CAR_Public/180726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 149

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Nerestant Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
ACUITY BRANDS: "Asanhussainsyedmohid" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
ACUITY BRANDS: "Gray" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
AKORN INC: Court Awards $6.7MM in Attys' Fees in Securities Suit
ALTICE USA: Faces "LaPoint" Class Action over 2017 IPO

AMBROSINO CONSTRUCTION: Failed to Post Wage Notices, Says "Laso"
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses "Magana" FDCPA Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: "Williams" Fair Market Value Questions Certified
ANALOGIC CORP: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Altaris
APPLIED BUILDING: Rhoden Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA

AUSTIN INDUSTRIAL: "Hefner" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
BANCO BILBAO: MGB Bond Buyer Files Suit Over Bond Price-fixing
BAY AREA REGIONAL: Ex-employees Seek Final Pay, Benefits
BEHR PROCESS: Court Stays "Domson" Suit
BENJAMIN MOORE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Poole" Suit

BIG 5: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BITCONNECT: Youtube Added Defendant in Class Action
BNY MELLON: Barrack, Rodos Disclosed Proposed Settlement
BOLLA OPERATING: Benitez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
BONHAMS & BUTTERFIELDS: Wu Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CALIFORNIA: Suit Challenging IDEA Moved to N.D. Calif.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Martin Sues over Share Service Fees
CIGNA CORPORATION: "Zhu" Moved to Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
CINTAS CORP: "Paramo" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
CIS SERVICES: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

COLLINS CAREER: "Cyfers" Suit Moved to District of West Virginia
CONTRACT METAL: Faces "Escorza" Suit over Meal Breaks
CREDITORS RELIEF: Court Dismisses "Hale" TCPA Suit
DALMATIAN FIRE: Rutledge and Davis Sues Over Unwanted Faxed Ads
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: "Underwood" Disputes Collection Letter

EDRIVING LLC: "Glynn" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
EIGHT FAHRENHEIT: "Anderson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Modi Balks at Merger Deal with Enterprise
FEDERAL WARRANTY: "Woturski" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
FIAT CHRYSLER: Bid for Production of MDL 2777 Transcripts Denied

FIRST COMMUNITY: Court Certifies Class in "Lavigne" TCPA Suit
FITBIT INC: Court Narrows Claims in "McLellan" Suit
FORCEMANAGEMENT GROUP: Veliz Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Final Judgment in "Roach" Suit Affirmed
FULTON CTY, ATLANTA: Property Owners Sue Over Excessive Taxes

GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs FAC Filing in Defeat Device Suit
GOGO INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Removed to Federal Court
HENKEL CORP: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Slack-Fill Suit
HIGHPOINT SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Moore" Suit

INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY: Kadir Sues over Tenants Excessive Fees
INTERNATIONAL DAIRY: Sued over Bait-and-Switch Ice Cream Treat
IRVING LANGER: Court Narrows Claims in "Contrera" FLSA Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Salazar" Suit Moved C.D. California
JONATHAN NEIL: Court Denies Prelim Approval of "Brown" Settlement

JUMPSTART CONSULTANTS: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: "Russell" Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
KING INVESTMENT: Barren Alleges Financial Fraud & Harassment
KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Sey" Suit Seeks Damages for Sherman Act Breach
LFR MANAGEMENT: "Watson" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime

LOT II LLC: Mabry Alleges Unlawful Termination of Employment
MARABELLA PIZZA: Luis Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime under FLSA
MATTERSIGHT CORP: "Shade" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to NICE Ltd.
MCDONALD'S: Most Scoff at Cheese Lawsuit, But Few Are Lovin' It
MDL 2151: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Relief from Judgment

MDL 2724: Filing of Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit Allowed
MICROSOFT CORP: Sex-Bias Suit Denied Class-Action Status
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
MMDO CORP: Ofarrill Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum under FLSA
MONAT GLOBAL: Stefforia Sues over Defective Hair Products

MONSANTO COMPANY: Carroll Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NEUMAN'S KITCHEN: Unlawfully Retained Tips, Demasi & Graham Claim
NEW WEST: Court Grants Qualified Protective Order in "Gordon"
NEW YORK: Class Decertification in "Monaco" Upheld
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Basso" Suit

NEW ZEALAND: Kiwi Case Opens Class Action Door
NHL: Retired NHLer Battles Concussions
NY COMMUNITY: "Coty" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
OCEAN DRIVE: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages, Tips
OFF-WHITE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says

PAY CAR: Court Certifies Class of Laid Off Employees in "Lester"
PEOPLEREADY FLORIDA: "Scippio" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PLAZA SERVICES: Williams Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PNC BANK: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Pfendler" Suit
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Class in "Murphy" Securities Suit Certified

PROTHENA CORP: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
REPROMED: Gluckstein Lawyers Files Class Action Lawsuit
REVOLUTION PREP: Fails to Pay All Wages, Staley Says
S.J. DISTRIBUTERS: Gallardo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Miliate Alleges Unlawful Sale of Motorcycles

SEATTLE, WA: Jewish Cemetery Board Files $250K Claim for Damages
SIBANYE GOLD: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
SOTHEBY'S INC: 9th Cir. Strikes Down California Royalties Law
TACONIC PLASTICS: Judge Grants Class-Action Lawsuit
TENNESSEE: Class Decertification Bid in "Wilson" Denied

THAMES RIVER: Robert Reardon Wins Class Action Case
TIGER NATURAL: Court Allows Amendment to "Fishman" Complaint
TITLEMAX OF TENNESSEE: Can Compel Arbitration in "Curatola" Suit
TOM'S SHOES LLC: "Mussleman" Disputes Overtime Pay Computation
TRINITY LOGISTICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit

TROJAN HORSE: Settlement in "Longo" Suit Has Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Certiorari Granted in Pregnant Minor's Suit
UNITED STATES: Trump Seeks More Time to Reunify Migrant Families
US BANK NA: Robinson Sues Over Excessive Bank Charges
VECTREN CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit

VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Filenko Dismissed from "Willoughby" Suit
VIRTUAL BENCH: "Sonnier" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Certification of "Swank" AMs Class
WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in "Beckman" Suit
WAL-MART TRANS: "Luna" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas

WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over In-Home Caregiver Ripoffs
WELK GROUP: "Carreno" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Minimum Wages
WINS FINANCE: Discovery Confidentiality Order in "Desta" Entered
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Casino Dealers Sue Over Illegally-withheld Tips
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Ct. Severs Plaintiffs From "McEarchen" Suit

ZICAM LLC: Settlement in "Melgar" Suit Has Preliminary Approval


                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Nerestant Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
GUITTO NERESTANT, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., ASN FAITH CORP. and AMIR GEORGE,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22810-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 13,
2018), alleges that the Defendants knew and/or showed reckless
disregard for the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
concerning the payment of minimum wages and remain owing the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated minimum wages since the
commencement of Plaintiff's and those similarly situated
employees' employment.  The lawsuit contends that the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double
damages. The Defendants, according to the lawsuit, never posted
any notice, as required by federal law, to inform employees of
their federal rights to minimum wage payments. The Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff minimum
wages as required by the laws of the United States and remain
owing Plaintiff these minimum wages since the commencement of
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.

7-Eleven is a Japanese-owned American international chain of
convenience stores, headquartered in Irving, Texas. The chain was
known as Tote's Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ACUITY BRANDS: "Asanhussainsyedmohid" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jaheer Asanhussainsyedmohid, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acuity
Brands, Inc., Vernon J. Nagel and Richard K. Reece, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00012 (D. Del., January 3, 2018), was transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on May 15, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02140.

Plaintiff purchased Acuity securities that declined $12.01 per
share, or over 4.7 percent, to close on October 5, 2016, at
$242.99 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Asanhussainsyedmohid seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the decline in the market
value of the Company's securities.

Acuity is a provider of lighting and building management
solutions for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications. [BN]

Asanhussainsyedmohid is represented by:

     P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
     ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 656-4433

Acuity Brands is represented by:

     John P. DiTomo, Esq.
     MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
     1201 North Market Street
     P.O. Box 1347
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     Tel: (302) 658-9200
     Email: jditomo@mnat.com


ACUITY BRANDS: "Gray" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Thaddeus A. Gray, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acuity Brands,
Inc., Vernon J. Nagel and Richard K. Reece, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00285 (D. Del., February 20, 2018), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on May 15, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02141.

Plaintiff purchased Acuity securities that declined $12.01 per
share, or over 4.7 percent, to close on October 5, 2016, at
$242.99 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Gray seeks
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
the decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

Acuity is a provider of lighting and building management
solutions for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications. [BN]

Gray is represented by:

     P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
     ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 656-4433
     Fax: (302) 658-7567

Acuity Brands is represented by:

     John P. DiTomo, Esq.
     MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
     1201 North Market Street
     P.O. Box 1347
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     Tel: (302) 658-9200
     Email: jditomo@mnat.com


AKORN INC: Court Awards $6.7MM in Attys' Fees in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re AKORN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15
C 1944 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
(i) granted the Named Plaintiffs' motions for costs and incentive
awards, and (ii) granted in part an denied in part their motion
for attorney fees.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the suit against Akorn and two of its
officers, Rajat Rai and Timothy A. Dick, on behalf of themselves
and a class of others who purchased Akorn stock between May 6,
2014 and April 24, 2015, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

After the Court denied the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the
discovery commenced and, months later, the Named Plaintiffs moved
for class certification.  Shortly after the class certification
motion was fully briefed, the parties agreed to settle the suit
on a classwide basis for $24 million.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
provisional certification of the settlement class.  The Named
Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the settlement,
certification of the settlement class, attorney fees, costs, and
incentive awards.  The Court in an oral ruling granted final
approval and class certification, but entered and continued the
requests for attorney fees, costs, and incentive awards.

The class counsel request a fee award of 33% of the $24 million
settlement, which comes to $7,920,000.  Judge Feinerman will
apply the In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig. sliding scale and grant an
attorney fee award of $6,290,838.23.  The $1,629,161.77
difference between the requested fees and the awarded fees will
be returned to the settlement fund, of which $17,303,881.17 is
now earmarked for distribution to the class.

The class counsel submit itemized lists of expenses for expert
witnesses, document vendors, mediation, and travel, among other
things.  Together, those expenses total $375,280.60.  The Judge
finds those costs to be reasonable.  He also notes that the costs
come to 1.56% of the settlement amount, which is below median in
comparable cases.

The three Named Plaintiffs request incentive awards of $10,000
apiece.  The Judge finds that the Named Plaintiffs spent time
reviewing pleadings, responding to interrogatories, collecting
documents responsive to discovery requests, and preparing and
sitting for depositions.  Given the substantial time spent on the
litigation for the benefit of the class as a whole, the requested
incentive awards of $10,000 per the Named Plaintiff are
appropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Feinerman (i) granted the motions for
costs and incentive awards, and (ii) granted in part an denied in
part the motion for attorney fees.  He modified the terms of the
settlement such that the $24 million common fund is distributed
as follows: (1) the class member payments in the amount of
$17,303,881.17; (2) attorney fees and costs in the amount of
$6,666,118.83; (3) incentive awards to the three class
representatives in the amount of $10,000 each ($30,000 total).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/i1bpri from Leagle.com.

Solomon Yeung, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B.
Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Leigh
Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Louis
Carey Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick
Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP &
Sean Kennedy Collins,  Law Offices of Sean K. Collins, pro hac
vice.

Mikolaj Sarzynski, J. Michael Cuniff, Jr. & Elizabeth Cuniff,
Plaintiffs, represented by Casey E. Sadler --
csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua L. Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Francis Ruf --
kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent
Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth Camper Lyons -- elyons@LKSU.com --
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders, & Uhlenhop, Llc, John Scott Monical,
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Marielise Fraioli --
mfraioli@LKSU.com -- Lawrence Kamin Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC,
Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg -- mgoldberg@LKSU.com -- Lawrence,
Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Peter E. Cooper -- pcooper@LKSU.com -
-  Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop & Sean Kennedy Collins,
Law Offices of Sean K. Collins, pro hac vice.

Akorn, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexa Mullarky, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Antony L. Ryan --
aryan@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel Slifkin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice, David
M. Stuart -- dstuart@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore Llp,
pro hac vice, Devon McKechan Largio -- devon.largio@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Michael B. Byars, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice.

Rajat Rai, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath,
Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Stuart, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore Llp, pro hac vice, Devon McKechan Largio, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP & Michael B. Byars, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro
hac vice.

Timothy A. Dick, Defendant, represented by Thomas P. Cimino, Jr.
-- tcimino@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., Antony L. Ryan,
Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Stuart,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore Llp, pro hac vice, Devon McKechan Largio,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Junaid A. Zubairi --
jzubairi@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., Michael B. Byars,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel T. Copenhaver -
- rcopenhaver@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C. & Rebecca Lynn
Dandy -- rdandy@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C..


ALTICE USA: Faces "LaPoint" Class Action over 2017 IPO
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian LaPoint brings a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Altice USA common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Altice USA's June 2017
initial public offering.

His complaint, captioned as, BRIAN LAPOINT, Individually and on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ALTICE USA, INC., ALTICE EUROPE N.V. (f/k/a ALTICE
N.V.), PATRICK DRAHI, JEREMIE JEAN BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM BOUBAZINE,
MICHEL COMBES, DAVID P. CONNOLLY, DEXTER G. GOEI, VICTORIA M.
MINK, MARK CHRISTOPHER MULLEN, DENNIS OKHUIJSEN, LISA ROSENBLUM,
CHARLES F. STEWART, RAYMOND SVIDER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT
AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) LLC, SG AMERICAS
SECURITIES LLC, and TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 710845/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 16, 2018), asserts strict-
liability, non-fraud claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against Altice USA, its former controlling
parent Altice N.V., certain current and former officers and
directors of Altice USA and the former Altice N.V., and the
underwriters of the IPO.

Altice USA is a broadband communications provider and, until
approximately June 8, 2018, was the United States subsidiary of
Altice N.V., a Netherlands-based multinational telecommunications
company founded and controlled by Patrick Drahi. Altice USA and
Altice N.V. were interdependent. They shared officers and
directors. They jointly reported respective quarterly and yearly
financial results. They jointly conducted earnings calls with
analysts. Altice USA was majority-owned and controlled by Altice
N.V. and Defendant Drahi; in turn, Altice N.V. was majority-owned
and controlled by Defendant Drahi. Through related shell
entities, Altice N.V. and Defendant Drahi owned 75.2% of Altice
USA's issued and outstanding shares of common stock and held
98.5% of the voting power of Altice USA's outstanding capital
stock. Indeed, Altice USA admitted its dependence on Altice N.V.;
for example, claiming: "Our ability to attract and retain
customers depends, in part, upon the external perceptions of
Altice Group's reputation, the quality of its products and its
corporate and management integrity."

In June 2017, Defendants commenced the Altice USA IPO, issuing
shares of Altice USA common stock to the investing public at $30
per share, all pursuant to a Registration Statement. The lawsuit
contends that the Offering Documents contained untrue statements
of material fact and omitted to state material facts both
required by governing regulations and necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.  With these misrepresentations
and omissions in the Offering Documents, the IPO went forward and
was extremely lucrative for Defendants, who raised over $2.15
billion in gross proceeds. But when the truth emerged, the price
of Altice USA shares suffered sharp declines. By the commencement
of this action, Altice USA shares traded below $18 per share, a
roughly 40% decline from the $30 offering price. All told,
investors suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses as a
result.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233 6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233 6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (303) 861 3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536 7849
          E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com


AMBROSINO CONSTRUCTION: Failed to Post Wage Notices, Says "Laso"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Caguana Laso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ambrosino Construction Corp.,
and Antonio Ambrosino, Defendant, Case No. 707648/2018, (N.Y.
Sup., May 17, 2018), seeks compensatory and liquidated damages,
interest, attorney's fees, costs and all other legal and
equitable remedies for violation of New York State labor laws.

Laso worked for the Defendants' construction firm as a manual
laborer. Ambrosino Construction failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous
place at the location of their employment and failed to keep
payroll records, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses "Magana" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Motion to Dismiss the case,
Nicole MAGANA, Plaintiff, v. AMCOL SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 17-11541 (RBK/AMD) (D. N.J.).

The matter arises out of a debt that the Plaintiff allegedly
incurred on Dec. 6, 2016 to Atlanticare Regional Medical Center.
This debt, totaling $360.23, was subsequently transferred to
Defendant, a debt collection firm located in Columbia, South
Carolina.  On Dec. 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff
of her outstanding financial obligation.  The letter contained
Defendant's name, address, and contact information, as well as
the outstanding balance owed by the Plaintiff.   Under the
Defendant's contact information were three paragraphs of text.

The Plaintiff contends that the text contained in the Defendant's
letter violates two provisions of the FDCPA by: (a) using false,
deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection
with the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692(e)(10); and (b) failing to provide the consumer with a
proper notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(g)(a)(3).

The Plaintiff argues that the collection letter does not make it
explicitly clear that a complaint or dispute over the bill must
be done in writing, and that as such, the letter violates
sections 1692(g)(a)(3) and 1692(e)(10).  She brought the action
against the Defendant as a state-wide class action, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
herself and all other New Jersey consumers who were sent similar
debt collection letters from the Defendant.

Judge Kugler is not convinced by the Plaintiff's arguments that
the language in the first paragraph of the collection letter
overshadows or contradicts the language in the second paragraph
to the extent that the least sophisticated debtor would be
confused about her rights.  The paragraph is not perfectly clear
about what someone needs to do as a matter of logical necessity
to dispute a claim, as each "in writing" clause sets forth merely
a sufficient, rather than a necessary, condition.  However, the
overall message is still apparent, and the paragraph successfully
conveys the writing requirement, even from the perspective of the
least sophisticated debtor.  He finds that the Defendant's
collection letter sufficiently meets the Third Circuit's
requirement that the Defendant inform the Plaintiff of the
writing requirement for disputes, and that the language contained
in the remainder of the letter neither overshadowed nor
contradicted the writing requirement.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Section 1692(g)(a)(3).

Because the Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim under Section
1692(g)(a)(3), the Plaintiff likewise cannot succeed under
Section 1692e)(10).  The Plaintiff has failed to argue any
additional grounds with respect to its Section 1692(e)(10) claim,
and the disputed language is neither false nor deceptive.  As
such, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Judge needs not address the merits of
the Plaintiff's Rule 23 arguments.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Kugler granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FDCPA claim.  An appropriate order
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/y0hvb9 from Leagle.com.

NICOLE MAGANA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
bwolf@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K.
JONES -- jkj@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

AMCOL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, represented by PETER THOMAS
SHAPIRO -- pshapiro@lbbslaw.com -- LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD &
SMITH, LLP.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Williams" Fair Market Value Questions Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Scott L. Kafker of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk, has certified three questions in the
case, RACHEL C. WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION,
Case No. SJC-12367 (Mass.).

The primary issue presented in the case is how to establish the
fair market value of a repossessed automobile pursuant to G. L.
c. 255B, Section 20B.  Under Section 20B, a creditor who
repossesses and sells a vehicle is entitled to recover from the
debtor the deficiency, if any, that remains after deducting the
"fair market value" of the vehicle from the debtor's unpaid
balance.

The Plaintiff in the case, Williams, defaulted on her automobile
loan, causing the Defendant to repossess and sell the vehicle
that served as collateral for the loan.  The price for the
repossessed vehicle was determined at an auction open to licensed
dealers.  Honda then used that amount to establish the fair
market value of the repossessed automobile and likewise
referenced the auction sale amount in pre-sale and post-sale
notices to the debtor.

Williams then sued Honda, alleging that the fair market value of
her repossessed automobile was the fair market retail value of
the automobile and Honda's notices to her were insufficient under
Massachusetts law because of the manner in which Honda described
and calculated her deficiency.  The U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to Honda, and
the Plaintiff appealed.

Unsure of the meaning of the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit certified to the Court three questions
related to the calculation of "fair market value" under Section
20B, and the notices that are required with respect to this
calculation.

The court first asks whether the fair market value of the
collateral under Section 20B is the fair market retail value of
the collateral.

The second and third questions then relate to the contents of the
pre-sale and post-sale notices that must be sent to the debtors.
Specifically, these questions ask:

     2. Whether, and in what circumstances, a pre-sale notice is
'sufficient' under the Uniform Commercial Code, G. L. c. 106,
Section 9-614 (4) and (5), and 'reasonable' under the Uniform
Commercial Code, G. L. c. 106, Section 9-611 (b), where the
notice does not describe the consumer's deficiency liability as
the difference between what the consumer owes and the 'fair
market value' of the collateral, and the transaction is governed
by G. L. c. 255B?

    3. Whether, and in what circumstances, a post-sale deficiency
explanation is 'sufficient' under the Uniform Commercial Code, G.
L. c. 106, Section 9-616, where the deficiency is not calculated
based on the 'fair market value' of the collateral, and the
transaction is governed by G. L. c. 255B?

Judge Kafker concludes that the Legislature required that
deficiency calculations for repossessed vehicles be determined
based on the fair market value of the vehicle, but did not
dictate the creditor's market choice in the first instance and
left the ultimate determination of fair market value to the
courts in contested cases, taking into account both creditor and
debtor interests, and the means, methods, and markets used to
sell the vehicle.

He says the estimated retail value as provided in periodically
published trade journals has a very limited role in the statute,
essentially establishing a rebuttable evidentiary presumption
that allows a debtor to put the fair market value as originally
determined by the creditor to the test in contested cases.  The
approach to determining fair market value and deficiencies that
the Court delineates respects the plain language of the statute,
the legislative history, and the practical realities of the
automobile repossession market.  Had the Legislature intended to
impose a fair market retail value standard, it would have simply
said so in the statute or the legislative history, and it did
not.

Finally, in response to the second and third questions,
concerning the notice that is required, he answers that the pre-
sale and post-sale notices provided to the debtor must expressly
describe the deficiency as the difference between the amount owed
on the loan and the fair market value of the vehicle, not the
difference between the amount owed and the sale proceeds or the
amount owed and the fair market retail value of the vehicle.

Judge Kafker directed the Reporter of Decisions to furnish
attested copies of the Opinion to the clerk of the Court.  The
Clerk in turn will transmit one copy, under the seal of the
Court, to the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, as the answers to the questions certified, and will also
transmit a copy to each party.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yXpKG7 from Leagle.com.

John J. Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- (Elizabeth A. Ryan -
- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- also present) for the plaintiff.

Eric S. Mattson -- EMATTSON@SIDLEY.COM -- of Illinois (Tracy
McDevitt Waugh -- tracy.waugh@wilsonelser.com -- also present)
for the defendant.

Fredrick S. Levin -- flevin@buckleysandler.com -- John C. Redding
-- jredding@buckleysandler.com -- & Ali M. Abugheida --
aabugheida@buckleysandler.com -- for American Financial Services
Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Stuart T. Rossman, for National Consumer Law Center, amicus
curiae, submitted a brief.


