliable as statistical support for selecting a
representative witness group to testify as to liability or
restitution without causing the inquiry to devolve into a
multiplicity of individual mini trials, especially in light of
the Bank's right to call witnesses outside the sample to
establish its affirmative defense.  Accordingly, the Appellate
Court affirmed the order denying class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zCfTS9 from Leagle.com.

Wynne Law Firm, Edward J. Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Carothers Disante & Freudenberger LLP, Timothy M. Freudenberger -
- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- Alison L. Tsao --
atsao@cdflaborlaw.com -- Kent J. Sprinkle --
ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com -- Robin E. Largent --
rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com -- Teresa W. Ghali --
tghali@cdflaborlaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Says 3rd Cir. Affirms Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit, USA Technologies, Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017.

On October 1, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the company and its executive officers
alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On
December 15, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
set forth the same causes of action and requested substantially
the same relief as the original complaint.

On February 1, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 11, 2016, the Court held oral
arguments on the Company's motion, and on April 14, 2016, the
Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint without leave to amend. On May 13, 2016,
the plaintiff appealed the Court's order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On August 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Motion For Relief From
Final Judgment with the District Court seeking an order modifying
the District Court's April 14, 2016 order dismissing the
complaint, and permitting the plaintiff to now file an amended
complaint due to alleged newly discovered evidence. On September
19, 2016, the District Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's Motion For Relief From Final Judgment, and on October
4, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal of this order with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 6, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
consolidated the two appeals for all purposes, and by Order dated
August 30, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the action.

USA Technologies provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services
principally to the small ticket, unattended Point of Sale ("POS")
market. The company is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


VALENCIA COUNTY, NM: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Wilson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MICHAEL WILSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
LAWRENCE MONTANO, et al., Defendants, Civ. Nos. 11-658KG/SCY, 11-
1021 KG/SCY, consolidated with (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Steven
C. Yarbough of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico recommended the dismissal with prejudice of the Wilson
case in its entirety, and the dismissal with prejudice of
Plaintiffs Dustin Sarrett and Oscar Leyva's claims in the Sarrett
et al. v. Cordova et al.

Plaintiff Wilson commenced his lawsuit against the Valencia
County Defendants in 2011.  Plaintiffs Sarrett and Leyva also
commenced their lawsuit against the Valencia County and the City
of Belen Defendants in 2011.  In early 2012, the Court
consolidated these cases.  Since then, the parties have largely
engaged in motions practice with discovery stays in place
throughout much of the litigation.  After the Court ruled on the
most recent round of motions in December 2016, the Magistrate
Judge held a status conference with the parties on Jan. 24, 2017
and lifted the discovery stay in place at the time.  Although the
cases remain consolidated, discovery in the Wilson and Sarrett
cases has largely diverged, primarily because the Plaintiffs in
the Sarrett case intend to seek class certification.

In the Sarrett case, Magistrate Judge Yarbough initially
bifurcated discovery to allow all of the parties to conduct
written discovery regarding class certification issues before
commencing merits discovery.  Subsequently, over the course of
multiple follow-up status conferences with the parties, he
modified the discovery process to allow for a phased pre-
certification discovery approach.  Specifically, during Phase 1
of pre-certification discovery, the Plaintiffs in the Sarrett
case conducted discovery related to class certification issues.
In Phase 2 of pre-certification discovery, each group of the
Defendants (Valencia County, City of Belen, and Village of Los
Lunas/Bosque Farms) then conducted class certification discovery.
It took several months for Phase 1 pre-certifications discovery
to be completed.  Phase 2 pre-certification is presently underway
with a completion deadline of Jan. 26, 2018.

Meanwhile, in the Wilson case, the Magistrate Judge entered a
standard scheduling order with a 180-day discovery track.  The
discovery deadline in Wilson is also Jan. 26, 2018.

In the consolidated matter, the Valencia County Defendants and
the City of Belen Defendants seek dismissal of the three Named
Plaintiffs on Nov. 8, 2017 due to their alleged failure to comply
with discovery obligations and Court orders.  Specifically, the
Valencia County Defendants have moved for dismissal of Wilson
Sr.'s lawsuit with prejudice due to his failure to appear at a
Court-ordered settlement conference and his failure to comply
with Court orders and discovery obligations.

Separately, the Valencia County Defendants and City of Belen
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs Sarrett and Leyva
-- two of the four Named Plaintiffs in Sarrett Case due to their
unavailability to attend a Court-ordered settlement conference,
failure to provide written discovery, and failure to appear at
scheduled depositions.

On Nov. 28, 2017, Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales referred these
motions to the Magistrate Judge for entry of proposed findings
and a recommended disposition.  The Magistarte Judge held a
hearing on these motions on Dec. 22, 2017.  The three Named
Plaintiffs all failed to appear at the Dec. 22, 2017 motions
hearing.

The Plaintiffs' counsel does not dispute the underlying facts
giving rise to the motions.  The failures of Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Sarrett, and Mr. Leyva that support the issuance of sanctions
include:

     a. The Named Plaintiffs all failed to attend their
depositions despite service of proper notice in violation of Rule
37(d)(1)(A)(i).

     b. Mr. Wilson Sr.'s failure to attend the settlement
conference violated Rules 16(f) and Rule 41(b) because he failed
to comply with the Court order setting the conference that
expressly required his attendance.

     c. In violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii), the
three Named Plaintiffs all failed to respond to interrogatories
the Valencia County Defendants propounded on Oct. 24, 2017.
Further, none of them have provided discovery late or sought to
extend their response deadlines.

     d. The responsibility to prosecute one's case with diligence
logically includes a continuing duty to apprise one's counsel of
any changes in contact information.  Because Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Sarrett, and Mr. Leyva failed to do so, their counsel could not
contact them at critical junctures in this litigation despite
diligent efforts to do so.  Nor could their counsel obtain from
them information necessary to respond to the Defendants'
discovery requests.