ANALOGIC CORP: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Altaris
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Analogic Corporation, Bernard
Bailey, Jeffrey P. Black, James J. Judge, Michael T. Modic,
Stephen A. Odland, Fred B. Parks and Joseph E. Whitters,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10988, (D. Mass., May 16, 2018), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Analogic Corporation by affiliates of Altaris Capital Partners,
LLC, 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.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Analogic will receive $84.00 in cash for each share of Analogic
common stock.

Analogic provides healthcare and security technology solutions
for advanced imaging and real-time guidance technologies used for
disease diagnosis and treatment as well as for automated threat
detection.

According to the complaint, the proxy statement omitted financial
projections and analyses performed by the company's financial
advisors, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and failed to disclose
earnings, interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization,
discretionary cash flow and free cash flow. Said disclosures
provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses, notes the complaint.

Rosenblatt is a shareholder of Analogic. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


APPLIED BUILDING: Rhoden Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RHODEN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - OAKHILLS, INC., a Florida profit
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01698-MSS-AAS (M.D.
Fla., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for
every hour worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
mechanic from February 2016 through January, 2018, and performed
related activities for Defendant in Polk County, Florida. As a
mechanic, Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime requirement
of the FLSA. However, Defendant paid Plaintiff a fixed salary
irrespective of the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked.
Because Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for those
hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week.

The Defendant operates multiple golf clubs.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, No. 600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


AUSTIN INDUSTRIAL: "Hefner" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles Hefner, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Austin Industrial, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01576 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Hefner worked for Defendant as a pipe fabricator from October of
2015 until December of 2017. During his tenure, Hefner regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid an
overtime premium, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


BANCO BILBAO: MGB Bond Buyer Files Suit Over Bond Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Banco
Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A., Banco Santander S.A., Bank of
America Corp., Barclays PLC, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse AG,
Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, and JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Case No. 18-cv-04402 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2018), seeks to
permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants from continuing and
maintaining the conspiracy under Section 16 of the Clayton
Antitrust Act, damages for violation of federal antitrust laws,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from which a constructive trust
be established for restitution to Plaintiffs, awards of costs of
suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
including expert fees, prejudgment interest and such further
relief for violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendant banks and/or their subsidiaries or affiliated companies
are horizontal competitors at auctions for Mexican Government
Bonds (MGB) who participate actively in the fixed-rate MGB market
and bid and offer prices for MGBs in the secondary market for the
purpose of providing liquidity and facilitating investment in the
overall MGB market. In April 2017, Mexico's antitrust regulator,
the Comision Federal de Competencia Economica uncovered evidence
of anticompetitive conduct in the MGB market extending back to
2006. Defendants allegedly conspired to fix MGB prices between
January 1, 2006 and April 18, 2017 through rigging MGB auctions
through collusive bidding and information sharing, selling MGBs
purchased at auction at artificially higher prices and agreeing
to fix the "bid-ask spread" artificially wider, overcharging and
underpaying customers in every MGB transaction by suppressing the
"bid price" at which Defendants offered to buy MGBs and
increasing the "ask price" at which they offered to sell. This
comprehensive scheme resulted in inflated MGB prices, and lower
yield for Plaintiffs, says the compalint.

Plaintiffs are domestic purchasers of Mexican government bond and
Defendants' customers in the United States. They were allegedly
overcharged and/or were underpaid in each of these transactions
as a direct result of a conspiracy to fix Mexican government bond
prices in the United States, the complaint asserts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-233-4565
     Facsimile: 619-233-0508
     Email: cburke@scott-scott.com

             - and -

     Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212) 519-0523
     Fax: (212) 223-6334
     Email: tboardman@scott-scott.com

             - and -

     John Radice, Esq.
     Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Telephone: (646) 245-8502
     Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
     Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
            drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com

            - and -

     Eric. L. Young, Esq.
     SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     35 East State Street
     Media, PA 19063
     Telephone: (610) 891-9880
     Facsimile: (866) 300-7367


BAY AREA REGIONAL: Ex-employees Seek Final Pay, Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Aguilar, Amy Allen, Aimee Alvarez, Jean Amador, Tenisha
Brackens, Cheryl Browning-Vidrio, Janice Caballero, Maria Del
Carmen Cervera Rios, Blanca Chapa, Elena Cleveland, John Coles,
Casey Cunningham, Roy Dalmacio, Tisha Eaglebarger, Bernadette
Egbufor, Denise Fredericksen, Whitney Goodbread, Terri Griffice,
Deanna Howard, Maria Johnson, Linda Jones, Taylor Jones, Viola
Knoxson, Adam Landry, Mary Laneharl, Amber Leal, Janet Londono,
Blessed Makamba, Ariana Maniscalco, Xuan-Tran Nguyen Mccain, Paul
McCullough, Rebecca Meehaw, Shannon Mikel, James Murengi, My
Nguyen, James O'Donnell, Wade Peirsol, Elizabeth Pollock, Barbara
De'ann Pulido, Mary-Eva Reyes, Sharella Shepard, Erik Sillen,
Shannan Sillen, Patrick Skowron, Brandy Ship, Lane Stephenson,
Emmanuel Tabe, Donald Taylor, Tiffany Thalheimer, La'toya
Thompson, Sheila Timmons, Jerrolyn Travers, Maria Fe Valencia,
Rudell Vanarsdale, Edelmire Vargas, Cynthia Villareal, Carol
Vogl, Ruth Weseman, Mary Wheeler-Walker and all others similarly
situated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Medistar SLN GP, LLC and Monzer Hourani, Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv-01577, (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions and other benefits, for 60 days,
including medical expenses that would have been covered and paid
under the then-applicable employee benefit plans had that
coverage continued for that period.  The lawsuit also seeks
reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs and such other
and further relief under the under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC and Medistar SLN GP, LLC
operated the Bay Area Regional Medical Center in Webster Texas.
Plaintiffs were previously employed in Defendants' facility
located at 200 Blossom St, Webster, TX 77598 and were terminated
on or about May 4, 2018. Upon closure, Plaintiffs were informed
that Defendants had not paid their insurance premiums although
the premium amounts had been deducted from Plaintiff's paychecks.
Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for their accumulated
paid off, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Zendeh Del, Esq.
      Gabe Perez, Esq.
      ZENDEH DEL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1813 61st Street, Suite 101
      Galveston, TX 77511
      Tel: (409) 740-1111
      Fax: (409) 515-5007
      Email: jonathan@zendehdel.com
             gabe@zendehdel.com


BEHR PROCESS: Court Stays "Domson" Suit
---------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Parties' Request for an Order
Staying the case captioned ROBERT DOMSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEHR
PROCESS CORP., BEHR PAINT CORP., MASCO CORP., THE HOME DEPOT,
INC., and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants, No. 3:17-cv-06060-
MJP (W.D. Wash.), pending a decision on the motion for
preliminary and final approval of a class action settlement in
Bishop, et al., v. Behr Process Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-04464 (N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhl5byh from Leagle.com.

Robert Domson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy S. DeJong --
tdejong@stollberne.com -- STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHETER
PC & Elijah T. Marchbanks -- emarchbanks@navigatelawgroup.com --
NAVIGATE LAW GROUP.

Behr Process Corp., Behr Paint Corp. & Masco Corp., Defendants,
represented by Elliot C. Copenhaver -- copenhaver@carneylaw.com -
- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Jason M. Kettrick --
kettrick@carneylaw.com -- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, Emilia L.
Sweeney -- Sweeney@carneylaw.com -- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN &
Kathleen P. Lally -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS,
pro hac vice.

The Home Depot, Inc. & Home Depot USA, Inc, Defendants,
represented by Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen --
cjorgensen@millsmeyers.com -- MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING, Jeffrey
Douglass -- jdouglass@mmmlaw.com -- MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN, pro
hac vice & Robert Alpert -- ralpert@mmmlaw.com -- MORRIS MANNING
& MARTIN, pro hac vice.


BENJAMIN MOORE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Poole" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case, WHITNEY POOLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BENJAMIN MOORE & CO., INC, Defendant, Case No. C18-5168 RBL (W.D.
Wash.).

Poole claims Benjamin Moore misrepresented the environmentally
friendly or "green" features of its "Natura" paint, promising (in
advertising and on the can itself) that it was "emission free"
and contained "Zero V.O.C.s."  The FTC investigated and in a 2017
draft complaint concluded that those claims were not true.
Benjamin Moore has since voluntarily (but perhaps temporarily,
depending on the final outcome of the FTC investigation) changed
its advertising.

Poole paid a premium for Natura over other Benjamin Moore paints.
She asserts on her own behalf and as the representative of a
putative class claims for breach of express warranty, violations
of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, violations of multiple states'
Consumer Protection Acts, and unjust enrichment.  She seeks
damages resulting from the misrepresentations.

Benjamin Moore moves to dismiss.  It argues that Poole has not
alleged that she saw or was aware of its "green promise" before
she purchased, or that she relied on any representations in
purchasing; it speculates that her attorneys told her about the
statements after she purchased.  It claims that these failures
are "fatal" to her Washington (UCC) and Magnuson Moss warranty
claims.

The Defendant also argues these claims fail as a matter of law
because Poole cannot establish privity of contract with Benjamin
Moore; she (like any consumer) purchased through an independent
dealer.  And it claims her "inability" to allege she even saw the
representations at issue, or that they influenced her purchase
decision, is fatal to her CPA claims.  Finally, Benjamin Moore
argues that because Poole has pled (defectively, it claims) a
breach of contract claim, she cannot maintain a quasi-contractual
unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Leighton finds that though she does not need to, Poole
clearly could amend her complaint to remedy the "defect" upon
which Benjamin Moore relies.  The claimed defect, then, would
lead to not dismissal, but to amendment.  This is an evidentiary
challenge, not a pleading one.  The motion to dismiss Poole's
warranty claims for lack of awareness of the warranty will be
denied.

Benjamin Moore asks the Court to Dismiss Poole's Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act claim, arguing that it depends on the viability of
her state law UCC warranty claims.  It also argues that the MMWA
claim fails as a matter of law because there are fewer than 100
named Plaintiffs.  The Judge finds that the former claim fails
because Poole's state law warranty claims are not subject to
dismissal.  Where the case is properly here under CAFA, the lack
of 100 named Plaintiffs is not a basis for dismissal.  Hence,
Benjamin Moore's Motion to Dismiss Poole's UCC and MMWA breach of
warranty claims will be denied.

Because Poole has plausibly plead causation for purposes of her
Washington CPA claim, Benjamin Moore's Motion to dismiss that
claim will also be denied.  Its related motion to dismiss the
multiple states CPA claims for lack of standing; Poole is not a
member of the out of state class she seeks to represent.  The
Judge finds that while it is true that that there is no "per se
rule" that certification must be considered before standing,
there is no profit in dismissing this claim at this stage.
Benjamin Moore's Motion to Dismiss Poole's multi-state CPA claims
will be denied.

Finally, because Benjamin Moore claims there is no privity of
contract and Poole cannot enforce any "Green Promise" or express
warranty against it, its Motion to Dismiss Poole's alternative
unjust enrichment claim will be denied without prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Leighton denied Benjamin Moore's Motion
to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZG4hfE from Leagle.com.

Whitney Poole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Winslow-Nason --
bwinslow-nason@gordontilden.com -- GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL
LLP, Jeffrey M. Thomas -- jthomas@gordontilden.com -- GORDON
TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP, Mark A. Wilner --
mwilner@gordontilden.com -- GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP,
Daniel Robert Johnson, WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YAHALEM LLP, pro hac
vice & Gary Michael Klinger -- gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- KOZONIS
LAW, LTD., pro hac vice.

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL, David Jay -- JayD@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG
TRAURIG LLP, pro hac vice, Eric S. Aronson -- AronsonE@gtlaw.com
-- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Edward Ricketts -
- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL, Paige Nestel
-- NestelP@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Schleifstein -- SchleifsteinT@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG
LLP, pro hac vice.


BIG 5: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------
RICARDO SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV331393 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal periods, provide
rest periods, pay hourly wages, and to timely pay all final wages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants' policy of artificially
splitting the shifts resulted in them not paying any minimum wage
and/or overtime to Plaintiff and the putative class. The
Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid any minimum wage
and/or overtime by Defendants when working artificial split
shifts based on Defendants' defective piece rate policy.

Big 5 Sporting Goods is a sporting goods retailer headquartered
in El Segundo, California with 420 stores in Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          8665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
          Beverly Hills, Ca 90211
          Telephone: (310) 659 1826
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1826
          E-mail: daniel@setarehfirm.com


BITCONNECT: Youtube Added Defendant in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ana Alexandre, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that according
to court documents filed July 3, YouTube has been added as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit against BitConnect.

The lawsuit was initially filed on January, 24 by six individuals
represent by law firm Silver Miller. The claimants state that
crypto investment platform BitConnect issued crypto tokens that
were unregistered securities, and obtained additional funds
through a "wide-ranging Ponzi scheme." The plaintiffs stated that
their personal losses totalled $771,000. BitConnect allegedly
used the funds received from new investors to meet the
expectations of the existing ones.

Per court documents acquired by Cointelegraph, BitConnect and its
affiliated parties posted a number of promotional videos on
YouTube, which were deemed inappropriate as the material
allegedly lured potential investors to a fraudulent investment
scheme. YouTube is said to have failed to delist and demonetize
the published videos, which exposed "countless" YouTube users to
injurious videos and illegally-promoted investments.

The top ten BitConnect affiliates on YouTube reportedly posted
more than 70,000 hours of unedited content, which generated
58,000,000 views. The document says that the number of views of
several of the affiliate promoters' videos greatly exceeded the
threshold numbers for the "enhanced" eligibility standards.
Notably, a fair number of users notified YouTube of fraudulent
activity by BitConnect, posting videos with titles such as "How
bitconnect scam works in great detail," "Craig Grant Explains the
Bitconnect scam," and others. In an email to Cointelegraph, David
Silver, Esq. -- DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com -- of Silver Miller
said:

"This case is not about YouTube being the speaker or publisher of
the content on its website. Instead, liability is predicated on
YouTube's failure to act after learning from content directly
published on YouTube of the readily foreseeable harm posed by its
advertising partners... As the old saying goes: Sometimes when
you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."

The claimants state that if YouTube had conducted an appropriate
search of its databases, it would have delisted the harmful
BitConnect videos. Instead, YouTube allegedly accepted a growing
number of BitConnect-related videos, which resulted in numerous
victims, including many members of the Class.

The document also refers to Google LLC, which changed its
financial products policy to ban all cryptocurrency-related ads
and associated content due to a potential harm to users of
Google-owned platforms, including YouTube. The document
concludes:

"YouTube failed as a gatekeeper to protect its users from, and
warn its users of, the very harm YouTube set out to prevent with
its advertising protocols and proprietary algorithms."[GN]


BNY MELLON: Barrack, Rodos Disclosed Proposed Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine regarding the Becker v. BNY Mellon Trust Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEONARD BECKER, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. and
J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-6460 (JRS)
(consolidated with C.A. No. 12-cv-6412 (JRS)).

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE BONDS IDENTIFIED AS THE BOROUGH OF LANGHORNE MANOR HIGHER
EDUCATION AND HEALTH AUTHORITY HOSPITAL REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF
1992 (THE LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL), AND WHO ARE HOLDERS OF AN
ALLOWED CLASS A3 CLAIM PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1.3(A)(ii) OF THE
PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION OF LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL, WHICH PLAN WAS
CONFIRMED UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE. EXCLUDED FROM
THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS AND ANY PERSON, FIRM, TRUST,
CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY AFFILIATED WITH ANY DEFENDANT AND
ANY OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS THEREOF.

THE RECORD DATE FOR HOLDERS OF AN ALLOWED CLASS A3 CLAIM IS
DECEMBER 7, 2011.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the class representative, Leonard
Becker ("Plaintiff") in the above-captioned litigation
("Action"), on behalf of himself and the Class, has reached a
proposed settlement of the Action with The Bank of New York
Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon") and J.P. Morgan Trust
Company National Association ("J.P. Morgan") (together, the
"Defendants") for $13,500,000 in cash that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held on September 20, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez at the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 11-A, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated June 8, 2018 should be granted; and
(iii) whether Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain a copy on Class Counsel's
website, www.barrack.com, or by contacting:

         Contact:
         Becker v. Bank of New York Mellon Litigation
         c/o Heffler Claims Group
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1700
         Philadelphia, PA  19102
         Telephone: (855) 711-8800

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 1, 2018.  If you
are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or to Class Counsel's
petition for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must
be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
August 18, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, BNY Mellon,
J.P. Morgan or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed
to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Class Counsel:

         Contact:
         Lisa M. Port,Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         3300 Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA  19013
         Telephone: (215) 963-0600
         Email: lport@barrack.com [GN]


BOLLA OPERATING: Benitez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
WALTER HERNANDEZ BENITEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOLLA OPERATING LI CORP.
d/b/a BOLLA MARKET, and BOLLA OPERATING CORP., d/b/a BOLLA
MARKET, the Defendant, Case No. 605760/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid spread-of-hours pay and other
damages on behalf of all of Defendants' current and former Deli
Workers and Clerks, based on Bolla Market's violation of the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Bolla Market prepares and serves
meals and beverages for its customers' consumption. Bolla
Employees prepare, package, transport, stock, and accept payment
for these customers' food and drink. Bolla Employees regularly
work shifts with a "spread" of over 10 hours. That is, the end of
the employee's shift is over 10 hours from its start. Despite
this, Bolla Market fails to pays Bolla Employees spread-of-hours
pay - an additional hour of pay at the basic minimum wage -- as
required by the Hospitality Industry Wage Order.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

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


BONHAMS & BUTTERFIELDS: Wu Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Wu and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bonhams & Butterfields Auctioneers Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04344 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2018), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates Bonhams auction house as well as the Bonhams
auction house website www.bonhams.com. It provides auction house
locations and hours, information about the goods being auctioned,
appraisal services, bidding, auction terms and conditions and
other goods and services. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-
impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      Fax: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


CALIFORNIA: Suit Challenging IDEA Moved to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California transferred the case, MORGAN HILL
CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOC., CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOC., Plaintiffs,
v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-
cv-3471 KJM AC (E.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs are associations of parents of children with
disabilities attending elementary, middle and high schools
throughout California.  They allege Defendant California
Department of Education ("CDE") is violating its obligations
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA")
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to ensure that all
children with disabilities in California receive a "free
appropriate public education," otherwise known as FAPE.
Specifically, they allege that CDE is inadequately monitoring,
investigating and enforcing the provision of FAPE in school
districts statewide.  They seek declaratory and injunctive relief
requiring CDE to adopt and implement "a statewide monitoring,
investigative and enforcement model that verifiably measures and
ensures the provision of FAPE.

As the Court learned in late 2017, under Judge Chhabria's
supervision in the Northern District of California, CDE is
currently implementing a consent decree governing its IDEA
monitoring obligations. The Emma C. v. Torlakson, Case No. 3:96-
cv-4179-VC (N.D. Cal.), certified class includes all past,
present and future children with disabilities who reside in the
Ravenswood City School District.  Ravenswood comprises
kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8) schools.  Though the Emma
C. consent decree obligation technically is limited to
Ravenswood, CDE has chosen to turn its state-level obligation
under the Consent Decree to monitor Ravenswood into an obligation
to monitor school districts statewide.  Accordingly, the Emma C.
court has rejected CDE's attempts to limit the scope of the
Court's examination to the district-level system.

On Nov. 21, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the
action should not be stayed pending completion of the remedial
proceedings in Emma C. or, in the alternative, why it should not
be transferred to the Northern District.  CDE urged the Court to
issue a stay, but opposed transfer.  The Plaintiffs opposed a
stay and generally opposed transfer, but noted that emerging
facts may establish transfer best advances the overarching goal
of judicial efficiency and, therefore, the interests of justice.

After reviewing the parties' responses, the Court stayed
discovery on CDE's monitoring obligations at K-8 schools pending
a March 26, 2018 status conference in Emma C. that might provide
clarity on the intersection between these two cases.  At the Emma
C. status conference, as Judge Chhabria confirmed in a subsequent
order, CDE stated it will not differentiate between its
monitoring of Ravenswood and monitoring of other districts, nor
will it devise a separate monitoring system for Ravenswood.
Moreover, CDE's obligations under federal law mirror its
obligations under the consent decree.  Further, the Emma C. court
ultimately will determine whether CDE's statewide monitoring
system complies with federal law, not merely whether CDE
adequately monitors Ravenswood.

On April 19, 2018, the Court held a status conference to discuss
Emma C. and revisit the propriety of a partial stay.  Arguing the
resolution of Emma C. will moot some or all of this case, CDE
urged the Court to stay the case in its entirety until the
conclusion of the evidentiary hearings in Emma C. or at least
until the Emma C. court issues further orders on the timeline and
substance of its compliance hearings.

The Plaintiffs continued to oppose a stay, arguing the overlap
between these cases remains unclear and contending they're
entitled to discovery that may not be available in Emma C.
Unable to determine when Emma C.'s remedial proceedings will
conclude and unwilling to relieve CDE of its burden to
demonstrate a stay is warranted, the court declined sua sponte to
issue a further stay. The stay automatically expired the next
day.

Judge Mueller finds that although they decline to address the
issue, the Plaintiffs could have properly brought the suit in the
Northern District.  The Plaintiffs' choice of forum is also not
dispositive in the case.  While their choice of forum is
typically entitled to significant weight, under certain
circumstances, including in representative actions, where the
Plaintiff seeks to vindicate rights of others or where the
Plaintiff is not a resident of the forum, the Plaintiff's choice
of forum is accorded less weight.

Moreover, neither party has shown transfer would be particularly
inconvenient: the Plaintiffs offer no concrete argument on this
point, and despite CDE's arguments to the contrary, its active
role in Emma C. for nearly 22 years suggests it can capably
defend itself in the Northern District with minimal
inconvenience.  This factor tips only slightly against transfer,
if at all.

Finally, having devoted significant resources to determining
precisely where these cases overlap, where they diverge and where
efficiencies may be achieved, the Judge is satisfied that both
cases will fare better if they are before the same court.  Judge
Chhabria, who is shepherding Emma C. through its final phases, is
best suited to take the helm.  Because transfer serves judicial
economy, avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and expenses
among the parties and reduces the risk of inconsistent results,
the interest of justice tips the analysis in favor of transfer.

Given the overlap now apparent between the two cases, and to
avoid duplication of effort and inconsistent results, Judge
Mueller transferred the matter to the Northern District.  Subject
to that court's oversight, the Plaintiffs may continue in their
efforts to seek discovery in the case.

Within 14 days, the special master will submit an invoice for any
outstanding services rendered.  Also within 14 days the parties
may show cause, if any, as to why the FERPA objections received
in the action should not be destroyed.

Immediately upon the matter's being assigned a case number in the
Northern District, the parties are instructed to promptly file a
notice of related cases identifying the case and Emma C. as
related in accordance with the Northern District's local rules.
The case is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4uMUBF from Leagle.com.

Winston Krone, Special Master, represented by Winston Krone-
Special Master -- wkrone@kivuconsulting.com -- Kivu Consulting,
Inc.

Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association, Plaintiff, represented
by Rony Sagy -- rony.sagy@sagylaw.com -- Sagy Law Associates &
Barbara Louise Gately -- barbara.gately@sagylaw.com -- Sagy Law
Associates.

California Department of Education, Defendant, represented by
Ismael Castro, Office Of The Attorney General, Department Of
Justice, Julia R. Jackson, Attorney General of California
Department of Justice, Niromi Wijewantha Pfeiffer, Office Of The
Attorney General, Department Of Justice, R. Matthew Wise, Office
Of The Attorney General, Grant Lien, Attorney General's Office of
the State of California & Paul E. Lacy, California Department Of
Education.


CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Martin Sues over Share Service Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that California Teachers
Association has violated the constitutional rights of its members
by forcing them to work in an "agency shop," where they must
choose between retaining their union membership and paying full
union dues, or resigning their membership and paying a slightly
reduced amount in "fair share service fees."

According to the complaint, Michael Martin chose to remain in the
union until the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council
31, No. 16-1466 (2018), even though he opposed the union and its
political and collective-bargaining activities, because resigning
his membership would have saved very little money and would not
have been worth the cost of losing his vote and whatever little
influence he might have had in collective-bargaining matters. But
this does not in any way diminish the affront to Mr. Martin's
constitutional rights or the harm that he suffered from being
forced to pay at least the amount of "fair share service fees"
that the CTA imposed as a condition of his employment. Mr. Martin
would have quit the union if the CTA had not extracted "fair
share service fees' from nonmembers.

The case is captioned Michael Martin, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
California Teachers Association; Riverside City Teachers
Association, as representative of the class of all chapters and
affiliates of the California Teachers Association; National
Education Association; Riverside Unified School District, as
representative of the class of all school districts in
California; Edmund G. Brown, in his official capacity of Governor
of the State of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; Mark
Gregersen, Eric Banks, Priscilla Winslow, Erich Shiners, and
Arthur A. Krantz, in their official capacities as chair and
members of the California Public Employment Relations Board, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01951-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., July 13,
2018).

The California Teachers Association, initially established in
1863, is one of the largest and most powerful teachers' unions in
California politics. It is based in Burlingame, and its current
president is Eric C. Heins.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686 3940

               - and -

          Bradley Benbrook, Esq.
          BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447 4900


CIGNA CORPORATION: "Zhu" Moved to Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JIANLIANG ZHU and JOYCE ALLEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CIGNA CORPORATION; CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INCORPORATED; and AMERICAN
SPECIALTY HEALTH GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01029, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on July 16, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02927-NIQA to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nitza I.
Quinones Alejandro.

This class action challenges a scheme devised by Defendant Cigna
Corporation and its subsidiaries that misappropriates millions of
dollars every year from Cigna members and employers who sponsor
Cigna-administered health insurance plans that are subject to
ERISA. Through this scheme, Cigna secretly inflates member and
plan responsibility to pay for claims and forces these innocent
parties to pay its vendors, Defendants American Specialty Health
Incorporated and American Specialty Health Group, Inc.

Cigna is an American worldwide health services organization based
in suburban Bloomfield, Connecticut and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

Counsel for Jianliang Zhu and Joyce Allen, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated:

          Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
          THE MAUL FIRM, P.C.
          101 Broadway, Suite 3A
          Oakland, CA, 94607
          Telephone: (510) 496 4477

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 363

               - and -

          Jason M. Knott, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778 1813
          Facsimile: (202) 822 8106

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704 9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704 4256


CINTAS CORP: "Paramo" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lisa Paramo on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. Cintas Corporate Services, Inc. and Cintas
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00020, (C.D. Cal., May 16,
2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 17, 2018,
under Case No. 18-cv-02912.

Cintas Corporate Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Cintas Corporation No. 2, which provides uniform rental and
facility services for businesses in North America, Latin America,
Europe, and Asia.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:

      William David Turley, Esq.
      David Thomas Mara, Esq.
      Gwendolyne Nicole Ousdahl, Esq.
      Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
      Matthew Evan Crawford, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Tel: (619) 234-2833
      Fax: (619) 234-4048
      Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
             dmara@turleylawfirm.com
             gwenousdahl@yahoo.com
             jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
             mcrawford@turleylawfirm.com

Cintas Corporate Services is represented by:

      Marisol C. Mork
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP
      555 South Flower Street 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
      Tel: (213) 624-2500
      Fax: (213) 623-4581
      Email: marisol.mork@squirepb.com

             - and -

      Michael William Kelly, Esq.
      Suzanne S. Orza, Esq.
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP
      275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 954-0200
      Fax: (415) 393-9887
      Email: michael.kelly@squirepb.com
             suzy.orza@squirepb.com


CIS SERVICES: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iatrice Edwards and Joel Galarza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIS Services LLC,
CIS Alamo Services, CIS Claim Services LLC and Michael Stanley,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00637, (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all hours
worked above 40 in a workweek, unpaid backwages, liquidated
damages, pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees and litigation
expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate an insurance adjusting service in Jacksonville
FL where Edwards and Galarza performed adjusting services from
May 2013 to March 2018. They claims to have been misclassified as
independent contractors and denied overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amber L. Karns, Esq.
      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
      STARZYK AND ASSOCIATES, PC
      10200 Grogan's Mill Road, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Tel: (281) 364-7261
      Fax: (281) 364-7533
      Email: akarns@starzyklaw.com
             mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
             mmitchell@starzyklaw.com


COLLINS CAREER: "Cyfers" Suit Moved to District of West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Korey Blayke Cyfers, on behalf of
himself, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Collins
Career Center, doing business as: Collins Career Technical
Center; Board of Directors Collins Career Center, doing business
as: Collins Career Technical Center; West Virginia Fire
Commission; and Office of the State Fire Marshal, the Defendants,
Case No. 18-C-77, was removed from the Kanawha County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia (Charleston) on July 5, 2018. The Southern District
of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01127 to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John T.
Copenhaver, Jr.

Collins Career Technical Center is a public vocational high
school in Chesapeake, Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for Korey Blayke Cyfers:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346 2889
          Facsimile: (304) 346 2895
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

               - and -

          D. Adrian Hoosier II, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553 7227
          E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com

Attorneys for Collins Career Center and Board of Directors
Collins Career Center:

          David A. Bosak, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
          222 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 553 0166
          Facsimile: (304) 932 0265
          E-mail: dave.bosak@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          David Lewis Shuman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew A. Nelson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
          222 Capitol Street, Fifth Floor
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 553 0166
          Facsimile: (304) 932 0265
          E-mail: david.shuman@lewisbrisbois.com
                  matt.nelson@lewisbrisbois.com


CONTRACT METAL: Faces "Escorza" Suit over Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------
EDGAR ARMENTA ESCORZA, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others 1211 similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTRACT METAL
PRODUCTS, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. RG18912870 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2018), alleges
that Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform
the Proposed Class Members of their right to take meal periods by
way of a lawful policy and requiring Proposed Class Members
within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at
least 5 hours without a timely meal period and failing to pay
such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal period is not
provided or provided after five hours, as required by California
state wage and hour laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


CREDITORS RELIEF: Court Dismisses "Hale" TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JEFFREY
HALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDITORS RELIEF LLC, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 17-2447 (JMV)(MF)(D.N.J.).

Currently pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant
Creditors Relief LLC's (Creditors Relief) to dismiss Plaintiff
Jeffrey Hale's Complaint, or in the alternative, to strike the
class allegations made in the Complaint and to stay discovery.

This matter is a putative class action based on alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
Complaint alleges that Defendant ran afoul of the TCPA by using
an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to call Plaintiff
without his consent.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege the first
element, that is, that the call in question was to his cellular
telephone. The Plaintiff attempts to remedy this deficiency with
a declaration attached to his opposition papers.  The Plaintiff,
however, may not amend his pleadings in his brief or with a
declaration annexed thereto. Also, of note, the Complaint alleges
that the Defendant has called other members of the putative class
on cellular telephones, but the sources cited do not make this
clear. In paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the Plaintiff quotes a
number of people who have posted on the website 800notes.com, but
the quotes do not indicate calls to cellular phones. Instead, one
states that "the number has called my home several times," and a
second was "made to our business."  Thus, the Complaint's factual
allegations are insufficient.

The Complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to plausibly
plead a claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7uoa2es from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY HALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ROSS H. SCHMIERER --
rschmierer@denittislaw.com -- DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C.,
STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS
OSEFCHEN, PC & STEFAN LOUIS COLEMAN .

CREDITORS RELIEF LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by SANDRA T. JIMENEZ -- sjimenez@grsm.com
-- GORDON & REES LLP.


DALMATIAN FIRE: Rutledge and Davis Sues Over Unwanted Faxed Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rutledge and Davis, PLLC, a Mississippi professional limited
liability company, Plaintiff, v. Dalmatian Fire Equipment, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00114, (N.D. Miss., May 16, 2018),
seeks damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

Dalmatian is a consumer products company and distributor of fire
extinguisher cylinders. It utilizes "fax blasting" activities to
generate sales leads for its products and as part of a scheme to
sale or promote the sale and use of its products for the
transmission of thousands of unsolicited facsimiles throughout
the country, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
      ROGERS LAW GROUP
      201 E Bankhead Street
      New Albany, MS 38652
      Tel: (662) 538-5990
      Fax: (662) 538-5997
      Email: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Winston B. Collier, Esq.
      THE COLLIER FIRM
      2090 Old Taylor Road
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Tel: (870) 347-2100
      Fax: (870) 347-1164
      Email: winston@thecollierfirm.com

             - and -

      Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq.
      ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
      2332 2nd Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 983-7985
      Fax: (888) 505-0523
      Email: Gregory@zarzaur.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: "Underwood" Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Britanni Underwood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc.,
Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00114, (N.D. Miss., May 16, 2018), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief as well as their reasonable attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants were tasked to collect the alleged debt of Underwood
to Verizon Wireless. Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter indicating that they will not sue the consumer without
clearly stating that the consumer could no longer be sued by any
party and failed to disclose that the previously-lapsed statute
of limitations to file a lawsuit to collect the debt will
recommence upon payment. Said letter was sent on or after a date
one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a
date twenty-one days after the filing of this action, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


EDRIVING LLC: "Glynn" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jack Glynn, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. eDriving, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH7116, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on July 5, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-04645 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary
Feinerman.

eDriving LLC provides online driving courses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          William P. N. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric L. Samore, Esq.
          Kathryn Victoria Long, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC (CHGO)
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894 3200
          E-mail: esamore@salawus.com
                  KLong@salawus.com


EIGHT FAHRENHEIT: "Anderson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Anderson and Dominick Soto, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eight Fahrenheit,
Inc. and Rajiv Shah, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02177, (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pay, owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate an ice cream store franchise "8 Fahrenheit"
where Anderson and Soto worked at the Doraville store as a store
manager and ice cream maker respectively. Both claim to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid
overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Modi Balks at Merger Deal with Enterprise
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANIRUDH MODI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
WILLIAM A. SANGER, CHRISTOPHER A. HOLDEN, CAROL J. BURT, JAMES A.
DEAL, LEONARD M. RIGGS, JOHN T. GAWALUCK, STEPHEN I. GERINGER,
JAMES D. SHELTON, JOEY A. JACOBS, MICHAEL L. SMITH, KEVIN
P. LAVENDER, CYNTHIA S. MILLER, ENTERPRISE PARENT HOLDINGS
INC., and ENTERPRISE MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00648 (M.D. Tenn., July 13, 2018), is a stockholder class
action on behalf of public stockholders of Envision Healthcare
Corporation, alleging that Envision, and the Company's Board of
Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duty as a
result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Enterprise
Parent Holdings, Inc., and its affiliate Enterprise Merger Sub,
Inc., both of which are affiliates of private equity funds
associated with KKR & Co. L.P.  The deal, the lawsuit contends,
is the result of an unfair process at an unfair price.  The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed stock
and cash transaction valued at approximately $9.9 Billion.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a June
13, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Envision will become an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of KKR, and its stockholders
will receive $46.00 in cash for every share of Envision Common
stock they own. Thereafter, on July 9, 2018, Envision filed a
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.
The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number
of reasons. Significantly, the Preliminary Proxy describes an
insufficient sales process in which the Board failed to create a
proper committee of disinterested directors to run the sales
process.

Envision Healthcare is an American healthcare company and
national hospital based physician group. In December 2016 Envison
and AMSURG merged, and shortly thereafter the company's stock
replaced Legg Mason in the S&P 500 index.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: 615 248 2828
          Facsimile: 866 816 4116
          E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                  Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610.667.6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


FEDERAL WARRANTY: "Woturski" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROSE M. WOTURSKI, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FEDERAL WARRANTY SERVICE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
CPM-L-199-17, was removed from the Cape May County Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on
July 5, 2018. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-11370-NLH-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman.

Federal Warranty Service Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845 1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R. Vales, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          101 JFK Parkway
          Short Hills, NJ 07078-2708
          Telephone: (973) 912 7100
          Facsimile: (973) 912 7199
          E-mail: john.vales@dentons.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Bid for Production of MDL 2777 Transcripts Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Plaintiff's Request for Production in the case
captioned VICTOR PIRNIK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES,
N.V., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-7199 (JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).

There are pending two letter motions raising discovery disputes.

In the first letter motion, Lead Plaintiffs Gary Koopmann and
Timothy Kidd and Plaintiff Victor Pirnik (Plaintiffs) challenge
the Defendants' refusal to produce deposition transcripts and
exhibits for the depositions that will take place in the In re
Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2777 (MDL), now pending in the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs' letter motion is
denied. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the transcripts
of depositions not yet taken in another action are not responsive
to the Plaintiffs' December 15, 2017 Request for Production,
which sought all documents produced in connection with the MDL
and called for documents up to the date of the requests.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybautgd6
from Leagle.com.

Gary Koopman & Timothy Kidd, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., Veronica Valeria Montenegro, Pomerantz LLP &
Michael Jonathan Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Victor Pirnik, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jonathan Wernke,
Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II --  ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, Sara Esther Fuks, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Veronica Valeria Montenegro, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Sheila Ross, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by John Brandon
Walker -- bragar@bespc.com -- Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C. & Todd
Harris Henderson -- henderson@bespc.com -- Bragar, Eagel & Squire
P.C.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. & Sergio Marchionne, Defendants,
represented by Anil Karim Vassanji  -- vassanjia@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Joshua Seth Levy -- levyjo@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr.  --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Thomas Charles
White -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Victoria Alterman Coyle -- coylev@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Scott Kunselman, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,Joshua Seth Levy, Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP &
Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

FCA US LLC, Michael Dahl, Steve Mazure & Robert E. Lee,
Defendants, represented by Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.


FIRST COMMUNITY: Court Certifies Class in "Lavigne" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANINE LAVIGNE, Plaintiff, v. FIRST COMMUNITY
BANCSHARES, INC. and FIRST NATIONAL BANK TEXAS, Defendants, Civil
No. 1:15-cv-00934-WJ/LF (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted
the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and denied the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Plaintiff's Fact
Witness Anya Verkhovskaya, filed Nov. 7, 2017.

This is a putative class action for relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant First Community and its subsidiary Defendant First
National Bank of Texas violated the TCPA by placing telephone
calls to her cellular telephone for non-emergency purposes,
without her consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS") as defined by the TCPA.  She seeks relief under the TCPA
for herself and all others similarly situated.

The Defendants deny liability.  The amended complaint includes
general allegations asserted on behalf of the putative class and
asserts Violations of the TCPA (Count I) and Willful Violations
of the TCPA (Count II).

Defendant First Community Bancshares, Inc. Defendants contracted
with GC Services to place calls to their customers with
overdrafted bank accounts.  the Plaintiff alleges that, after she
acquired her cell phone number ending -4951, Defendants
repeatedly called her using an auto-dialer, in reference to an
over-drafted bank account, despite the fact that she repeatedly
told the Defendants they have the wrong person.  She alleges that
the Defendants did not consider the "Bad/Wrong Number" entries,
but simply resubmitted her phone number to GC Services for use
the next day.  Thus, it is unclear whether Defendants and GC
Services had any system in place to maintain compliance with the
TCPA.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3), a class of all persons who, since Nov. 11, 2012, (1)
called First National Bank Texas and First Community Bancshares,
through their vendor GC services, and such call was coded
Bad/Wrong Number and (2) were subsequently called again by First
National Bank Texas and First Community Bancshares, through their
vendor GC Services with an automatic telephone dialing system and
such call was  again coded as Bad/Wrong Number.

In her reply, the Plaintiff amended her class as all persons who,
since Nov. 11, 2012, (1) called First National Bank Texas and
First Community Bancshares, through their vendor GC services, and
such call was coded Bad/Wrong Number and (2) were subsequently
called again by First National Bank Texas and First Community
Bancshares, on their cellular telephones through their vendor GC
Services with an automatic telephone dialing system and such call
was again coded as Bad/Wrong Number.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of individuals they claim
called the Defendant to say that the Defendant was calling the
wrong number, but whom the Defendants continued to call anyway,
and were again coded as "Bad/Wrong Number."  she intends that the
class will only include non-customers, and proposes to weed-out
any customers form the class by reference to the Defendants'
business records (i.e., deposit agreements), or through
affidavits from class members averring that they were not
customers of the Defendants.

Mark Schordock, a GC Services Representative, testified that an
incoming call coded as "Bad/Wrong Number" means that "somebody's
saying it's not them that we're dialing."  Much later, in an
affidavit, Mr. Schordock listed numerous reasons why a call could
be coded as "Bad/Wrong Number," other than that the called party
was calling back to give express notice that they were not
customers.

The class certification litigation has been burdened by four
separate rounds of briefing, and an eight month delay for
additional discovery.  The surreply was filed on April 23, 2018.

Judge Johnson granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and certified the modified class pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  The certification is without prejudice to
the Defendants bringing a motion to decertify the class should
the progression of the case warrant it.

The Judge appointed Lemberg Law, LLC (Stephen Taylor) as the
class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).  The Plaintiff's
counsel will submit a proposed plan for class notice to the
Defendants.  The parties will then either jointly submit a
proposed notice to the Court for approval, or the Plaintiff will
file an opposed motion for approval of notice.

Finally, Judge Johnson denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike
Affidavit.  Initially, he doubts that Ms. Verkhovskaya needs to
be an expert to perform the limited tabulations in the affidavit.
The Defendants also argue that the Nexxa data relied on by Ms.
Verkhovskya is hearsay, and that Ms. Verkhovskya's conversion of
PDF records provided by the Defendants to Excel is error-ridden.
Even setting aside the sections of the Ms. Verkhovskya's
affidavit tainted by alleged hearsay, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has established numerosity.  Even if only a fraction of
the approximately 38,125 are in fact class members, the
numerosity requirement is readily satisfied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/oftbVM from Leagle.com.

Janine LaVigne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blake J. Dugger, Law Offices
of Blake Dugger & Stephen F. Taylor, Lemberg Law, LLC, pro hac
vice.

First Community Bancshares, Inc. & First National Bank Texas,
Defendants, represented by William S. Helfand --
Bill.Helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP & Gregory L. Biehler -- reg.Biehler@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


FITBIT INC: Court Narrows Claims in "McLellan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part
Fitbit's motion to dismiss the case, KATE MCLELLAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD
(N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action, named Plaintiff Rob Dunn alleges
that the Defendant misled consumers about the ability of Fitbit's
wristband devices to track user heart rate.  Specifically, Dunn
alleges that although Fitbit marketed its "PurePulse" technology
as providing accurate, real-time heart monitoring, particularly
during exercise, user experience and independent research show
that PurePulse-equipped devices are grossly inaccurate and
frequently fail to record any heart rate at all.

Dunn sues under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), common-law fraud,
fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Fitbit moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of particularity
under Rule 9(b) and Rule 8.

Judge Donato finds that Fitbit raises a variety of other
objections to the plausibility of the fraud and deception claims,
none of which are well taken.  Given the magnitude of the
aberrant heart rate readings and multiple allegations that the
devices under-report heart rate, Dunn has plausibly alleged an
"unreasonable safety hazard" that may arise when users rely on
Fitbit heart rate readings during exercise.  While the Ninth
Circuit has found that safety risks may not be unreasonable if
the defendant "expressly warns consumers" or if the risk is
"primarily one of accelerated timing rather than the
manifestation of a wholly abnormal condition," those factors do
not weigh in Fitbit's favor.

Next, the Judge finds that Fitbit received pre-suit notice in
November 2015, when the Plaintiff's counsel sent Fitbit a letter
on behalf of Kate McLellan, another named plaintiff in the case,
and a proposed class of consumers who had purchased Fitbit's
PurePulse Devices.  That notice was sufficient under California
law and gave Fitbit the opportunity to cure that the CLRA
contemplates.  The November 2015 letter also advised Fitbit that
the Plaintiffs intended to pursue claims for breach of implied
and express warranty, so notice requirements for the warranty
claims have also been satisfied.

As to the warranty claims, the Judge finds that Dunn adequately
alleges that Fitbit made an express warranty about the ability of
PurePulse devices to accurately track heart rate throughout the
day and during exercise.

The Court dismisses the unjust enrichment claim. The motion to
dismiss is otherwise denied, subject to Dunn's representation
that he will amend the complaint to include product packaging
statements and allegations of reliance.  Dunn also adequately
pleads a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act for breach of implied
warranty under California Code Section 2314(1).

Lastly, the unjust enrichment claim will be dismissed with
prejudice, since unjust enrichment is a remedy and not an
independent claim.

For these reasons, Judge Donato dismissed with prejudice the
unjust enrichment claim.  Provided that Dunn revises his
complaint to include product packaging statements and allegations
of reliance, Dunn may proceed with his claims under the CLRA,
FAL, UCL, common-law fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7vsEcv from Leagle.com.

Kate McLellan, David Urban, Robert Dunn, Rachel Saito, Todd
Rubinstein, James Schorr & Bruce Morgan, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Elizabeth J. Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Kelly M. Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Leiff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP & Robert Howard Klonoff --
klonoff@lclark.edu -- Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice.

Teresa Black & Rhonda Callan, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan
David Selbin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert
Howard Klonoff, Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R.
Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Amber Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP & Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Judith Landers, Lisa Marie Burke & John Molenstra, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrea Clisura -- aclisura@zlk.com -- Levi
Korsinksy, LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney E. Maccarone --
cmaccarone@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice,
Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Fitbit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin McCalmon Bosman --
ebosman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Julie Yongsun Park -
- juliepark@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, William Lewis
Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anna
Erickson White -- awhite@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP &
Kai Shields Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com  -- Morrison
Foerster LLP.


FORCEMANAGEMENT GROUP: Veliz Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSE F. VELIZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, v. FORCEMANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., GINA
ROSSI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22853-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not
been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Force Management provides customized sales consulting and
training services to high-technology organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Final Judgment in "Roach" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, VERAKISHA ROACH, JEREMY BRADY, DERON R. HARRINGTON,
SUSAN HERBST SOTO, CAROLE STEWART ANHALT AND PERCY ISGITT,
Appellants, v. HEATHER INGRAM, ERIN MILLER, GRAYLE JAMES, DAVE
ROSENTHAL, KRISTIN K. TASSIN, JASON BURDINE, K.P. GEORGE, ADDIE
HEYLIGER, JIM RICE, CHAD BRIDGES, RONALD POPE, BRENDA MULLINIX,
MAGGIE PEREZ-JARAMILLO, JAMES SHOEMAKE, DAVID PERWIN, CHRISTOPHER
MORALES, JEFFREY MCMEANS, SUSAN LOWERY, R.H. BIELSTEIN, MATTHEW
"KYLE" DOBBS, KEN CANNATA, NINA SCHAEFER, ROBERT E. HEBERT,
RICHARD MORRISON, GRADY PRESTAGE, ANDY MEYERS AND JAMES
PATTERSON, Appellees, Case Nos. 14-16-00790-CV, 14-16-01016-CV
(Tex. App.), Judge Ken Wise of the Court of Appeals of Texas for
the Fourteenth District, Houston, affirmed the trial court's
final judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims and assessing
attorney's fees and sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their
attorneys.

The lawsuit arises out of a challenge to the enforcement of
truancy violations in the Fort Bend Independent School District
("FBISD") and the implementation of an allegedly unauthorized
criminal truancy court in Fort Bend County.  The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and prospective injunctive relief to stop numerous
public officials named as the Defendants from continuing to
engage in allegedly ultra vires acts in connection with the
operation of the county's truancy program.

The Appellants are Verakisha Roach and Jeremy Brady, the parents
of children who received summonses to appear in a Fort Bend
County truancy court, and their attorneys at trial, Deron
Harrington, Susan Soto, Carol Anhalt, and Percy Isgitt.  The
Appellees are numerous Fort Bend County public officials,
including the county judge and county commissioners, the school
district trustees, judges of the Fort Bend district and county
courts at law, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and a chief
probation officer, all in their official capacities only.

On May 6, 2015, represented by attorneys Harrington, Soto,
Anhalt, and Isgitt, Roach filed suit as next friend of her son
and a putative class of other similarly situated minor children,
their parents, and unknown adults against the various public
officials and others.

About three weeks later, on May 30, the Legislature passed HB
2398, which decriminalized truancy and instituted new procedures
for initiating civil truancy proceedings.  Additionally, HB 2398
provided that all criminal truancy complaints or convictions and
all other documents relating to an offense would be automatically
expunged.  The new law would become effective on Sept. 1, 2015.

On June 24, 2015, Roach filed a first supplemental petition
adding Brady as next friend of his son.  Roach and Brady
("Parents") filed several amended petitions, adding and dropping
Defendants and revising their claims.  The live petition at the
time of the final judgment was the sixth amended petition.

In their sixth amended petition, the Parents requested
declaratory and prospective injunctive relief as to 18 counts of
alleged ultra vires acts by the Appellees and alleged violations
of due process in connection with the FBISD's former truancy
enforcement procedures and the operation of the Truancy Court.
The Parents also sought certification of a class of similarly
situated individuals, as well as attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses.

The Appellees filed various motions to dismiss the Parents'
claims.  Those Appellees sued in their official capacity as the
Fort Bend County Judge and County Commissioners, the Precinct 3
Justice of the Peace, and the Truancy Court magistrate ("Fort
Bend County Defendants") filed a plea to the jurisdiction.  Those
Appellees sued in their official capacity as FBISD trustees
("FBISD Defendants") filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion
for sanctions and attorney's fees.  Matthew "Kyle" Dobbs, sued in
his official capacity as the Chief Probation Officer of the Fort
Bend County Juvenile Probation Department, filed a Rule 91A
motion to dismiss, a plea to the jurisdiction, and a motion for
attorney's fees and sanctions.

Those Appellees sued in their official capacity as members of the
Fort Bend County Juvenile Board ("Judicial Defendants") filed a
Rule 91a motion to dismiss and a motion for attorney's fees and
sanctions.  Unlike the other public officials, the Judicial
Defendants also filed a Texas Citizens' Protection Act ("TCPA")
motion to dismiss.

In response to the Judicial Defendants' TCPA motion to dismiss,
the Parents filed a document titled "Counter Anti-SLAPP Motion,
Motion for Sanctions, and Attorney's Fees" against the Judicial
Defendants.  The Parents later filed a similarly titled motion to
dismiss in which they requested the same relief and additionally
sought dismissal of the Judicial Defendants' and Dobbs' Rule 91a
motions ("counter-TCPA motion").  In the counter-TCPA motion, the
Parents also sought sanctions and attorney's fees under the TCPA
against both the Judicial Defendants and Dobbs.

The trial court held a hearing on the parties' various motions on
Aug. 26, 2017.  During the hearing, the court indicated that it
would deny the Parents' counter-TCPA motion, but because not all
issues were reached, the hearing was continued until the next
available date on the court's docket.  Although the court
declined to sign an order denying the Parents' counter-TCPA
motion on August 26, the Parents filed an interlocutory appeal
that same day.  The hearing resumed on Sept. 22, 2017, at which
time, the trial court orally rendered judgment on the remaining
issues, including sanctions and attorney's fees.

On Sept. 27, 2017, the trial court signed a final judgment
granting the Appellees' dispositive motions; denying the Parents'
counter-TCPA motion; dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice;
awarding certain appellees attorney's fees and costs; and
assessing monetary sanctions against Roach, Brady, and the
Attorneys.  That same day, the Parents filed a second
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying their
counter-TCPA motion.

The Parents and the Attorneys then filed post-judgment motions
including a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment,
and request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The
Parents and the Attorneys jointly appealed the final judgment on
Dec. 21, 2016.

On appeal, the Parents and the Attorneys raise 12 issues: (1) the
final judgment is void because it was signed after the Parents
appealed the denial of their counter-TCPA motion staying all
proceedings in the trial court; (2) the trial judge should have
been disqualified because he was a party in his official capacity
as a Juvenile Board member and had a personal interest in the
litigation; (3) the trial court failed to adequately specify the
basis for the sanctions awarded; (4) the trial court erred in
granting sanctions against the Parents and the Attorneys for
filing the lawsuit; (5) the trial court erred in failing to
explain the reasons for sanctioning the Parents; (6) the
sanctions awarded were excessive; (7) the FBISD Defendants,
Judicial Defendants, and Dobbs are not entitled to recover
appellate attorney's fees; (8) the trial court erred in denying
the Parents' TCPA motion; (9) the trial court erred in granting
the Judicial Defendants' TCPA motion; (10) the trial court erred
in granting the FBISD Defendants' and Fort Bend County
Defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction; (11) the trial court erred
in granting the Judicial Defendants' and Dobbs' Rule 91a motions;
and (12) the trial court erred in denying class certification.

Judge Wise finds that:

     a. Assuming for purposes of argument that the August 26
notice of appeal initiated a stay, the Parents' failure to
complain about the trial court's action in rendering a final
judgment during the stay waived any error related to the stay.
He therefore overrules the Parents' and the Attorneys' first
issue.

     b. Judge Elliott has no direct pecuniary interest because
appellants seek no money damages.  Moreover, that Judge Elliott
is involved in related litigation with appellants in the severed
case does not require his disqualification.  Because the Parents
have failed to allege or present any evidence that Judge Elliott
must be disqualified, he overrules their second issue.

     c. The Judge agrees with the Paulsen v. Yarrell court's
reasoning and similarly holds that a TCPA motion to dismiss is
not a "legal action" under section 27.001(6) and, accordingly,
the TCPA does not authorize the Parents' counter-TCPA motion in
response to the Judicial Defendants' TCPA motion to dismiss.  He
overrules the Parents' eighth issue.

     d. In the trial court, the Appellants filed no response to
the Judicial Defendants' motion to dismiss, only the improper
counter-TCPA motion, which does not address the Parents'
statutory burden at all.  The Parents' bare, baseless opinions
are not a sufficient substitute for the clear and specific
evidence required to establish a prima facie case under the TCPA.
Consequently, the trial court was required to dismiss the
Parents' claims against the Judicial Defendants and Dobbs.  The
Judge overrules the Parents' ninth issue.

     e. The Parents' request for declaratory and prospective
injunctive relief concerning alleged ultra vires acts and
violations of due process are moot and the trial court did not
err by granting the FBISD Defendants' and the Fort Bend County
Defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction.  He overrules the Parents'
tenth issue.

     f. The Parents have failed to allege any statutory duty that
Dobbs violated or any specific unconstitutional act by Dobbs in
his official capacity that, if taken as true, would entitle them
to the relief they seek.  Therefore, the Parents' claims against
Dobbs have no basis in law or fact and the trial court did not
err by granting Dobbs's Rule 91a motion to dismiss the Parents'
claims against him.  The Judge overrules the Parents' eleventh
issue.

     g. Given that the Court has affirmed the trial court's
holdings dismissing all of the Parents' claims, Judge Wise holds
that the trial court did not err by denying the Parents' motion
for class certification after dismissing all of the Parents'
claims.  He overrules the Parents' twelfth issue.

     h. Because the Parents and the Attorneys failed to raise
their specificity complaint in the trial court, the Judge
concludes that they have failed to preserve this issue for
review.  He overrules the Parents and the Attorneys' third issue.

     i. The evidence that supports an award of sanctions to the
Judicial Defendants and Dobbs, supports the trial court's
findings that the Parents' lawsuit was presented for an improper
purpose, was not warranted by the law, and lacked evidentiary
support, and that the Attorneys did not make a reasonable inquiry
into the contentions and allegations made in the lawsuit.
Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs under Chapter 10
against the Parents and the Attorneys.  He overrules issue four
as to the Judicial Defendants and Dobbs.

     j. Because some evidence supports the trial court's finding
that sanctions were warranted against the Parents as well as the
Attorneys, the Judge cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion imposing sanctions against the Parents under Chapter
10.

     k. The trial court did not err in awarding the additional
sanctions against Harrington.  Moreover, the additional sanctions
are less than or roughly equal to the attorney's fees incurred,
and thus are no more severe than necessary to satisfy their
legitimate purposes.  The Parents and the Attorneys' sixth issue
is overruled.

     l. The complaint is waived by the Parents and the Attorneys'
failure to adequately brief any argument in support of their
claim that the FBISD Defendants, the Judicial Defendants, and
Dobbs are not entitled to recover the conditional appellate
attorney's fees awarded in the event of an appeal to the court of
appeals because the judgment does not order any person to pay the
fees.  He overrules the seventh issue.

Having overruled the Parents' and the Attorney's issues, Judge
Wise affirmed the trial court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/97lbxG from Leagle.com.

Derek Shane Hollingsworth -- dhollingsworth@rustyhardin.com --
Jennifer Brevorka -- jbrevorka@rustyhardin.com -- Rusty Hardin --
rustyhardin@rustyhardin.com -- for Heather Ingram, Et Al.,
Appellee.

Susan H. Soto, Carole Stewart Anhalt, Deron R. Harrington --
deron@deronharrington.com -- J.W. Beverly -- jb@fbfk.law -- for
Verakisha Roach, Et Al., Appellant.


FULTON CTY, ATLANTA: Property Owners Sue Over Excessive Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Rice and Devika Kumar, Suing On Behalf of themselves And
Similarly-Situated Fulton County Taxpayers, Plaintiffs, V. Fulton
County, the City of Atlanta, the City of Alpharetta, the City of
Johns Creek, the City of Milton, the City of Mountain Park, the
City of Roswell,the City of Sandysprings, the City of
Chattahoochee Hills Country, the City of College Park, the City
of East Point, the City of Fairburn, the City of Hapeville, the
City of Palmetto, the City of Union City and the City of South
Fulton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-305307, (Ga. Sup., May 17,
2018), seeks a refund of all taxes paid in 2016 and 2017 which
were billed and collected based on illegal, erroneous and void
assessments, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and
costs of litigation associated with this action and all other and
further relief pursuant to the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated.

Defendants are political subdivisions of the State of Georgia.
Plaintiffs are all persons and entities who purchased property in
Georgia and whose property was assessed in 2016 and 2017 for ad
valorem property tax purposes at the amount of the 2015 sales
price, or who purchased property in 2016, and whose property was
assessed in 2017 for ad valorem property tax purposes at the
amount of the 2016 sales price. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Roger Land, Esq.
      Mitchell Graham, Esq.
      G. Roger Land & Associates
      200 One North Parkway Square
      4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
      Atlanta, GA 30327-3054
      Tel: (404) 237-2500
      Fax: (404) 365-6560
      Email: grlaw@lawnet.org
             mitchell@lawnet.org


GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs FAC Filing in Defeat Device Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON COUNTS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-12541 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas
L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Northern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a first amended complaint.

On June 7, 2016, nine Plaintiffs, including first-named Plaintiff
Counts, filed a 442-page complaint framing a putative class-
action and alleging deceptive advertising, breach of contract,
and fraudulent concealment claims under the laws of 30 states
against GM.  Fundamentally, the Plaintiffs allege that GM
installed a "defeat device" in the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel
which results in significantly higher emissions when the vehicle
is in use compared to when it is being tested in laboratory
conditions.

GM filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 3, 2016, which was granted
in part and denied in part.  After the motion was denied in part,
the Plaintiffs' counsel initiated another suit involving similar
allegations but different diesel vehicles and naming GM as a
Defendant, In re Duramax Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-11661.  That
complaint also named Bosch, a German company, as a Defendant and
alleged that certain electronic devices supplied by Bosch to GM
enabled the defeat devices.

Counts has been in discovery since GM's motion to dismiss was
denied in part.  The original scheduling order set discovery to
end on Nov. 21, 2017, and set the dispositive motion deadline for
Dec. 21, 2017.  Several months later, the parties filed competing
motions to amend the scheduling order.  On Sept. 26, 2017, the
Court issued an order granting in part GM's motion to modify the
scheduling order and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the
scheduling order.  Pursuant to that order, the discovery deadline
was extended to March 30, 2018, and the dispositive motion
deadline was reset for June 11, 2018.

On Nov. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel and for
court-supervised discovery milestones.  The motion was referred
to Magistrate Judge Morris.  On Dec. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs
partially withdrew their motion to compel.  In the notice, the
Plaintiffs explained that the parties have agreed to (1) the use
of search terms in lieu of Technology Assisted Review, (2) a
stipulated set of interim deadlines for the production of
documents responsive to Plaintiffs' First Requests for
Production, and (3) a stipulated request to extend the discovery
deadlines.

The next day, Magistrate Judge Morris granted in part the motion
to compel, outlining the relevant scope of the documents GM must
produce.  One week later, the Court adopted a proposed stipulated
order which extended the discovery deadline to July 31, 2018, and
set the dispositive motion cutoff for Oct. 11, 2018.  In that
stipulation, the parties outlined their agreement for GM to begin
a rolling production of documents on either (1) Jan. 17, 2018, or
30 days after the Court issued an order resolving search term
disputes and completing production on Feb. 28, 2018, or 75 days
after the Court issued an order resolving search term disputes.

On Feb. 20, 2018, the Court issued an order denying motions to
dismiss by GM and Bosch in the Duramax litigation.  In that
order, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had plausibly
stated a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
claim against both GM and Bosch.

On Feb. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel
production of documents in Counts.  This motion was also referred
to Magistrate Judge Morris.  In that motion, the Plaintiffs
alleged that despite agreeing to begin document production on a
rolling basis, no additional documents have been produced since
November 2017.  The delay in production appears to have stemmed
from disputes between the parties regarding the proper search
terms to use in identifying relevant electronic discovery.

On April 6, 2018, before the second motion was resolved, the
Plaintiffs filed the present motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.  A week later, Judge Morris issued an order granting
in part and denying in part the second motion to compel.

On May 9, 2018, the Court adopted a proposed stipulated order
which extended the discovery deadline to Nov. 30, 2018, and reset
the dispositive motion deadline for Feb. 1, 2019.  In the
stipulation, the parties agreed that the total volume of
documents produced by GM to date has exceeded 70,000 documents,
and GM's production is ongoing.  In a declaration attached to the
motion for leave to file an amended complaint, one of the
Plaintiffs' attorneys indicates that GM produced an additional
130,000 pages of documents on March 7, 2017.

In the Plaintiffs' proposed first amended complaint, they seek to
add Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC as the Defendants,
add a RICO claim against all the three Defendants, and add Bosch
as the Defendants to the Plaintiffs' state law claims.  In
opposing this motion, GM makes three arguments.

First, GM argues that the Plaintiffs have had actual or
constructive notice of Bosch's involvement with GM's diesel
vehicle production since at least the filing of the complaint in
the Duramax litigation.  Second, GM believes that the Plaintiffs'
true motivation behind seeking leave to amend is the Court's
denial of GM's (and Bosch's) motion to dismiss a similar RICO
claim in the Duramax litigation. GM argues that this "wait-and-
see" approach is disfavored by courts and should not be rewarded.
Third, GM argues that allowing the amendment will substantially
prejudice GM by substantially delaying the resolution of the
litigation and dramatically altering the "landscape of the
litigation."  Presently, GM does not oppose amendment on futility
grounds (but GM indicates that it may move to dismiss if the
Plaintiffs' motion is granted).

Judge Ludington finds that given the scope of discovery and the
relevance of certain of the new allegations, the Plaintiffs have
not unduly delayed in seeking to amend.  He also finds that this
is not a scenario where the Plaintiffs have sought to allege an
alternative theory or claim after their original approach was
rebuffed, creating unnecessary costs and inefficiencies.  In
fact, a reasonable argument can be made that the timeline here
obviated the unnecessary expenditure of resources.

Ultimately, the Judge finds that the prejudice identified by GM
is insufficient to overcome the general rule that leave to amend
should be liberally granted.  The Plaintiffs commonly uncover
additional information during discovery which provides the basis
for new claims.  In that situation, the Defendants will
inevitably suffer some prejudice as the scope of litigation
expands.  But much of that prejudice is inherent in the nature of
litigation, especially when the subject matter is as complex and
quickly evolving as defeat device cases have proven to be.

The Judge is unpersuaded that the addition of a RICO claim is as
earth-shattering as GM suggests.  The RICO claim will certainly
increase GM's potential liability, but the underlying factual
theory is essentially the same as with Plaintiff's state law
consumer fraud claims.  Especially because there are cogent
reasons why the claim was not brought in the original complaint,
the addition of the RICO claim will not substantially prejudice
GM.  The federal rules contemplate a general policy in favor of
granting leave to amend, and so the Plaintiffs' motion will be
granted.

For these reasons, Judge Ludington granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a first amended complaint.  He directed the
Plaintiffs to file the first amended complaint on June 15, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jiuYmN from Leagle.com.

Jason Counts, Donald Klein, Oscar Zamora, Brandon Stone, Jason
Silveus, John Miskelly, Thomas Hayduk, Joshua Hurst & Joshua
Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher A. Seeger ,
Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com --
Carella Byrne, Jessica M. Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com --
Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Scott A. George --
intake@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jason J.
Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by April N. Ross --
aross@crowell.com -- Corwell & Moring LLP, Brittany J.
Mouzourakis -- BMouzourakis@dykema.com -- Dykema, Katherine W.
Warner -- kate.warner@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP,
Kathleen T. Sooy -- ksooy@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP,
Leslie M. Smith -- leslie.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael P. Cooney -- mcooney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
Rebecca Baden Chaney -- rchaney@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring
LLP & Renee D. Smith -- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP.


GOGO INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until August 27, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Gogo Inc.
(NasdaqGS:GOGO), if they purchased the Company's securities
between February 27, 2017 and May 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Gogo and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-gogo/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by August 27, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Gogo and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On May 4, 2018, the Company disclosed disappointing  quarterly
earnings results including that it would be unable to meet EBITDA
profit guidance of $75M-$100M, was withdrawing "its previously
provided 2018 guidance for Adjusted EBITDA, airborne Cash CAPEX,
and airborne equipment inventory purchases related to airline-
directed installations, as well as Free Cash Flow guidance."
Then, on May 7, 2018, post-market, Moody's announced a downgrade
to the Company's credit rating.

On this news, the price of Gogo's shares plummeted.

         Lewis Kahn,Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that HealthPort
Technologies and Centerpoint Medical Center of Independence
recently removed a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges
they wrongfully charge fees in violation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western
Division.

According to a removal notice filed June 22, lead plaintiff
Jeffrey Bowden claims that the defendants charged the fees in
response to a request made by Bowden' attorneys for medical
records at Centerpoint and that the rates charged are not in
compliance with HIPAA or with a recent guidance distributed by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The case was originally filed in Jackson County Circuit Court on
May 15 claiming unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practice Act.

Bowden's suit seeks to represent two nationwide class of
individuals -- "All persons in Missouri whose PHI (personal
health information) was maintained in electronic format, who
requested their PHI in electronic format, who were provided an
electronic copy of their PHI, and who paid an invoice exceeding
six dollars and fifty cents ($6.50) from Defendants (or anyone
working on behalf of Defendants) at any time in the last five (5)
years)"; and "All persons in Missouri who requested their PHI in
electronic format, regardless of whether or not the PHI was
stored in electronic format; who were provided a copy of their
PHI; and who paid an invoice exceeding six dollars and fifty
cents ($6.50) from Defendants (or anyone working on behalf of
Defendants) when Defendants, prior to producing the PHI, did not
inform them of any additional charges, at any time in the last
five (5) years."

Defendants claim that, among other things, federal court has
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Thee claim that they "vigorously dispute the validity of Bowden's
claims" and deny that this case is appropriate for class
treatment. But, for the purposes of determining whether federal
jurisdiction exists under CAFA, the aggregate amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million based upon the allegations in the
complaint, one of the requirements for federal jurisdiction under
CAFA.[GN]


HENKEL CORP: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Slack-Fill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment of the
Pleadings in the case captioned CLAUDINE MACASPAC, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general
public, Plaintiff, v. HENKEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01755-H-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Claudine Macaspac (Macaspac) filed a class action
complaint against Defendant Henkel Corporation (Henkel) in the
San Diego County Superior Court, asserting claims for violations
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code.  Macaspac alleges that she expected to receive a
full container of the Purex Crystals product, which is packaged
in non-transparent containers, but "was surprised and
disappointed when she opened the Purex Crystals product to
discover that the container had more than 30% empty space, or
slack-fill."

Macaspac filed a motion for class certification. One day later,
Henkel responded by moving for judgment on the pleadings.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a district court to
terminate a lawsuit where the facts alleged in the pleadings
demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

Henkel argues that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings
because no reasonable consumer could have been deceived by the
Purex packaging, and Macaspac lacks standing to either bring
claims predicated on products that she did not purchase, or to
sue for injunctive relief.

Macaspac rejoins that a reasonable consumer could have been
deceived by the size of the Purex bottles into believing that
they contained more product that they did, and also disputes
Henkel's arguments about her legal standing to bring claims
related to all of Henkel's allegedly deceptive products.

Reasonable Consumer Test

Under the reasonable consumer standard, a plaintiff must show
that members of the public are likely to be deceived. Likely to
deceive' implies more than a mere possibility that the
advertisement might conceivably be misunderstood by some few
consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.

Application to Macaspac's Claims

Henkel argues that Macaspac cannot maintain a UCL claim
predicated on a Section 12606(b) violation because the Purex
bottles permit consumers to fully view the bottles' contents.

After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court agrees with
Henkel that no reasonable consumer could be deceived as to the
amount of product contained in the Purex bottles. The parties
attached several photographs of the Purex bottles Macaspac
purchased to their respective requests for judicial notice.
Although the bottles depicted in the photographs differ somewhat,
each bottle is a cylinder that contains a roughly 1-2 inch
transparent band along the lower part of the bottle's exterior,
and each bottle's bottom is fully transparent.

Using the transparent band and bottom, a consumer can fully see
the bottle's contents, including the slack fill inside, by
turning the bottle on its side and looking in through the bottom.
Moreover, a consumer can also view the bottles' contents by
opening the lid without altering the packaging or damaging the
product.

Second, no reasonable consumer could find the Purex bottles
deceptive. No reasonable consumer expects the overall size of the
packaging to reflect precisely the quantity of product contained
therein. Here, the Purex bottles allowed consumers to see their
contents either by looking through the transparent bottom or
unscrewing the lid, and also accurately reported the weight of
the crystals inside. Reasonable consumers would know roughly how
much product they were receiving when purchasing these bottles.

Because the bottles themselves make it impossible for Macaspac to
prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived,
Henkel is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Macaspac's
UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims.

The Court grants Henkel's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
denies Macaspac's motion for class certification as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dmrmad from Leagle.com.

Claudine Macaspac, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com --
Law Office of Ronald Marron.

Henkel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by William F. Tarantino -- wtarantino@mofo.com --
Morrison and Foerster, Ashleigh K. Landis -- alandis@mofo.com -
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Kai S. Bartolomeo --
kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP.


HIGHPOINT SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the
district of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, JACLYN MOORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HIGHPOINT SOLUTIONS LLC and
CHRISTINE M. CUSHMAN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-6266 (D.
N.J.).

Moore, a HighPoint contract employee since April 2017, has filed
a purported Class Action Complaint as the result of a data breach
by Defendant Cushman, who was HighPoint's Human Resource
Director.

On Aug. 7, 2017, the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania District
Attorney's office and certain news outlets announced that Cushman
had stolen approximately $1 million from HighPoint over a two-
year period using private financial information HighPoint
maintained concerning subcontractors.  Specifically, from May 5,
2015 to June 15, 2017, Cushman used this stolen information to
issue herself 45 fraudulent checks totaling $919,301.

On Aug. 8, 2017, HighPoint's CEO John Seitz emailed HighPoint's
employees concerning Cushman's actions.  Seitz e-mailed
HighPoint's employees again on Aug. 10, 2017.

As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff has alleged that
the Defendants negligently failed to secure and safeguard her
personal identifying information ("PII"), and that of, at least,
all of HighPoint's past and current employees, agents,
subcontractors, customers and service providers, as well as their
families and dependents.

This PII includes, but is not limited to, the: names, Social
Security numbers, Taxpayer Identification Numbers, birthdates,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, healthcare
records, salary and bonus details, contract and agreement
details, sensitive employment information such as performance
evaluations, disciplinary and employment termination details,
severance packages, and/or other personal information concerning
HighPoint's past and current employees, agents, subcontractors,
customers and service providers, as well as their families and
dependents.

HighPoint was also negligent in failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to the Plaintiff and the Class that their PII had
been stolen and precisely what types of information were stolen.

Against HighPoint, the Complaint alleges negligence, intrusion
upon seclusion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, violation of the New Jersey Computer
Related Offenses Act, and vicarious liability.  There is an
additional claim for unjust enrichment against Cushman.

HighPoint seeks dismissal of the Complaint.  The Plaintiff has
conceded through briefing that her claims for breach of contract
and breach of implied contract cannot survive and are voluntarily
dismissed.  Accordingly, the remaining claims are for negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion, violation
of the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act, and vicarious
liability.

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and heard
oral argument on May 30, 2018.

Judge Rodriguez finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
facts demonstrating that she has sustained a concrete injury in
fact.  Any allegation of an increased risk of identity theft is
speculative and conclusory.  The Plaintiff has pled no facts to
indicate that her personal identifying information was even
accessed by Cushman, but more importantly, the Plaintiff has
failed to allege actual misuse of her personal identifying
information.  Other courts in this District have held that
plaintiffs who similarly alleged that personal information was
lost or compromised, without asserting misuse, lacked standing to
bring claims following data breaches.

For the reasons he stated, and those discussed on the record
during oral argument, Judge Rodriguez granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss for lack of standing.  An appropriate Order
will issue.

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

JACLYN MOORE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES M. FICARO --
jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.

HIGHPOINT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, represented by JOEL M.
WERTMAN -- Wertman.J@wssllp.com -- Winget, Spadafora &
Schwartzberg LLP & ALLISON JUDITH BEATTY -- Beatty.A@wssllp.com -
- Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg LLP.


INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY: Kadir Sues over Tenants Excessive Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADIB KADIR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY PARTNERS
LLC dba RENAISSANCE TOWER, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC 714155 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018),
alleges that Defendant charged tenants excessive and unjustified
fees, to withhold the renters rightfully belonging security
deposit and failure to provide accurate itemized receipts for the
repairs completed, pursuant to California law.

According to the complaint, on or around, March 2016, the
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a rental-home lease
agreement. The Plaintiff paid a total of $500.00 as security,
deposit, under the Lease, in order to rent the Premises. On or
around November 16, 2017, Plaintiff received a letter from
Defendant containing an invoice for $388.85 for the repairs
conducted, encompassing the replacement of the carpet and the
cleaning of the Premises, after Plaintiff surrendered the
Premises to Defendant Plaintiff is informed and believes, therein
alleges that Plaintiff requested Defendant to provide the
receipts and/or invoices for the repairs done to the Premises,
however Defendant failed to provide such receipts and/or invoices
to Plaintiff.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 9167
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


INTERNATIONAL DAIRY: Sued over Bait-and-Switch Ice Cream Treat
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIEL SPENCER, individually and on behalf of other customers,
the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL DAIRY QUEEN, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01252-SB (D. Ore., July 13, 2018), alleges that
Defendant lured thousands of Dairy Queen mobile app customers
into a Dairy Queen based solely on the false promise of a free,
delicious Blizzard ice cream treat.

The lawsuit contends that Ms. Spencer and other mobile app
customers ripped off by Dairy Queen's bait-and-switch scheme are
entitled to a gift card for at least five free Blizzards per
person. Dairy Queen is a billion-dollar subsidiary corporation of
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Dairy Queen understands
that the fast-food industry involves tight profit margins and
high sales volumes. Dairy Queen understands that it's profitable
to generate traffic to its locations based on the promise of a
free Blizzard, regardless of whether its locations intend to
honor its promise. Dairy Queen understands that the law does not
permit it to bait-and-switch its customers but continues to do so
anyway, even after receiving hundreds of customer complaints
through its mobile app.

International Dairy Queen, Inc. owns and operates restaurants.
The Company offers grilled chicken, cheese burgers, sides,
salads, meal baskets, fries, onion rings, and other food
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fuller, Esq.
          OLSENDAINES
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, Oregon 97204
          Direct (503) 743 7000
          E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com

               - and -

          Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLY JONES

               - and -

          Mark Geragos, Esq.
          Ben Meiselas, Esq.
          Lori Feldman, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          7 W 24th Street
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel: 213-625-3900
          Fax: 213-232-3255


IRVING LANGER: Court Narrows Claims in "Contrera" FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend Complaint in the case captioned USVALDO CONTRERA et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. IRVING LANGER et al., Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 3851
(LTS) (GWG)(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs, former superintendents, handymen, and a porter at
residential buildings in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx filed this
action against various individuals and entities that plaintiffs
collectively refer to as the E&M Enterprise alleging that this
enterprise employed them and it violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and various provisions of the New York Labor Law.

In their proposed Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek
to add a claim to recover the full amount of wages that the
defendants purportedly agreed to pay the plaintiffs on an hourly
basis pursuant to section 198(3) of the New York labor Law.  The
Court says it is aware that some courts have found that section
198 allows for an employee to recover damages for a claim of
straight time at a rate higher than the minimum wage if the
parties previously agreed to the rate.  The Court disagrees with
these cases, however. None of these cases conduct an analysis of
the structure of Article 6 and the statutory language in section
198. Almost all of the cases arose in the context of default
judgments, where there was presumably no adversarial briefing on
the issue. Only two of these cases mention Gottlieb, and even
then only to recognize that it is contrary to the conclusion
those courts reached without attempting to distinguish it. In
light of our own analysis of the statutory provisions and the
existence of persuasive case law supporting our analysis, the
Court cannot agree with the conclusion reached in these cases.
Accordingly, the Court deny plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint to add an agreed upon wages claim under section 198(3)
because such an amendment would be futile.

The Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend their complaint to add a
breach of contract claim based on the defendants' alleged failure
to pay for all hours worked including both regular time and
overtime.  The Defendants argue this amendment would be futile
because (1) the breach of contract claim duplicates other claims
already made under the FLSA and New York Labor Law; (2)
plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint fails to adequately
plead a cause of action for breach of contract; and (3)
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim would not be susceptible to
class certification.

The Court rules that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim for
overtime wages is pre-empted by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs have
failed to indicate any manner in which their claim for agreed
upon" overtime wages will differ from their claim for overtime
wages under the FLSA. Thus, as case law has recognized, the
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim for overtime must be
dismissed as preempted by the FLSA's provision allowing pursuit
of overtime claims.  The Plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding
pre-emption, they may nevertheless plead their breach of contract
claim for overtime wages in the alternative at this stage in the
proceeding.  However, it is well-established that preemption may
be analyzed and decided at the motion to dismiss stage.  In sum,
the Court find that the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is
pre-empted to the extent that it seeks overtime wages, but not
with respect to straight time wages.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y83yywrb from
Leagle.com.

Usvaldo Contrera, Francisco Lopez, Pedro Batista, Fabian Herrera,
Antonio Reyes, Ramon Medina, Anibal Ruiz, Carlos Zambrano, Jose
Castillo & Doyle Gross, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter David
Winebrake, The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Meredith Reade Miller,
Miller Law, PLLC & Marc Andrew Rapaport, Rapaport Law Firm, PLLC.

Carlos Dominguez, Danny Cruz-Guerrero, Hector Gracia, Ygnacio
Mercado, Amanuel Avila, Maurice Merritt, Rafael Parra Hiclalgo,
Wilfredo Perez, Hector R Rodriguez, James Mills, Sixto Rosario
Cruz, Franklyn Brito, Jesus Robles, Bryan Garriques, Douil
Jackson, Michael Smith, Generoso Saint Hilarie, Billy Rojas, Jose
Arrieta, Teddie Emmanuel, Lambert Samuel, Leonardo R Mejia,
Michael Simon, Curtis Brown, Keith Richards, Robert Joseph,
Nelson V Castillos, Charles Martin, James Carter, Jose A Nieves,
Aisy Alfredo Montero Marte, Maxwell Redhead, Vassel A Burke,
Euclides Hilario, Anthony Watson, Orlando Velez, Frank Johnson,
Sherman Martin, Jose A Filpo, Jose H. Rodriguez, Maximo Reyes,
Ramon Abel Mora, Juan Tapia, Yowel Castillo, Luis N Garcia, Juan
A Garcia, Cruz De La Rosa Genao, Jose Chavarria, Lucien
Wellington, Sandy Taveras, Omar Nunez, Jose A. Saa-Tolozano, Erol
McLean, Gustavo Del Rosario Gomez, Alfonso Trujillo, Francisco
Gonzalez, Newton Marks, Bolivar Albarracin & Jose D Taveras,
Plaintiffs, represented by Marc Andrew Rapaport, Rapaport Law
Firm, PLLC.

Irving Langer, Leibel Lederman, Aryeh Z. Ginzberg, Meyer Brecher,
E&M Bronx Associates LLC, also known as E&M Holdings, also known
as E&M Associates, E&M Associates LLC, E&M Harlem Holdings LLC,
E&M Harlem Equities LLC, E&M Lafayette Portfolio LLC, E&M
Lafayette Owner LLC, Rainbow Estates LLC, Manhattanville Holdings
LLC, Galil Realty LLC, Galil Management LLC, 105-109 West 113
LLC, 107 West 113 LLC, 1070 Ogden LLC, 109 West 113 LLC, 11 West
172 Street Owner LLC, 110 West 116th LLC, 113-115 West 113 LLC,
115 West 113 LLC, 117-129 West 116 LLC, 120-129 West 112 LLC, 124
West 112 Street LLC, 126 West 112 LLC, 131-133 West 112 LLC, 133
West 112 Street LLC, 133-135 West 116 LLC, 141 West 116 LLC, 141-
143 West 113 LLC, 143 West 111 Street LLC, 145-153 Edgecombe
Holdings LLC, 146 West 111 Street LLC, 151 West 228 St Owner LLC,
159 W 228 St Owner LLC, 161-171 Morningside LLC, 1631 Grand Ave
Owner LLC, 164-172 West 141 Holdings LLC, 17-25 St Nicholas LLC,
1728-1730 Amsterdam Avenue LLC, 1786 Topping Ave Owner LLC, 1829-
1835 7 LLC, 2006 ACP Blvd Portfolio LLC, 2059 8 LLC, 2076-78
Creston Ave Owner LLC, 2238 Morris Ave Owner LLC, 226 W Tremont
Ave Owner LLC, 2291 University Ave Owner LLC, 230 West 116 LLC,
2322 Grand Ave Owner LLC, 239 West 116 LLC, 241 West 113 LLC, 243
West 116 LLC, 247-253 West 116 LLC, 255 West 116 LLC, 2755-61
Sedgwick Ave Owner LLC, 2925 Grand Concourse Owner LLC, 2933
Grand Concourse Owner LLC, 2968 Perry Ave Owner LLC, 301 West
111-2051 8 LLC, 302 West 112 Street LLC, 303 West 111 LLC, 303-
309 West 113 LLC, 305 West 111 LLC, 305-309 West 113 LLC, 306-310
West 112 LLC, 307 West 113 LLC, 310 West 112th Street LLC, 311
West 111 Street LLC, 337 West 138 Holdings LLC, 345 Manhattan
Holdings LLC, 35 Morningside Holdings LLC, 350 West 115 LLC, 370-
372 West 127 LLC, 373 West 126 LLC, 376 West 127 LLC, 41 W 184 St
Owner LLC, 510 West 146 LLC, 521-523 W 156 St Owners LLC, 557-561
West 149 Holdings LLC, 6 Morningside LLC, 609-619 West 135 Street
Owner LLC, 610-620 West 141 Holdings LLC, 617 West 143 Holdings
LLC, 638 West 160 Holdings LLC, 655 West 160 Holdings LLC, 65-67
Lenox LLC, 67 Lenox LLC, 707 St Nicholas LLC, ACP Blvd Portfolio
LLC, Audubon 550 W 171 Portfolio LLC, Avenue W Equities LLC, DDEH
319 E 115 LLC, E&M Associates I, LLC, Neighborhood Stabilization
Associates I, L.P., Neighborhood Stabilization Associates II.
L.P., NSA Associates I, NSA Associates II, Sarasota Gold LLC,
Sixth Avenue I Associates, Sixth Avenue Rehab I Associates,
Sunset Park Housing Associates, Sunset Park NSA I, Sunset Park N
S A II, Sunset Park NSA 11, Sunset Park NSA 2, Sunset Park NSA
II, 11-15 Broadway Owner LLC, 30-50 21 St Street Owner LLC, 271 E
197 St Owner LLC, 750-760 Pelham Pkwy Owner LLC, 124 E 177 ST
Owner LLC, 3472 Knox Place Owner LLC, 2320 Aqueduct Ave Owner
LLC, 1160 Cromwell Ave Owner LLC, 3940 Bronx Blvd Owner LLC, 1881
Grand Concourse Realty LLC, 3136 Perry Ave Owner LLC, 155 W 162
Street LLC, 1014 Gerard Ave Owner LLC, 1475 Sheridan Ave Owner
LLC, 320 E 197 St Owner LLC, 131 W Kingsbridge Owner LLC, 2701
Webb Ave Owner LLC, 751 Gerard Ave Owner LLC, 2055 Anthony Ave
Owner LLC, 975 Walton Ave Owner LLC, 1212 Grand Concourse Owner
LLC, 1530 Sheridan Ave Owner LLC, 323 E Mosholu Pkwy Owner LLC,
161-165 E 179 St Owner LLC, 2215 Properties LLC, DDEH 103 E 102
LLC, DDEH 112 E 103 LLC, DDEH 102 E 103 LLC, DDEH 122 E 103ST
LLC, DDEH 124 E117 LLC, DDEH 126 E 103ST LLC, 124 E. 117 LLC,
DDEH 137 E. 110 LLC, DDEH 154 E. 106 LLC, DDEH 1567 Lexington
LLC, DDEH 238 E 111 LLC, DDEH 215 E 117 LLC, DDEH 2156 Second
LLC, DDEH 216 E 118 LLC, DDEH 2171 Third LLC, DDEH 291 Pleasant
LLC, DDEH 231 E 117 LLC, DDEH 233 E 111 Street LLC, DDEH 234 E
116ST LLC, DDEH 235 E 111ST LLC, DDEH 234 E116 LLC, DDEH 2371
Second LLC, DDEH 244 E 117 LLC, DDEH 311 E. 109 LLC, DDEH 312 E
106 LLC, DDEH 411 E 114 LLC, DDEH 411 E118LLC, DDEH 417E 114ST
LLC, DDEH 421 East 114th ST LLC, 131-133 West 112 Street LLC,
3030 Valentine Ave Owner LLC, 138-140 West 112 LLC, 3600 Broadway
Owner LLC, Dunbar Owner LLC, E&M Harlem Portfolio Owner LLC, SG2-
E&M Harlem Portfolio Owner LLC, 3621 Broadway Owner LLC, 414-102
Convent Owner LLC, 153-157 Lenox Holdings LLC & Manhattanville
Mezz LLC, Defendants, represented by Larry Rafael Martinez --
lmartinez@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Breitstone, LLP, Christopher Paul Hampton --
champton@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Breitstone, LLP, Gerald Charles Waters --
gwaters@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Breitstone, LLP, Jonathan D. Farrell -- jfarrell@meltzerlippe.com
-- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP & Loretta Mae
Gastwirth -- lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe,
Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP.

300 West 114-2107 8 LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Manhattan Valley West LLC, Defendant, pro se.

260 Elizabeth Street LLC, Defendant, pro se.

262 Elizabeth Portfolio LLC, Defendant, pro se.

264 Elizabeth Street Portfolio LLC, Defendant, pro se.

266 Elizabeth Street Portfolio LLC, Defendant, pro se.

268 Elizabeth Street Portfolio LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Fabian Herrera, Antonio Reyes, Jose Tavera & Juan Manuel Tapia,
ADR Providers, represented by Marc Andrew Rapaport, Rapaport Law
Firm, PLLC.

Pedro Batista, All Plaintiffs, represented by Peter David
Winebrake, The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC & Marc Andrew Rapaport,
Rapaport Law Firm, PLLC.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Salazar" Suit Moved C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrea Salazar, Christina
Johnson, Jose Garcia, Troy Harris, and Bediako Addo, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc., a
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC702468, was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles) on July 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-05884-RSWL-E to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.

Johnson & Johnson produces and markets over-the-counter (OTC)
products to families, children, healthcare professionals, and
other consumers in the United States and internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: aj@bamlawca.com
                  Kyle@bamlawca.com
                  norm@bamlawca.com
                  piya@bamlawca.com
                  victoria@bamlawca.com

Attorneys for Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc.:

          Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq.
          Michael S Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553 2165
          E-mail: ksullivan@ebglaw.com
                  mkun@ebglaw.com


JONATHAN NEIL: Court Denies Prelim Approval of "Brown" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied the parties'
joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

At some time, the Plaintiff incurred an obligation to Mercury
Insurance Co.  Mercury Insurance contracted with the Defendant to
collect the debt.  Around March 14, 2017, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the debt owed to Mercury
Casualty Insurance Co.  The Plaintiff received and read the
letter which stated "Re: Mercury Casualty Insurance."

On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the action, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleging that the letter
failed to accurately identify the creditor in violation of the
FDCPA; and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("RFDCPA").  The Defendant filed an answer on June 22, 2017.
The scheduling order issued on July 28, 2018, setting the
deadline to file a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The Defendant filed an opposition on Jan. 31,
2018.  The Plaintiff filed a reply on Feb. 9, 2018.

A hearing on the motion was held on Feb. 14, 2018, and the
parties were to provide supplemental briefing to address the
Court's authority to expand the class beyond that requested by
the Plaintiff and additional authority on limiting the class from
that proposed in the complaint filed in the action.

The parties have agreed to settle the claims of a class defined
as all consumers with an address in the State of California who
were sent an initial collection letter and/or notices from the
Defendant, during the period of May 16, 2016 to present,
attempting to collect a consumer debt owed which stated Re:
Mercury Casualty Insurance.

The Defendant will pay $10,000 in statutory damages to the
Settlement Class.  The Settlement Class is comprised of 40,133
individuals.  The class members will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement fund, capped at $50 per claimant.  All unclaimed
funds will first be used to pay the class action administrative
costs and if any fund remain they will be donated as a cy pres
award to a charitable organization subject to the Court's
approval.  The Plaintiff will receive statutory damages of $1,000
and a service award of $1,500 for a total of $2,500.

The class counsel will receive attorney fees of $33,500 to cover
all fees and costs associated with the litigation.  The Class
Administrator will mail notice providing address forwarding
within 20 days of preliminary approval of the settlement.  If a
notice is returned with a forwarding address provided the Class
Administrator will forward the notice to the address provided,
but there will be no skip trace to determine addresses of those
notices returned as undeliverable.

The class members have 45-five days after the notice is mailed to
opt-in, exclude themselves from, or object to the settlement.
They may be excluded from the settlement agreement by opting out
within the set time-period.

The Defendant will pay costs and expenses through its insurance
carrier to the Class Administrator, including but not limited to,
the costs of printing and mailing notice and issuing and mailing
settlement checks to the class members.

On March 22, 2018, a notice of settlement was filed and the
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
was to be filed on or before May 7, 2018.  On May 7, 2018, the
parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

On May 14, 2018, the matter was reassigned to Magistrate Judge
Boone.

Upon consideration of the settlement agreement as a whole, the
Magistrate Judge finds that it is not fair, adequate, and
reasonable.  He says finds it is not fair, adequate and
reasonable to require claim forms to be submitted to receive a
share of the settlement fund where the identity of the class
members is known and no further information is necessary to
determine the amount the class member is entitled to receive
under the terms of the settlement agreement.

The Magistrate Judge also has concerns regarding the class
notice.  The claims administrator is to mail notices and re-mail
notices that are returned with a forwarding address, but no skip
trace is to be done to determine the address of any class member.
Merely mailing a notice without any efforts to obtain an updated
address is insufficient to provide notice.  He finds that the
settlement must provide for some manner of reasonable effort to
obtain the current address of the class members, whether that be
prior to mailing or only for those letters returned as
undeliverable.

As to the notice itself, he finds that it is misleading.  The
notice states that class members will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement fund capped at $50.  Informing the class members
that they can receive up to $50 is illusory.  A class member
would be more likely to object or opt-out were she aware that she
was only going to receive $0.25 to $5, rather than $50, for a
statutory violation that would entitle her to $1,000 in damages.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the agreement provides that the
Defendant's insurance carrier is to pay for the costs of
administrating the settlement.  However, it also provides that
any unclaimed settlement funds will be used first to pay the
class action administration costs, and then donated to a cy pres
beneficiary.  He finds that the insurance carrier is not entitled
to receive an offset out of the unclaimed settlement funds.  In
the event that any funds remain unclaimed, such funds should be
donated to the cy pres beneficiary.

In addition to the issue that the agreement requires the class
members to submit a claim form, he also has concerns regarding
the extent of the claims released.  The scope of the release here
appears to be designed to cast as wide a net as possible in
releasing the claims of the unnamed class members rather than to
only those claims brought in the current complaint.

Finally, and most concerning to him, is the monetary settlement
amount and payments contemplated.  The concern is whether the
class representative and the class counsel are representing the
interests of the class or are settling the action to the
detriment of the unnamed class members and not to the Plaintiff.

Upon review of the proposed settlement agreement, Magistrate
Judge  Boone finds that it is not fair, adequate, and reasonable
and therefore does not fall within the range of possible
approval.  Based on the foregoing, he denied without prejudice
the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.  The parties will notify the Court in writing
within 14 days from the date of service of the Order they will
continue to pursue settlement or if a scheduling conference need
be set.  The hearing set for June 13, 2018 is vacated and the
parties need not appear at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/E9M07e from Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari H. Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com --
Porter Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar -- lkomar@porterscott.com -
- Porter Scott.


JUMPSTART CONSULTANTS: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINTON ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUMPSTART CONSULTANTS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00487-REP (E.D. Va., July 13, 2018),
seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are current and former
employees of Jumpstart Consultants, Inc. who work and/or worked
at Jumpstart on the production and printing of house and roof
wrap products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648 4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237 0413
          E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
                  paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com


KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: "Russell" Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN RUSSELL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. KEHE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-CV-01182-JAM-GGH (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted  Russell's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement.

Russell's Motion for Preliminary Approval came on for hearing on
May 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.

Judge Mendez, having fully and carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval, the memorandum and declarations
in support thereof, the Settlement Agreement including the
proposed California Class Notice, FLSA Class Notice, and Claim
Form, as well as the Defendant's Notice of Non-Opposition
thereto, granted the Motion.

He preliminarily appointed (i) Russell as the Class
Representative; and (ii) Mayall Hurley P.C., by and through Lead
Counsel Robert J. Wasserman, William J. Gorham, III, Nicholas J.
Scardigli, Vladimir J. Kozina, and John P. Briscoe, as the Class
Counsel.  He appointed  Atticus Administration, LLC as the
Settlement Administrator.  The Judge also preliminarily approved
declared fees and costs of administering the Settlement of up to
$26,500.

The class of employees covered by the Parties' Settlement
consists of (i) all hourly, nonexempt employees of Defendant that
(a) received non-discretionary bonuses and commissions, (b)
worked over overtime during at least one pay period from June 7,
2013 through April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary bonuses
or commissions were not included in their regular rate of pay
when calculating their overtime, and (ii) all California
employees of Defendant that received one or more electronic wage
statements between June 7, 2016 and July 10, 2017.  It is
estimated that there are 3,555 total class members.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, and for
purposes of settlement only, the Judge preliminarily and
conditionally certified the following subclasses, collectively
referred to as the California Class:

     a. All hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant that worked
in California, and (a) received non-discretionary bonuses or
commissions, (b) worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a
week during at least one pay period from June 7, 2013 through
April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary bonuses or
commissions were not included in their regular rate of pay when
calculating their overtime ("California Regular Rate Class").

     b. All hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant that worked
in California, and (a) received non-discretionary bonuses or
commissions, (b) worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a
week during at least one pay period from June 7, 2013 through
April 7, 2018, (c) the non-discretionary bonuses and commissions
were not included in their regular rate of pay when calculating
their overtime, and (d) no longer work for the Defendant
("California Former Employee Class").

     c. All employees of the Defendant that worked in California
and both (a) were paid by direct deposit and (b) received their
wage statement(s) electronically rather than along with live
paychecks during at least one pay period from June 7, 2016
through July 10, 2017 and are not part of the California Regular
Rate Class or the California Former Employee Class ("California
Wage Statement Class").

The California Class is estimated to include approximately 1,660
individuals.  Judge Mendez granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based upon
the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  He approved, as
to form and content, the California Class Notice and further
approved the procedure by which California Class Members may opt
out of, and to object to, the Settlement as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the California Class Notice.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and for purposes of
settlement only, the Judge  preliminarily and conditionally
certified the FLSA Class defined as all hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant that worked outside of California, and (a)
received non-discretionary bonuses or commissions, (b) worked
over 40 hours in a week during at least one pay period from June
7, 2013 through April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary
bonuses or commissions were not included in their regular rate
pay when calculating their overtime, ("FLSA Class").

The FLSA Class is estimated to include approximately 1,990
individuals.  The Judge approved, as to form and content, the
FLSA Class Notice and Consent and Claim Form and further approved
the procedure by which FLSA Class Members may consent to join the
lawsuit and claim a share of the Net Settlement Amount.

The Judge directed the mailing of the California Class Notice,
FLSA Class Notice, and Consent and Claim Form in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and on the schedule set
forth.  Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time
of the Final Approval Hearing, the proposed PAGA allocation and
payment to the LWDA is preliminarily approved.

Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time of the
Final Approval Hearing, the proposed Service Payment of $7,500,
or .55% of the Maximum Settlement Amount, to the Plaintiff or his
service as the Class Representative is preliminarily approved.

Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time of the
Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel's request of attorneys'
fees in the amount of 25% of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or
$337,500, and declared costs of up to $20,000, are preliminarily
approved.

The Court adopted the following dates and deadlines:

     i. The Defendant to provide Class List to the Settlement
Administrator - Within 10 calendar days of the Court's execution
of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval.

     ii. Settlement Administrator to mail California Class Class
Notice, FLSA Class Notice, and Consent List from Defendant -
Within 10 calendar days of its receipt of the Claim Form and
establish the website.

     iii. Settlement Administrator to mail the reminder - Within
30 calendar days of its mailing of the FLSA postcard to the FLSA
Class Members.

     iv. Deadline for California Class Members to object to, or
opt out of, the Settlement -  Within 45 calendar days after the
mailing of the

     v. Deadline for FLSA Class Members to Consent to join and
claim a share of the Net Settlement Amount -  Within 45 calendar
days after the mailing of the FLSA Class Notice and Consent and
Claim Form.

     vi. Plaintiff to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and
Service Payment - Not less than 35 calendar days after the
mailing of the California Class Notice and FLSA Class Notice.

     vii. Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Motion for Final
Approval - Not less than 28 calendar days before the Final
Approval hearing.

     viii. Final Approval Hearing - Not less than 105 days after
the Court's execution of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval.

A Final Approval hearing on the question of whether the proposed
Settlement, attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel, and the Class
Representative's Service Payment should be finally approved as
fair, reasonable and adequate is scheduled in for Oct. 2, 2018 at
1:30 p.m.  The parties to the Agreement are directed to carry out
their obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/demgKZ from Leagle.com.

Stephen Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua
Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, John
Paul Briscoe -- jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC,
Nicholas John Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall
Hurley, PC & William J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com --
Mayall Hurley, PC.

KeHE Distributors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Paul
Fuchsman -- jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- Ballard Rosenberg Golper &
Savitt LLP & John Bruce Golper -- jgolper@brgslaw.com -- Ballard
Rosenberg Golper & Savitt LLP.

Edward Andrade & Marcus Thompson, Intervenors, represented by
David Elliot Webb Gonzalez -- elliot@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for
Justice, PC.


KING INVESTMENT: Barren Alleges Financial Fraud & Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH BARREN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SIMMONS a/k/a "Rick
Simmons"; KING INVESTMENT AND CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, a dissolved
Illinois Limited Liability Company; KING INVEST SOLUTIONS INC., a
dissolved Illinois Corporation; KEYERA EDWARDS-SIMMONS; KEITH
MORTON; DAVID GOLDBERG; and SELECT FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018CH08826 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 13, 2018),
seeks to expose and put an end to Defendants' predatory
practices, shut down Defendants' unlawful and predatory business,
and vindicate the rights of their victims.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate a predatory
scheme targeting young women of color with financial fraud and
sexual harassment. Under the false promise of offering a path to
home ownership, Defendants propose rent-to-own and installment
contracts to victims on the condition they make repairs and
improvements to the property. As part of the purported "approval"
process, Defendants require these victims to allow them access to
their credit and tax returns, whereupon Defendants submit
falsified tax returns on their victims' behalf and pocket their
victims' tax refunds. Then, after repairs on the property are
completed, they evict their victims without paying for those
repairs. And all the while, they sexually abuse, harass, and
assault their victims under threat and coercion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          Open Communities Legal Assistance Program
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501 5760
          E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org


KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Sey" Suit Seeks Damages for Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Sey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr Brake Company LLC, New York
Air Brake LLC, Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC,
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, Wabtec Railway
Electronics, Inc., Faiveley Transport North America, Inc. and
Railroad Controls, LP, Defendants., Case No. 18-cv-01433 (D. Md.,
May 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive
relief for injuries caused under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants and their related subsidiaries are rail equipment used
in freight and passenger rail applications suppliers who are
alleged of restraining competition in the labor markets in which
they compete for employees. Defendants are each other's top
competitors for rail equipment, including for skilled employees.
However, rather than compete to attract the best employees by
offering more attractive salary and benefits packages to
prospective job seekers, they instead conspired to enter into a
series of agreements intended to circumvent competition for
employees and suppress wages and job opportunities, thus
suppressing compensation and potential new job opportunities and
restraining competition in the market for their employees'
services, says the complaint.

Omar Sey worked for Wabtec Railway Electronics, Inc. Sey
submitted employment applications for available positions at
Knorr Brake Company LLC, but he never received an interview or
employment offer as a result of the Defendants' no-poach
agreements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew D. Freeman, Esq.
      Neel K. Lalchandani, Esq.
      BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
      120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 962-1030
      Fax: (410) 385-0869
      Email: adf@browngold.com
             nlalchandani@browngold.com

             - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Brian Morrison, Esq.
      Jonathan Crevier, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             cmcdonald@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             bmorrison@labaton.com
             jcrevier@labaton.com

             - and -

      Steven J. Durham, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 772-1880
      Email: sdurham@labaton.com


LFR MANAGEMENT: "Watson" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
William D. Watson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LFR Management, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-0422, (N.D. N.C., May 16, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and statutory penalties for herself and all
similarly situated who worked in excess of 40 hours per week
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an automobile race team that competes in the Monster
Energy NASCAR Cup Series where Watson worked as a fabricator.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOT II LLC: Mabry Alleges Unlawful Termination of Employment
------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL MABRY, 126 Columbia St., Toledo, Ohio 43620, the Plaintiff,
v. LOT II, LLC, dba LEXUS OF TOLEDO 7505 West Central Ave.,
Toledo, Ohio 43617, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01612 (N.D.
Ohio, July 13, 2018), seeks to recover money damages,
reinstatement, and liquidated damages resulting from an alleged
unlawful termination of employment.

According to the complaint, while employed with Defendant,
Plaintiff's hours were cut and sent home early; his work was then
distributed to other workers to do. He also was forced to
complete tasks outside the scope of his position, including
changing lightbulbs, taking the mail out, turning on computers,
and bringing cars up front. The Plaintiff's Caucasian co-workers
made inappropriate comments to, and about, Plaintiff, but nothing
was done to curtail the comments by Defendant. Plaintiff was
called a thief, was accused of stealing tips, and was cursed at
in front of co-workers. Similar comments were not made to
Caucasian employee.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Francis J. Landry, Esq.
          Katherine A. Pawlak, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, BRYAN, LANDRY
            & HONOLD, LLP
          1090 W. South Boundary St., Suite 500
          Perrysburg, OH 43551
          Telephone: (419) 243 1239
          Facsimile: (419) 243 2719
          E-mail: FLandry308@aol.com
                  kpawlak@wblhlaw.com


MARABELLA PIZZA: Luis Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELISEO GONZALES LUIS, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. the MARABELLA PIZZA, LLC, PIETRO
PASSALACQUA, and GUISEPPE LETO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04052 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation; liquidated
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees lawfully earned wages, minimum wages, and overtime
compensation, in contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor
Law. Pietro Passalacqua is an owner, shareholder, officer,
director, supervisor, managing agent, and I or proprietor of
Marabella Pizza, who actively participated, and continues to
actively participate in the day-to-day operations of Marabella
Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 0017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102


MATTERSIGHT CORP: "Shade" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to NICE Ltd.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Shade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mattersight Corporation, Kelly D. Conway,
Tench Coxe, Philip R. Dur, Henry J. Feinberg, John T. Kohler,
David B. Mullen, Michael J. Murray and John C. Staley,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00741, (D. Del., May 16, 2018), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Mattersight by NICE Ltd. through its wholly-owned subsidiaries
NICE Systems, Inc. and NICE Acquisition Sub, Inc., rescinding it
in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The lawsuit also
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.

The Purchaser commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Mattersight common stock for $2.70 per
share  and all of the outstanding shares of Mattersight preferred
stock for $7.80 per share.

According to the complaint, the Recommendation Statement omits
Mattersight's financial projections, including the financial
projections relied upon by Mattersight's financial advisor, Union
Square Advisors LLC, data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Union Square, and Mattersight insiders' potential conflicts of
interest.

NICE Ltd. is a provider of cloud and on-premises software
solutions and is organized under the laws of the State of Israel.
Mattersight is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 200 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100,
Chicago, Illinois 60606. Mattersight is a leader in behavioral
analytics and a pioneer in personality-based software products.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com
             dmurray@oelegal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
             mrogovin@weisslawllp.com

MCDONALD'S: Most Scoff at Cheese Lawsuit, But Few Are Lovin' It
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sweeney, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that two South
Floridians got litigious when they realized that a Quarter
Pounder without cheese was cheaper on the McDonald's app than the
same burger with cheese.

After all, they had been paying the with-cheese price for years
even though they asked to hold the cheese.

So now they're suing, and we asked readers what they thought of
the lawsuit. It's aiming for class-action status, though lawyers
for McDonald's say it would cause "utter chaos" in the restaurant
industry if it were to go forward.

Most readers agreed with McDonald's that this appeared to be a
frivolous claim.

"McD's should sue those people. Stupid lawsuit. But hey, nowadays
with so many lawyers, they will sue anyone," emailed Ransom
Bowen.

"If they are unhappy, they always have the option of going
somewhere else," wrote Helen McIlhenney. "How long did they order
them and not complain?"

But while that sentiment was certainly in the majority, it was
not universal.

"I resent having to pay for cheese when I don't want it -- one of
the reasons I don't patronize McD very often," emailed Rick
Johnson. "I hope the lawsuit prevails."

"I have been complaining of this very thing for years," wrote
another reader. "Anytime I asked for anything extra to be added,
like tomatoes or cheese, then the up charge is significant. Yet
if I delete those items, there is no reduction in price. A burger
containing those items cost more than a burger that doesn't, and
is also usually larger. So, if I buy the larger burger but omit
the items I don't like, I am charged as much is someone who buys
the burger with all the extra items added and the franchise
pockets the extra money."

That is not the way McDonald's sees it, though.

In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, lawyers for the fast-food
chain wrote, "When a customer orders a Quarter Pounder with
cheese or a Double Quarter Pounder with cheese as displayed on
the menu, but asks the restaurant to hold the cheese, the
customer is customizing a standard menu item to meet a personal
preference."

In other words, it's your decision to make the changes, so you're
responsible for eating the cost of the cheese. No word yet on
whether a judge agrees with the restaurant or believes the
plaintiffs deserve a break today.[GN]


MDL 2151: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Relief from Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief
from Judgment in the case captioned In re: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. CASSANDRA MCNAIR-STEPNEY, Movant-Appellant,
v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation/a foreign
corporation, DBA Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation/a foreign
corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-55327 (9th Cir.).

McNair-Stepney contends that both her right to due process and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were violated because neither
she nor her attorney received actual notice of the class action
settlement, thereby depriving her of an opportunity to opt out.
But neither due process nor Rule 23 require that each individual
class member receive actual notice.

The Ninth Circuit rules that neither due process nor Rule 23
require that each individual class member receive actual notice.
Due process instead requires notice reasonably calculated, under
all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections. Here, that standard was met.

Because the notice provided to the class was constitutionally
adequate, McNair-Stepney's due process rights were not violated.
The notice also comported with the requirements of Rule 23. The
district court therefore permissibly exercised its discretion by
denying her motion to opt out of the settlement long after final
judgment had been entered.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 4, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92nqgng from Leagle.com


MDL 2724: Filing of Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 16-
MD-2724 (E. D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the State
Attorneys General for 44 states, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ("State Plaintiffs")'s (i) motion
for leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") and
(ii) motion for a separate government track in the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL").

On Aug. 5, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") granted a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407,
transferring a civil action to the Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with nine other cases then
pending in the District, designating the MDL as "In re: Generic
Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation."  The MDL
encompassed actions by direct and indirect purchasers alleging
that the defendants, all of which are manufacturers of generic
pharmaceuticals, conspired to fix the prices of the two named
products.

After additional actions were filed or transferred into the MDL,
the JPML on April 6, 2017, renamed the MDL as "In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation" and expanded it to
encompass actions in which (a) the Plaintiffs assert claims for
price fixing of generic drugs in violation of the Sherman Act
and/or state antitrust laws on behalf of overlapping putative
nationwide classes of direct or indirect purchasers of generic
pharmaceuticals; (b) the average market price of the subject
generic pharmaceutical is alleged to have increased between 2012
and the present; (c) the Defendants are alleged to have
effectuated the alleged conspiracy through direct company-to-
company contacts and through joint activities undertaken through
trade associations, in particular meetings of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association; and (d) the allegations stem from the
same government investigation into anticompetitive conduct in the
generic pharmaceuticals industry.

These cases included the proposed class actions filed by numerous
Plaintiffs sorted into three groups (Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs,
End-Payer Plaintiffs, and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs); each
group thereafter has filed 18 consolidated class action
complaints, one complaint for each generic pharmaceutical at
issue.

The JPML expanded the MDL again to include State Plaintiffs'
litigation in the MDL.  The JPML noted that State Plaintiffs'
claims stem from the same government investigation into
anticompetitive conduct in the generic pharmaceuticals industry.
At that time, the State Plaintiffs asserted claims as to
glyburide and doxycycline hyclate delayed release.

More recently, an action was filed in the Court on behalf of
private Plaintiffs who do not wish to be part of the class-action
complaints ("Direct Action Plaintiffs").  The Direct Action
Plaintiffs have filed a complaint alleging an overarching
conspiracy and naming 30 drugs (those named by the Class
Plaintiffs and those in the State Plaintiffs' proposed CAC).

The proposed CAC asserts claims for violation of federal
antitrust laws and supplemental claims based upon state law.  The
State Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, drug manufacturers
and suppliers, have conspired to artificially inflate and
maintain prices and reduce competition for 15 generic drugs:
acetazolamide, doxycycline hyclate delayed release, doxycycline
monohydrate, fosinopril-hydrochlorothiazide, glipizide-metformin,
glyburide, glyburide-metformin, leflunomide, meprobamate,
nimodipine, nystatin, paromomycin, theophylline, verapamil, and
zoledronic acid.  The CAC additionally alleges that the
Defendants participated in an overarching conspiracy to minimize
if not thwart competition across the generic drug industry
through a series of specific conspiracies.

The State Plaintiffs allege that competition is a key factor in
the cost of generic drugs.  They allege illegal schemes as to
each of the 15 drugs consisting of market allocation agreements
to maintain market share and avoid price erosion and agreements
to fix prices.  These activities allegedly had the purpose or
effect of unreasonably restraining and injuring competition,
directly relating in an increase in consumer prices for generic
pharmaceuticals.

In seeking leave to amend, there is no dispute that the State
Plaintiffs have not acted with undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motives.  In opposing the motion to amend, the
Defendants argue amendment would be futile, because the CAC fails
to allege an overarching conspiracy, and would prejudice the
Defendants, because of the burden of discovery and potential
scope of liability such an overarching claim could portend.

Judge Rufe finds that the litigation is in a significantly
earlier stage, there are continuing state and federal
investigations, and the Court is not prepared to rule at this
time that it is implausible that pharmaceutical manufacturers
agreed for anticompetitive reasons how the broader market for
generic pharmaceuticals will be divided.  Although, as the
Defendants point out, the proposed CAC is structured in part to
detail the allegations as to each of the 15 drugs named, the
State Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants were
coordinating more than one drug at a time and thereby influencing
the broader generic drug market.  Therefore, amendment would not
be futile.

The Judge also finds that the arguments of all the Defendants as
to potential liability, including joint and several liability,
will be carefully assessed, whether in the context of a
consolidated complaint or a single-pharmaceutical complaint.  She
recognizes the concern of the majority in Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly with regard to the limits of judicial efforts to control
discovery, but nevertheless is prepared, with special master
assistance, to make all necessary efforts in this regard, and to
require that discovery be conducted in a proportionate fashion.

Finally, the Judge does not accept the Defendants' arguments that
the creation of a track for the State Plaintiffs will result in
chaos to the MDL proceedings, or that it will result in unfair
prejudice to the Defendants.  She has no hesitation in making
structural adjustments as the needs of the MDL evolve.  A Third
Electronic Case Management Order will be entered.

Judge Rufe is persuaded that amendment should be allowed and the
docketing structure modified to accommodate the amendment.
Hence, she granted the State Plaintiffs' motions for leave to
file a CAC and for a separate government track in the MDL.
Appropriate orders will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Z00o6Q from Leagle.com.

DEFENSE LIAISON COUNSEL, Defendant, represented by CHUL PAK --
cpak@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC, JAN P.
LEVINE -- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, LAURA S.
SHORES -- laura.shores@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
SCHOLER LLP, SAUL P. MORGENSTERN --
saul.morgenstern@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
LLP & SHERON KORPUS -- skorpus@kasowitz.com -- KASOWITZ BENSON
TORRES LLP.

DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID
F. SORENSEN -- dsorensen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, LINDA P.
NUSSBAUM -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC,
MICHAEL L. ROBERTS -- mlr@alabamatortlaw.com -- ROBERTS LAW FIRM,
ROBERT N. KAPLAN -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- KAPLAN FOX &
KILSHEIMER, LLP, THOMAS M. SOBOL -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & ROBERTA D. LIEBENBERG --
mail@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK.

END-PAYER PLAINTIFFS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by ADAM J.
ZAPALA -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP,
BONNY SWEENEY -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, DENA C.
SHARP -- Dena Sharp -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, ELIZABETH JOAN CABRASER
-- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,
LLP, GREGORY S. ASCIOLLA -- gasciolla@labaton.com -- LABATON
SUCHAROW LLP, HEIDI M SILTON -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE
GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, JAMES R. DUGAN, II, THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, JAYNE
A. GOLDSTEIN, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, JOSEPH R.
SAVERI -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM,
MICHAEL M. BUCHMAN -- mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC
& MINDEE J. REUBEN -- mreuben@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG LLC.

INDIRECT RESELLERS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by DANIEL S.
MASON, FURTH SALEM MASON & LI LLP, ELIZABETH TIPPING --
info@nealharwell.com -- NEAL & HARWELL, PLC, FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
-- fos@scarpullalaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA &
JONATHAN W. CUNEO -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
LLP.

INDIRECT RESELLERS PSC, plaintiffs represented by DON BARRETT --
donbarrettpa@gmail.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICES.

STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Plaintiffs, represented by W. JOSEPH
NIELSEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, LAURA JOHNSON MARTELLA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, MAX M. MILLER, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF IOWA, ROBERT L. HUBBARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK,
TIMOTHY M. FRASER, FL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & WADE ELLIS
BEAVERS, OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by ANDREW J.
EWALT, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, ELLEN R. CLARKE, U.S. DEPT OF
JUSTICE, JAY OWEN, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, JOSEPH C. FOLIO, III,
U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE & RYAN J. DANKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ANTITTRUST DIVISION.


MICROSOFT CORP: Sex-Bias Suit Denied Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Lerman, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette,
reports that two women suing Microsoft over gender discrimination
did not prove that performance reviews were conducted so
uniformly across the company that thousands of other women could
join the bias case, a Seattle judge wrote in a decision released
to the public on July 5.

A ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robart denied the motion
to make the suit a class action, but his written decision was
sealed temporarily while Microsoft and lawyers for the plaintiffs
redacted sensitive information.

The denial is a big roadblock for the plaintiffs and their
lawyers, who were hoping to add more than 8,600 women to the
nearly 3-year-old lawsuit that alleges widespread gender
discrimination across the company. The plaintiffs can appeal the
decision or decide to try other individual cases separately while
continuing on with the original lawsuit.

"This order really illustrates how difficult it is for a group of
employees to really challenge gender discrimination at a company
on a class basis," said Charlotte Garden, a law professor at
Seattle University.

A wave of gender-bias lawsuits against companies in the male-
dominated tech industry have started to reach critical courtroom
stages, with some of the judges' decisions relying on a common
precedent.

Class-action status was also denied in a gender-bias lawsuit
against social-media giant Twitter. The ruling by that San
Francisco judge relied on the same previous case cited by Robart:
a 2011 Supreme Court decision that rejected a proposed class in a
gender-bias case against Walmart. The court said the potential
1.6 million plaintiffs, who worked across the country under
different managers, did not have similar enough experiences to be
considered a class.

Robart came to a similar conclusion in the Microsoft case. The
potential class were all women who held technical roles at the
company, but those roles varied quite a bit, as did the locations
where they worked, the judge wrote.

The case against Microsoft centers on the company's performance-
review system, and claims it allows managers to systemically
discriminate against women by paying them less and giving them
fewer promotions than male employees.

The current and former employees all were evaluated under the
same performance review system, but it was one that left much
discretion and latitude to individual managers, the court said.

The review systems involve several meetings at different levels,
including between the employee and her manager, and eventually a
group of managers together. Microsoft gave some guidelines for
these reviews, but left a lot of decision-making power up to
specific managers and groups.[GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Court Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, A.H.
by and through G.H. and L.C., both individually, and on behalf of
the MICROSOFT CORPORATION WELFARE PLAN, and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals and plans, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION WELFARE PLAN and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C17-1889-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff A.H. brings the putative class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), the Federal Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act ("Parity Act"), and its implementing
regulations, and the Affordable Care Act ("ACA").

Plaintiff A.H. is 16 and suffers from a mental illness and
substance abuse disorder.  He is a beneficiary of the Plan based
on his mother's employment at Microsoft.  On Feb. 2, 2016, after
conventional treatment had failed, the Plaintiff entered Wingate
Wilderness Therapy, which is a wilderness therapy program located
in Utah.  Wingate has a state license to provide "Outdoor Youth
Treatment for 80 Youth Clients Ages 13 to 17."  The Plaintiff
received behavioral, substance abuse, and mental health services
while residing at Wingate from Feb. 2, 2016 to April 11, 2016.

Wingate submitted bi-monthly claims to the Plan's claims
administrator, Premera Blue Cross, to cover the cost of the
Plaintiff's attendance.  Premera determined that the cost of
attending Wingate was not covered by the Plan and denied the
Plaintiff benefits.  The Plaintiff internally appealed Premera's
decision.  Premera denied the appeal, concluding that wilderness
programs are excluded by the plan.  The Plaintiff subsequently
filed the lawsuit, challenging Premera's denial of benefits under
the Plan.

Judge Coughenour finds that just because the Plan confers
discretion on Microsoft does not mean that discretion
automatically passes to Premera.  The Defendants merely point to
the Plan language that confers discretion on Microsoft and allows
Microsoft to delegate its discretion to third parties.  On this
record, he says the Defendant has not met its burden to
demonstrate the Plan conferred discretion on Premera regarding
benefit determinations such that the Court should apply an abuse
of discretion standard.

Reviewing the Premera's interpretation of the Plan de novo, he
concludes that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Wingate
was an eligible provider, as that term is used in the second
sentence of the wilderness program exclusion.  Therefore, he will
deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first and
second claims based on the Plan's wilderness program exclusion.

The also Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
facts demonstrating that the Plan's exclusion represents a
treatment limitation that is more restrictive for mental health
benefits than other medical benefits.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's Parity Act claim will be dismissed without prejudice
and with leave to amend.  If the Plaintiff chooses to file an
amended complaint, he must allege facts that plausibly
demonstrate that the Plan's wilderness program exclusion only
places a limitation on mental health or chemical dependency
treatment.

The Judge further finds that the ACA's anti-discrimination
provision does not require a health plan to provide coverage for
any treatment just because it is rendered by a state-licensed
provider.  It merely requires that insurers not discriminate
against state-licensed providers when their services are covered
by a healthcare plan.  The Plaintiff does not cite a single case
that supports its expansive reading of this provision, which, if
adopted, would require insurers to cover any treatment performed
by a state-licensed provider.  Accordingly, he will dismiss with
prejudice the Plaintiff's ACA claim.

Finally, the Judge will dismiss the Plaintiff's claim two with
leave to amend.  He finds that the Plaintiff has not offered any
facts that demonstrate the denial of coverage for wilderness
programs has caused losses to the Plan itself.  Indeed, as the
Defendants point out the denial of coverage likely resulted in
savings to the Plan, not losses.  If the Plaintiff chooses to
file an amended complaint, he must allege facts demonstrating
that the Plan was injured as a result of the Defendants' conduct.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In accordance
with his order, (i) he denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claim one; (ii) dismissed without prejudice and
with leave to amend the Plaintiff's claim two; (iii) dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's Parity
Act claim as alleged in claim three; and (iv) dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiff's ACA claim as alleged in claim three.
If the Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he
must do so within 30 days from the issuance of this order.  The
amendment is permitted solely to address the deficiencies
described.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ACj0Q0 from Leagle.com.

A. H., by and through G.H. and L.C., both individually, and on
behalf of the Microsoft Corporation Welfare Plan, and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals and plans, Plaintiff,
represented by Jordan Matthew Lewis, JORDAN LEWIS, PA, pro hac
vice, Richard E. Spoonemore, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
& Eleanor Hamburger, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

Microsoft Corporation Welfare Plan & Microsoft Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Geoffrey M. Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, pro hac vice,
Heather L. Richardson -- hrichardson@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON
DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Joseph Doren --
rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice
& Rebecca J. Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE.


MMDO CORP: Ofarrill Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
OSMANY VALDIVIA OFARRILL, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. MMDO CORP d/b/a MONTES DE OCA
ORIGINAL PIZZA CUBANA (ESTILO VARADERO) and MANUEL MONTES DE
OCA, JR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22812-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
July 13, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the laws of the United States,
and for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by the Corporate
Defendant, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being compensated at a rate of not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. In
addition, the Corporate Defendant almost never paid Plaintiff at
all. Plaintiff was employed as a cook and assistant manager,
performing the same or similar duties as that of those other
similarly situated cooks and assistant managers whom Plaintiff
observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Stefforia Sues over Defective Hair Products
---------------------------------------------------------
DONNA STEFFORIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22837-UU
(S.D. Fla., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's concealment and non-disclosure of the defective
and/or harmful nature of its hair products.

This action arises from the sale of hair care products designed,
manufactured, marketed, and sold by Monat. Monat promotes its
products as "naturally-based" and "safe." The Company's
promotional materials state, "[a]s more and more people become
aware of how naturally based products can positively affect their
lives, they are making the switch and opting for healthier
options" and that Monat products "gently cleanse and nourish"
hair. Monat represents that its products are "suitable for all
skin and hair types."

Despite these representations, many users of Monat products
experienced serious adverse effects, including severe scalp
irritation and hair loss. Once the irritation and hair loss
starts, it can often continue for weeks or months, even if the
consumer immediately discontinues use of the product. One
consumer who used Monat products started a Facebook page that has
more than 8,000 members called "Monat -- My Modern Nightmare." It
is filled with stories by women reporting injuries caused by the
Monat haircare product. Defendant provides no warning about these
adverse effects. To the contrary, Monat deflected concerns
expressed by consumers, stating that initial hair loss is part of
a "detox" period before which the regenerative properties of the
product become apparent. The Company then suggests that consumers
purchase even more Monat product to carry them through the detox
period. They were misled into purchasing products represented to
be natural and beneficial -- and certainly not harmful -- which
is not what they received.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Latoya C. Brown, Esq.
          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: julie@colson.com
                  latoya@colson.com
                  b.cancela@colson.com
                  eservice@colson.com

               - and -

          Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: ggiblin@audetlaw.com
                  hdarling@audetlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Carroll Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Carroll, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01093 (E.D. Mo., July 5, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed
& Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide,
Roundup Original 2k herbicide, and Roundup Original II Herbicide,
Roundup.

Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation. It was headquartered in Creve Coeur,
Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
          11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


NEUMAN'S KITCHEN: Unlawfully Retained Tips, Demasi & Graham Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DEMASI AND PAMELA GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NEUMAN'S KITCHEN;
PAUL NEUMAN; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case
No. 710775/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover
unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated persons who presently or formerly
performed work for Defendants as service employees, including
such workers as wait staff, waiters, servers, captains, bussers,
bartenders, food runners, bridal attendants, and in various other
related customarily-tipped trades, at Defendants' catered events
held in the State of New York, pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & the Putative Class:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


NEW WEST: Court Grants Qualified Protective Order in "Gordon"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana,
Great Falls Division, in the case captioned LANCE R. GORDON and
RONI A. GORDON, Plaintiffs, v. NEW WEST HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendant, No. CV-15-24-GF-BMM (D. Mont.), issued a qualified
protective order in light of the protections that the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) affords to
information that the parties in this case must disclose in order
to provide notice to individuals that have been identified as
putative class members in this class action litigation, the
parties find it appropriate to enter into this protective order
that ensures the privacy and confidentiality of such information,
consistent with 45 C.F.R. Section 164.512(e).

The parties to this Order are expressly prohibited from using or
disclosing the PHI for any purpose other than in this litigation.
Further, any party who comes into possession of PHI pursuant to
this Protective Order is ordered to return or destroy such PHI
including all copies made immediately upon conclusion of this
action pursuant to 45 C.F.R. Section 164.512.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yasenszq from Leagle.com.

Lance R Gordon & Roni A Gordon, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Patrick Buckley -dbuckley@danbuckleylaw.com -- BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE
& Lawrence A. Anderson, ANDERSON LAW OFFICE.

New West Health Services, and its related affiliates,
subsidiaries, and successors, Defendant, represented by Ian
McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK, Kelsey
E. Bunkers  -- kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com --  CROWLEY FLECK &
William M. Morris -- wmorris@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK,
PLLP.


NEW YORK: Class Decertification in "Monaco" Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY R. MONACO, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANN MARIE
T. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New
York State Office of Mental Health, CATHERINE A. CAHILL, M.D., S.
SARWAL, personally also known as SARWAL, M.D., WILLIAM PACKARD,
M.D., personally, B. PALMA-ACQUINO, M.D., personally, J. TUZEL,
R. DAVE, personally, Defendants-Appellants, ALAN AVILES, in his
official capacity as the Director of the New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, DOMINICK STANZIONE, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of the Psychiatric Unit of Long
Island College Hospital, M.D. S. TUZEL, KATHLEEN KELLY, PATRIC A.
MAHONEY, in his official capacity of himself and all other
sheriffs and other individuals who transport incompetent
defendants from jails to psychiatric hospitals in New York State,
ROBERT J. CIMINO, Suffolk County Attorney, MARTIN HORN, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department
of Corrections, ALFRED TISCH, in his official capacity as Sheriff
of Suffolk County, KENNETH SKODNICK, in his official capacity as
chairman of Psychiatry at Nassau University Medical Center, M.D.
MARC SEDLER, in his official capacity as Chairman of the
Department of Psychiatry at University Hospital of the State
University of New York at Stony Brook, BENJAMIN CHU, in his
official capacity as the Director of the New York City Health and
Hospital Corporation, M.D. NYAPATI RAO, in his official capacity
as Chairman of Psychiatry at Nassau University Medical Center, V.
GORYALIS, ALAN WEINSTOCK, BERNARD KERIK, LOUIS MARCOS, in his
official capacity as the Director of the New York City Health and
Hospital Corp., MARTIN KESSELMAN, on behalf of directors or chief
operating officers of state licensed and governmental operated
in-patient psychiatric units in the Eastern District of New York,
M.D. ARNOLD LIGHT, on behalf of himself and directors or chief
operating officers of privately operated in-patient psychiatric
units located in the Eastern District of New York, WILLIAM
FRASER, in his official capacity of Commissioner of the New York
City Dept. of Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 16-3537-cv (2d
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the Sept. 27, 2016 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granting of summary judgment to
Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, Tuzel, Dave, and Packard, and its
decertification order.

In February 1998, Monaco was arrested for harassment after
threatening to kill his mother, and the Town of East Hampton
Justice Court ordered Monaco to refrain from any criminal
behavior towards her.  He threatened to kill his mother again the
next month and was charged with criminal contempt and harassment.
Monaco was incarcerated at the Suffolk County Correctional
Facility from March 24 to May 8, with the exception of seven days
in which he was civilly committed to Eastern Long Island Hospital
("ELIH").

While he was in jail, the Town of East Hampton Justice Court
ordered that Monaco be subject to psychiatric examination.
Pursuant to this order, Packard and Nicholas Aiello, Ph.D.,
concluded that Monaco was incompetent and incapacitated under CPL
Section 730.10.  The court then dismissed the criminal charges
against Monaco and committed him to OMH pursuant to CPL Section
730.30.  Monaco was discharged to the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center
on May 8.

Three days later, Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, and Tuzel, all
psychiatrists employed by Pilgrim, examined Monaco and concluded
that he required in-patient psychiatric hospitalization and
treatment.  On June 3, the court issued an order authorizing
Monaco's continued retention.  Monaco chose not to petition for a
rehearing and review under MHL Section 9.35.

Shortly before Monaco's 60-day involuntary commitment period
would expire, his treating physician, Dave, encouraged Monaco to
voluntarily commit himself under MHL Section 9.13.  Monaco did
so, but alleges that he was coerced.  In February 1999, while
Monaco was voluntarily committed, his attorney filed a notice of
appeal from the June 3, 1998 court order authorizing his
detention.  The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot
three months later.

On May 5, 1998, while he was still incarcerated at Suffolk County
Correctional, Monaco filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Sifton, J.), against various
state and local officials, challenging New York's civil
commitment regime and requesting declaratory and injunctive
relief.

In 1999, the district court certified a plaintiff class of all
people who have been or will be: (1) charged with a minor felony
or misdemeanor, (2) evaluated to determine whether or not they
are competent to stand trial, and (3) found by court appointed
psychiatrists to lack the capacity to stand trial and awaiting a
determination of the competency issue by the local criminal
court.

A week later, Monaco filed his Second Amended Complaint.  This
contained individual Section 1983 claims for damages against the
state and local officials, as well as Packard, Sarwal, Palma-
Acquino, Tuzel, and Dave.  As relevant here, he alleged that
Packard, by failing to prescribe him Lithium when he had bipolar
mood disorder, was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs;
Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, and Tuzel committed him when he was not in
fact dangerous; and Dave coerced him to sign the voluntary
commitment forms.

He further alleged that the clinical methodology that
psychiatrists employ at several OMH hospitals when making civil
commitment decisions is inaccurate, and also that OMH
psychiatrists conclude that patients are dangerous as pretext for
their desire to treat otherwise non-dangerous people.  He did
not, however, challenge Pilgrim's commitment practices, beyond
his individual claims.

Monaco filed a third complaint in March 2000, which listed a new
plaintiff, the Mental Disability Law Clinic at Touro Law Center.
This complaint sought to divide the certified plaintiff class
into two subclasses.  The first would consist of all people who
met the certified class' three prongs and, if remanded, would be
subjected to a civil commitment evaluation under the MHL.   The
second would consist of all people in Kings, Queens, Richmond,
Nassau, and Suffolk Counties who are subject to evaluation under
the MHL to determine whether or not they satisfy the criteria for
civil commitment.  As the litigation progressed, the first
subclass came to be known as the "Incompetency Subclass," the
second as the "Civil Commitment Subclass."

In December 2002, the district court granted summary judgment to
Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, Tuzel, and Dave, and certified the
Incompetency and Civil Commitment Subclasses.  It certified the
Incompetency and Civil Commitment Subclasses and appointed the
Mental Disability Law Clinic as the class representative for both
and Monaco as class representative for the Incompetency Subclass
only.  Monaco could not serve as a Civil Commitment Subclass
class representative for lack of typicality, the court concluded,
because he was collaterally estopped from relitigating the state
court's dangerousness finding.

In March 2016, the district court granted Packard's motion for
summary judgment and decertified the Civil Commitment and
Incompetency Subclasses.  The court then decertified both
subclasses because neither had an adequate representative.  The
parties jointly stipulated that the district court's March 2016
decision disposed of the case' remaining active issues.
Accordingly, the court entered final judgment on Sept. 27, 2016.

On appeal, Monaco argues that the district court erred in (1)
granting summary judgment to Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, Tuzel, Dave,
and Packard, and (2) decertifying the Incompetency Subclass.

The Appellate Court holds that summary judgment was properly
granted on Monaco's claims against Sarwal, Palma-Acquino, and
Tuzel.  It finds that a party who has not had an opportunity to
appeal an adverse finding has not had a full and fair opportunity
to litigate that issue.  When the trial court dismissed Monaco's
appeal as moot, the Appellate Division did not vacate the trial
court order, and so the trial court order had preclusive effect.

On Monaco's assertion that Dave is not entitled to Youngberg
deference because Dave coerced Monaco into voluntarily committing
himself, the Court finds that, in his brief, Monaco conclusorily
states that Dave "coerced," rather than "encouraged" him has no
legal import.  The district court was therefore correct to hold
that Dave was entitled to summary judgment.

Assuming arguendo that Monaco is correct that Packard's failure
to prescribe Lithium was reckless, the Court finds that Packard
would still be entitled to qualified immunity.  Because Packard
did not violate clearly established law when he treated Monaco in
1998, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment
on this claim.

Finally, the Appellate Court concludes that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Monaco was an
atypical member of the Subclass and decertifying the Subclass.
It finds that Monaco's claims were still not typical of the
Subclass because, once he challenged Pilgrim's initial commitment
order, his procedural history diverged from a typical commitment.
Monaco received a hearing before a judge, during which he
testified and cross-examined witnesses.  The judge decided to
approve his involuntary commitment only after he received
additional medical records, and two additional psychiatrists
confirmed the three Pilgrim psychiatrists' initial diagnosis.

Hence, the Court holds that the accuracy of their clinical
methodology does not seem to occupy essentially the same degree
of centrality to his claim as it does for the other class
members, because all five psychiatrists concluded that Monaco was
dangerous, and the state court judge believed these conclusions
to be sufficiently reliable.

The Appellate Court has considered Monaco's remaining arguments
and find them to be without merit.  Accordingly, it affirmed the
judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/IS46ra from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM M. BROOKS -- wbrooks@tourolaw.edu -- Central Islip, NY.
for Plaintiff-Appellant Monaco.

SETH M. ROKOSKY (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven
C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Andrew Rhys Davies, Assistant
Solicitor General of Counsel, on the brief), for Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, State of New York, for
Defendants-Appellees Sullivan, Cahill, Sarwal, Acquino, Tuzel,
and Dave.

DREW W. SCHIRMER, Principal Assistant County Attorney, for Dennis
M. Brown, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendant-
Appellee William Packard M.D.

Roberto J. Gonzalez -- rgonzalez@paulweiss.com -- Michelle S.
Kallen -- mkallen@paulweiss.com -- Laurence Tai --
ltai@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Mental Hygiene Legal Service, The
National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, Advocacy
Unlimited, Inc., The Connecticut Legal Rights Project, Inc.,
Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and
Disability Rights Maine.


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Basso" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNA BASSO, AMY HARTMAN, AND JAIME VILLA RUIZ,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-
7295 (VM) (KNF) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file
a second amended complaint ("SAC") which would: (1) include "core
specific allegations explaining the basis for claiming that
Defendant misrepresented the nature and quality of the education
at Tisch Asia to prospective students;" (2) include a new theory
of liability -- a claim for negligent concealment based on the
same operative facts that underpin Plaintiffs' other claims; and
(3) exclude the cause of action for breach of duty to act in good
faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiffs' amendment is prompted by evidence, recently
uncovered during discovery showing that: (a) the Defendant failed
to disclose that Tisch Asia was an uncertain, five-year
experiment; and (b) NYU's top administration was interested in
Tisch Asia's failure from the very beginning and knew of the high
risk that the program would have to be closed if the Singaporean
Government did not repeal its tax on tuition, none of which was
disclosed to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs assert that the amendment will not require
additional discovery and will not prejudice the Defendant"
because: (i) the Plaintiffs have been deposed and the proposed
amendment does not implicate any of their testimony; (ii) no
undue delay exists because the Plaintiffs obtained new evidence
forming the basis of the "Negligent Concealment" cause of action
"in April 2018"; and (iii) even absent amendment of the
complaint, Plaintiffs are seeking an extension of the discovery
schedule.

The Defendant contends that the amendment: (1) improperly
reasserts claims under New York General Business Law ("GBL") that
the Court already dismissed on NYU's motion to dismiss; and (2) a
negligent concealment" cause of action, is non-viable, because
under New York law, a university cannot have a special
relationship with its students, and duplicative of the
Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim.  Moreover, the
request to amend is made in bad faith because the Plaintiffs knew
about the proposed allegations, since at least November 2017,
when NYU produced documents regarding the five year review of the
program.  The Defendant asserts it will be prejudiced by the
amended pleading, since it did not have an opportunity to explore
the new allegations contained in the SAC.

Magistrate Judge Fox finds that although the assigned district
judge found that the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts that
indicate a special relationship exists to plead a negligent
misrepresentation claim, no fiduciary relationship is alleged in
the proposed SAC or mentioned by the Plaintiffs in their reply.
Thus, absent the allegation of fiduciary relationship between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the New York equitable tolling
theory proffered by the Plaintiffs in their reply would not be
applicable to toll the statute of limitations in this case.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may not revive the GBL Sections 349
and 350 causes of action, dismissed previously as time barred,
based on the proffered theory of equitable tolling, since such
causes of action would be futile.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge finds that amending the
complaint because the Plaintiffs obtained certain evidence during
discovery that they believe supports their negligent
misrepresentation cause of action would be a futile exercise that
would prolong the action unjustifiably and prejudice the
Defendant unduly.

Finally, he finds that in their First Amended Class Action
Complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted "Count II: Breach of Duty To
Act in Good Faith and Conduct Fair Dealing," which they now
propose to exclude.  However, that cause of action, he says, was
dismissed when the assigned district judge granted, in part, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss as to the breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Plaintiffs' attempt
to withdraw the cause of action that was already dismissed is
unnecessary and frivolous.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Fox denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/iIFkNU from Leagle.com.

Anna Basso, Amy Hartman & Jaime Villa Ruiz, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aliaksandra Ramanenka -- aramanenka@gslawny.com --
Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Matthew Francis
Schwartz, Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC & Oren Giskan --
ogiskan@gslawny.com -- Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson & Stewart,
LLP.

New York University, Defendant, represented by Edmund M. O'Toole
-- emotoole@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Michael J. Volpe --
mjvolpe@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Benjamin Eldridge Stockman --
bestockman@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, David Neil Cinotti --
dcinotti@pashmanstein.com -- Venable LLP & Sandy Schlesinger --
sschlesinger@Venable.com -- Venable LLP.


NEW ZEALAND: Kiwi Case Opens Class Action Door
----------------------------------------------
Angela Bilbow, writing for CDR, reports that in the first 'true'
class action to go to full trial in New Zealand, the country's
High Court has found in favour of a group of kiwifruit growers
who are seeking damages from the government over an avoidable
bacterial disease.

In Strathboss Kiwifruit v Attorney-General, a case funded by LPF
Litigation Funding, Justice Jillian Mallon, sitting in
Wellington's High Court, handed down judgment in the first stage
of representative (class action) proceedings brought by a group
of kiwifruit growers and a post-harvest operator seeking hundreds
of millions of dollars against the government after the deadly
bacterial disease Psa caused significant harm to crop in 2010.

The court held that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF
-- now Ministry of Primary Industries) owed a duty of care to the
kiwifruit growers, which, at pre-border stage, it breached when
it granted a permit for Kiwi Pollen to introduce a shipment of
kiwifruit anthers (essentially pollen) which was used to
artificially pollinate orchards.[GN]


NHL: Retired NHLer Battles Concussions
--------------------------------------
Mike Aiken, writing for Kenora On Line, reports that at first, it
seems like he's living the life of Riley. Joe Murphy works as a
labourer, when he needs money, and he sleeps in a tent in a
farmer's field, when he needs shelter.

During a short chat, he'll talk about settling down a bit in an
apartment. He says he now calls Kenora his home by the water, but
finding affordable housing is next to impossible, not just
because of the market.

The thing is, Joe Murphy's not your average Joe. He's a retired
NHL player.

A first overall draft pick of Detroit, he played 15 seasons,
including a Stanley Cup win with Mark Messier and the Oilers in
1990.

However, life after hockey hasn't been kind to him, to put it
mildly. Truth be told, Joe Murphy's one of 80 plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit against the NHL related to concussions.

"It's a very serious matter, concussions. I've suffered a
horrific, serious concussion that debilitated me for a long time.
It was tough," he says, recalling how he fractured his skull in a
game.

In their class action, the former players say the league didn't
do enough to protect them and warn them about the dangers of the
game, including fighting. The league, however, says they did
their part, and the players were well aware of the risks
involved.

As the interview moves on, Murphy talks about the debilitating
energy loss and lethargy that he felt, after he suffered a
concussion. He says this took its toll on his play towards the
end of his career.

"After I was getting hit, fireflies around me all the time. Just
everywhere," he continued. "Even at the end of my career, I'd hit
a guy and then 'boom.' There'd be those sparkly things all over.
Very difficult."

An article from the Globe and Mail talks about how Murphy's
career might've been at an end in Boston in 2000, after he
stirred things up in the dressing room with teammates and his
coach. Nevertheless, Murphy would go on to play another two
seasons in Washington, before retiring.

Today, Murphy notes doctors have been gathering information for
close to 90 years now, and there are fewer players suffering from
concussions. The speed and finesse of today's game is
'excellent,' he says.

Still, he thinks there should be something done for the retired
players, who need help. Murphy thinks they should be 'taken care
of,' which he thinks should involve some financial aid and some
medical help.

At this point in his life, he admits he's 'de-escalated,' meaning
he's lost everything. One estimate said he'd made more than $15
million in his playing days, but today he doesn't even have a
phone. He acknowledges he hasn't been online in years. There's no
contact information, even for fans who want to reach out.

The class action lawsuit continues to crawl along at a snail's
pace, so it won't be a big payday anytime soon. A hearing in
federal court in Minneapolis last spring simply dealt with
motions.

Recently, two more retired players joined the class action. One
of them is Nick Boynton.

Last month, his open letter entitled Everything's Not O.K. was
reprinted in The Players' Tribune.

"Whenever things get really bad, and I find myself thinking about
death, it's always in the context of release. Escaping the pain.
And no longer being around to make the lives of those I love
miserable," he says in the letter.

Boynton notes he knew enforcers, who also suffered after hockey:

   -- Steve Montador
   -- Wade Belak
   -- Derek Boogaard
   -- Rick Rypien

"I've lied for too long. I can't lie anymore," Boynton writes.

Boynton describes breaking down to cry before his kids, or being
unable to leave the house to visit his daughters. The alcohol and
drugs were there to self-medicate and relieve the pain, but rehab
and self-help programs weren't enough.

Instead, he talks about a specialized treatment centre in
Florida, where they've been able to pinpoint problem areas in his
brain, then develop programs to help. If he'd known what was
coming, Boynton says he would easily have retired from the game
earlier, give away his Stanley Cup ring, and scratch his name of
the trophy. He would trade it all, if it meant he could feel
better.[GN]


NY COMMUNITY: "Coty" Suit Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Yatshukovichka N. Coty, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NY Community
Financial, LLC, and other affiliated entities that employed
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, Defendant, Case No.
153891/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April 26, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
due with corresponding liquidated damages, reimbursement of
uniform maintenance expenses, 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 for violation of New York Labor Laws.

Defendant owns and operates check-cashing stores. Denville
allegedly failed to pay contractually and/or statutorily required
prevailing wages and supplemental benefits.

On May 17, 2018, Coty filed a request for an
Affirmation/Affidavit of Service from the NY Community Financial.
[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


OCEAN DRIVE: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Vazquez, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Ocean Drive Restaurant LB, LLC and Anselmo V.
Hernandez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-21971 (S.D.
Fla., May 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under
the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ocean Drive Restaurant operates as Baguette Restaurant, a
restaurant and bar located at 1052 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach where
Vazquez worked as a non-exempt hourly bus boy from from August 1,
2016 to January 1, 2018. He did not receive the mandatory direct
(or cash) wages and he did not receive enough tips to equal the
minimum hourly wage of $7.25 per hour. He worked many hours in
excess of forty every week, however, was not paid any additional
amount for overtime hours, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


OFF-WHITE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFF-WHITE, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04046-MKB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 13,
2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Off-White to change
its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-
impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, who is legally blind,
brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.off-white.com/en/US, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-
impaired people. Off-White denies full and equal access to its
Website. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York
City Human Rights Law against Off-White.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com


PAY CAR: Court Certifies Class of Laid Off Employees in "Lester"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGIE LESTER, Plaintiff, v. PAY CAR MINING, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D. W.V.),
Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Lester, initiated the action by filing his Complaint in the Court
on Jan. 20, 2017, alleging that the Defendants violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act by
failing to provide a 60-day notice to employees of a pending
layoff.

As of October 2012, Mr. Lester was a full time employee of Mechel
Bluestone and Pay Car Mining at the Pay Car Mine, and had been
for over two years.  On Oct. 20, 2012, the Defendants ordered a
mass layoff at the Pay Car Mine.  They verbally informed all of
the employees at the Pay Car Mine that there was no further work
and that they were laid off.

Between Sept. 1, 2012, and Dec. 1, 2012, approximately 80 miners,
including the named Plaintiff, were laid off from the Pay Car
Mine and the Burke Mountain Mine Complex.  Neither the Plaintiff
nor his collective bargaining representative, the United Mine
Workers of America, received written notice of the layoff.

The Plaintiff claims that Mechel Bluestone, in coordination with
Bluestone Industries and Bluestone Coal Corp., possessed de facto
and de jure control over the Pay Car Mine such that Mechel
Bluestone ultimately made the decision as to when to idle the
mine's operations and lay off workers.

On April 24, 2018, the parties attended a mediation conference
before United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn.  They
did not reach a settlement agreement, and on the same day, the
Plaintiff filed the motion to certify the class.  The Defendants
filed their response in opposition on May 8, 2018, and the
Plaintiff filed his reply on May 15, 2018.

Judge Berger finds that the Plaintiff's class definition
satisfies the WARN Act's standing requirements.  He also finds
that the Plaintiff's class definition is not overly broad and
only includes those putative class members who were laid off from
the Burke Mountain Mine Complex within an aggregated 90-day
period pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 2102(d) and does not use
legal terms of art that amount to a fail-safe class definition.
He further finds that the class definition is not flawed.
Finally, he finds that the he proposed class satisfies the class
action requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.  He certified the action as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  He certified the Class, subject to any later
modification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), of all full-time
employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc. who were terminated from
employment, or subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke
Mountain Mine Complex, including at the Pay Car Mine, from Sept.
2, 2012 through Dec. 1, 2012.

The Class claims are those alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint,
specifically that the Defendants violated the WARN Act.

Judge Berger appointed Lester as the Class Representative, and
Bren L. Pomponio and Samuel B. Petsonk of Mountain State Justice,
Inc., as the Class counsel.

The Court will permit discovery as to possible modification of
the class definition as well as to the merits of the case, and
will entertain future motions for modification of the class
definition.  The Plaintiff will submit to the Court a proposed
Class notice document after conferring with opposing counsel.

The Judge directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the
counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/cdiAzr from Leagle.com.

Dougie Lester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio --
bren@msjlaw.org -- MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown
Petsonk -- sam@msjlaw.org -- MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.

Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Coal
Corp., Keystone Service Industries, Inc. & Mechel Bluestone,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Ellis --
drew.ellis@wwdhe.com -- WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell,
IV -- john.hussell@wwdhe.com -- WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D.
Wooton, Jr. -- jody.wooton@wwdhe.com -- THE WOOTON LAW FIRM.


PEOPLEREADY FLORIDA: "Scippio" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vernice Scippio, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Peopleready Florida, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00344 (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2018), seeks overtime
compensation for hours rendered in excess of forty hours per work
week with corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and expenses of the litigation, prejudgment
interest and any other further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

PeopleReady is a staffing company in Lake Park, Florida where
Scippio worked as a laborer for the Defendants from September 15,
2017 to October 3, 2017. He claims to have worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek without being paid overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


PLAZA SERVICES: Williams Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LaTasha Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Plaza Services, LLC and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00588 (W.D.
Tex., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to complaint, some time prior to September 1, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Money Key. The obligation
arose out of a transaction involving an alleged debt incurred by
Plaintiff with Money Key for funds which Plaintiff used primarily
for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged Money Key
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Money Key, a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4),
contracted with the Defendant Plaza to collect the alleged debt.
The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.

Plaza Services purchases and enhances the value of accounts
receivable portfolios by creating value for sellers and industry
partners.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff LaTasha Williams:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: yaakov@steinsakslegal.com


PNC BANK: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Pfendler" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case, JACQUELINE PFENDLER on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 18cv0361 (W. D.
Pa.).

Pfendler, seeks to represent a class of individuals who were
assessed property inspection fees by PNC, alleging that PNC uses
an automated mortgage loan management system which orders
unnecessary, unreasonable, and inappropriate property inspections
whenever a borrower falls sufficiently behind on mortgage
payments, and continues to order the inspections at regular
intervals until the borrower becomes current.  The Plaintiff
alleges that this practice is a breach of contract, violates the
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("PA UTPCPL"), violates the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practice Act ("N.C. UDTPA"), and results in unjust
enrichment to PNC.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Judge Schwab has
reviewed the Complaint, the Defendant's Motion, the Memorandum in
Support, the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition, and the
Defendant's Reply brief.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is
barred.  He says allowing the Plaintiff to rely upon another
individual's lawsuit against PNC to satisfy the notice and cure
provision of the contract would defeat the sound principle
underpinning such contract provisions -- which is to prevent the
needless entry into litigation for contract breaches that may
easily and inexpensively be resolved between the parties.  As PNC
argues, it is incomprehensible to allow judicial action to serve
as the notice required by a contractual provision meant to
precede (and prevent) judicial action.  Further, he finds no
merit to the Plaintiff's claim that complying with the notice and
cure provision would be futile.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim
under either law because PNC has not engaged in any unfair or
deceptive act by assessing fees for property inspections to
borrowers in default of their mortgage obligations where such
fees are specifically disclosed in the mortgage agreements.  The
allegations within the Plaintiff's Complaint supporting these
claims rest upon boilerplate language and conclusory statements.
Therefore, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the PA
UTPCPL or N.C. UDTPA.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment fails as a matter of law because the doctrine of
unjust enrichment is inapplicable where the relationship between
the parties is founded upon a written agreement or express
contract.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Schwab granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.  An
appropriate Order will follow.  The Clerk will mark the case
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Epve8b from Leagle.com.

JACQUELINE PFENDLER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP, Bradley F. Silverman -- bsilverman@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac
vice, Douglas Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac
vice & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP., pro hac vice.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by Jarrod
Shaw -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Nellie E.
Hestin -- nhestin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Class in "Murphy" Securities Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN MURPHY, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRECISION CASTPARTS
CORP., MARK DONEGAN, and SHAWN R. HAGEL, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00521-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon recommended
that the district judge should grant the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives
and Class Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs AMF Pensionsforsakring AB and the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System filed an amended class
action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Precision Castparts Corp. ("PCC") between May 9, 2013 and Jan.
15, 2015, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

Specifically, the Lead Plaintiffs brought the action against PCC,
a manufacturer of complex metal components, Donegan, the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of PCC, and Hagel, the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of PCC, alleging violations
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Lead Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Certify.  They move to
certify the class of investors defined as all individuals or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of PCC
during the proposed class period of May 9, 2013 through Jan. 15,
2015, inclusive and were damaged thereby.

The Defendants filed a Statement of Qualified Non-Opposition to
the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, taking no
position on the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify, but reserving
the right to challenge at later stages of the litigation any of
the Plaintiffs' claims in the matter.

Magistrate Judge Beckerman finds that although the precise number
of the class members has not been determined, the proposed Class
is well over 40.  Accordingly, Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity
requirement is satisfied.  She also finds that these questions
are class-wide and will involve common proof.  Hence, Rule
23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement is satisfied.

The Lead Plaintiffs' and the class members' claims are based on
the same legal theory -- that by making material misstatements
and omissions, PCC violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Specifically, they all purchased shares of PCC's
stock during the Class Period, relied on PCC's alleged
misstatements and omissions, and suffered damages when PCC's
stock prices fell after the discovery of the alleged fraud.
Thus, The Magistrate Judge holds that the proof of the Lead
Plaintiffs' claims will also be proof of the Class members'
claims. Accordingly, Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement is
satisfied.

Finally, having reviewed the resumes of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Labaton Sucharow LLP, and Garvey Schubert Barer, it
appears that the Lead Plaintiffs' proposed counsel for the Class
is qualified and competent.  The Magistrate Judge further finds
upon review of Per-Erik Karlsson's (Head of AMF Legal Department)
and Chase Rankin's (Executive Director of Oklahoma Firefighters)
declarations that the Lead Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute
this action on behalf of the Class.  Accordingly, she finds that
Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement is satisfied.

In the absence of a class action, it is likely that many of the
individual Plaintiffs would forgo prosecution of their claims
based on a cost/benefit calculus.  In addition, the Court would
experience a greater burden created by hundreds of individual
complaints, and such piecemeal litigation raises the risk of
inconsistent outcomes. Under the circumstances, the Court finds
that class resolution is indeed superior here.  Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge finds that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and
superiority requirements are satisfied.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Beckerman
recommended that the district judge should grant the Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel.  The Court will refer
its Findings and Recommendation to a district judge.  Objections,
if any, are due within 14 days.  If no objections are filed, the
Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that
date.  If objections are filed, a response is due within 14 days.
When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the
Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Findings &
Recommendations Order is available at https://is.gd/PSRFNW from
Leagle.com.

Kevin Murphy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom
Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B.
Merchant -- mbm@bhlaw.com -- Black Helterline, LLP.

AMF Pensionsforsakring AB, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented
by Darren J. Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Eli R. Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice, Gregory M. Castaldo -- gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan F. Neumann --
jneumann@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua A. Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan Hasiuk --
nhasiuk@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard A. Russo, Jr. --
rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Ryan T. Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Eryn K. Hoerster --
ehoerster@gsblaw.com -- Garvey Schubert Barer, Paul H. Trinchero
-- ptrinchero@gsblaw.com -- Garvey Schubert Barer & Robert C.
Weaver, Jr. -- rweaver@gsblaw.com -- Garvey Schubert Barer.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Lead
Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred L. Fatale, III --
afatale@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher D. Barraza -- cbarraza@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Claiborne R. Hane, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J.
Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric D. Gottlieb -- egottlieb@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, James T. Christie --
jchristie@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
James W. Johnson -- jjohnson@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, John Esmay -- jesmay@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Marisa N. DeMato -- mdemato@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Mark S. Arisohn --
marisohn@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael H. Rogers -- mrogers@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eryn K. Hoerster, Garvey Schubert
Barer, Matthew J. Hrutkay, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Paul H.
Trinchero, Garvey Schubert Barer & Robert C. Weaver, Jr., Garvey
Schubert Barer.

Precision Castparts Corp., Mark Donegan & Shawn R. Hagel,
Defendants, represented by Christin J. Hill -- chill@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Wiener --
dwiener@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan
D. Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice,
Judson E. Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Bennett -- laurenbennett@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan M. Keats --
rkeats@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice, B. John
Casey -- john.casey@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Brad S. Daniels
-- brad.daniels@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Joel A. Mullin --
joel.mullin@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Samantha K. Sondag --
samantha.sondag@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.


PROTHENA CORP: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prothena Corporation
PLC, Gene G. Kinney, Tran B. Nguyen and Sarah Noonberg,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02865, (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2018),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees and such equitable/injunctive or other further relief under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

Prothena is a development-stage biotechnology company whose
principal asset was NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody designed to
treat amyloid light chain amyloidosis. However, NEOD001 failed to
reach either its primary or secondary endpoints, and was
substantially less effective than a placebo. In response to this
news, Prothena stock fell 69%. Prothena never disclosed the full
results of its testing.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System purchased Prothena's
publicly traded common stock and lost substantially from
corrective disclosure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Stickney, Esq.
      David Kaplan, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Tel: (858) 720-3183
      Fax: (858) 793-0323
      Email: davids@blbglaw.com
             davidk@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1493
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: avi@blbglaw.com


REPROMED: Gluckstein Lawyers Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
A woman whose eggs were stored at ReproMed - the Toronto
Institute for Reproductive Medicine (TIRM) has filed a class
action lawsuit, alleging the fertility company was negligent in
its inspection, monitoring and maintenance of a storage freezer
which failed in late May, destroying her eggs and hopes for a
family. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all individuals who
lost viable embryos, sperm and eggs in the freezer malfunction.

The suit alleges that a cryogenic storage tank located at
ReproMed failed causing a catastrophic vacuum pump failure. The
temperature in the tank was allowed to rise likely destroying all
the embryos, sperm and eggs it contained.

ReproMed, its medical director Dr. Alfonso P. Del Valle, other
medical professionals at ReproMed, Praxair Canada Inc.,
distributor of cryogenic tanks, and U.S.-based cryogenic tank
manufacturer Chart Industries, Inc. are named as defendants. The
suit seeks damages for negligence, breach of contract, and breach
of statutory duties.

Gluckstein Lawyers filed the class action on behalf of a 39-year
old woman who recently had 65 eggs retrieved which she entrusted
to ReproMed. To protect her privacy she is identified only by her
initials Q.Z.

Q.Z. received the news that her eggs had been destroyed by email.
The email, from Dr. Del Valle informed her that there had been a
catastrophic vacuum pump failure. He indicated that the freezer
which was supplied by Chart was defective. It is not currently
known whether the increase in temperature which destroyed the
eggs, sperm and embryos was caused by design defect,