Magistrate Judge Yarbough finds that an analysis of the five
Ehrenhaus factors demonstrates that the Plaintiffs' conduct
outweighs the judicial system's strong predisposition to resolve
cases on their merits, and that dismissal of their claims with
prejudice is the most appropriate sanction.


Among other things, the Magistrate Judge holds that the
Defendants have also incurred expenses preparing for depositions
at which the Plaintiffs did not appear, preparing for the vacated
Sarrett and Wilson settlement conferences, preparing never-
responded-to discovery requests, and preparing the motions to
dismiss that are at issue now.  All of these costs are directly
attributable to the Plaintiffs' actions.  In sum, their conduct
has substantially prejudiced the Defendants.

He finds that the disregard all the three Plaintiffs have shown
toward discovery obligations and Court orders has led to delays
in the judicial process and hindered the court's management of
its docket and its effort to avoid unnecessary burdens on the
court and the opposing parties.  The Plaintiffs' failures to meet
their discovery obligations, to attend Court hearings and
depositions, and to communicate with their counsel have
significantly hampered not only the opposing parties' ability to
prepare their defense, but also their own counsel's ability to
move forward, including seeking class certification in Sarrett.
And although Mr. Sarrett and Mr. Leyva have both now purportedly
been located, neither of them has since provided any indication
that they remain interested in proceeding with their cases.
Thus, their conduct has significantly impeded the judicial
process.

At this point, the Magistarte Judge finds that the Plaintiffs'
failure to maintain contact with their counsel and to participate
in this litigation demonstrates that they have little to no
commitment to continuing their respective lawsuits.  In the
absence of some foundation to support the Plaintiffs' counsel's
hope that his clients will begin to comply with their obligations
to prosecute their cases, it would be unfair to the Defendants
for the Wilson and Sarrett cases to linger in their current state
of stagnation.

Therefore, Magistrate Judge Yarbough recommended that the Court
grants both motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 41(b), 16(f),
and 37..  He recommended the dismissal with prejudice of the
Wilson case in its entirety, and the dismissal with prejudice of
Mr. Sarrett and Mr. Leyva's claims in the Sarrett case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2018 Proposed findings
and Recommended Disposition is available at https://is.gd/xQMWaj
from Leagle.com.

Michael Wilson, Sr., Jesse Ortiz, Oscar Leyva, Patrick Marquez,
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Mark Sanchez & Dustin Sarrett, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jack Bennett Jacks, Law Office of J.B. Jacks.

Lawrence Montano, Deputy, Joe Chavez, Warden & Derek Williams,
Former Warden, Defendants, represented by Kurt Wihl --
kw@keleher-law.com -- Keleher & McLeod PA & Brandon Huss, New
Mexico Association of Counties.

FNU Torres, Deputy, John Doe, VCDC booking officer or employee &
Louis Burkhard, Sheriff, Defendants, represented by Dennis K.
Wallin, Wallin, Huss, & Associates, LLC & Brandon Huss, New
Mexico Association of Counties.

Rene Rivera, Former Sheriff, Defendant, represented by Mary T.
Torres -- mtt@marytorreslaw.com -- Law Offices of Mary T. Torres.

Martin Benavidez, Officer, Mike Chavez, Former Chief of Police,
Joseph Chavez & Dan Robb, Belen Police Department Chief of
Police, Defendants, represented by Andrew Berne Indahl --
andrew.indahl@modrall.com -- Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris &
Sisk, P.A., George R. McFall -- george.mcfall@modrall.com --
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA & Jennifer A. Noya --
jennifer.noya@modrall.com -- Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk
PA.

Nick Balido, Former Los Lunas Police Department, Chief of Police,
Delinda Chavez, Greg Jones, Bosque Farms Police Department,
Police Chief, Roy Melnick, Los Lunas Police Department, Chief of
Police & Steven Roberts, Defendants, represented by James P.
Lyle, Law Offices of James P. Lyle P.C.


VERSAR INC: Calif. Employees Class Suit Settled for $0.5M
---------------------------------------------------------
Versar, Inc., paid $0.5 million in August 2017 to resolve a class
action lawsuit over employment practices, the Company said in its
Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.

In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against Versar by
former employees alleging violations of several provisions of
California's labor law relating to paid lunch time and breaks for
the years 2012 through 2015.

The company said "We reviewed the supporting files and
documentation regarding this notice and engaged outside counsel
with experience with these matters to assist us in the defense of
this matter. We performed an initial financial review of the
number of employees, days worked, and hours per day worked by
employees on this project over the course of the years noted in
the lawsuit. As a result of this analysis, we recorded a loss
contingency accrual of $0.5 million related to this event for
fiscal 2016."

On October 11, 2016, the mediation resulted in a Confidential
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) for settlement of this claim.
The estimated contingency accrual of $0.5 million remained
consistent with this MOU and was paid in August, 2017.

Versar, Inc. is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1969.  It
is a global project management company providing value-oriented
solutions to government and commercial clients in three business
segments: (1) Engineering and Construction Management (ECM); (2)
Environmental Services Group (ESG); and (3) Professional Services
Group (PSG).  It also provides tailored and secure engineering
solutions in extreme environments and offer specialized abilities
in onsite staff support, performance based remediation, and
hazardous materials management.




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *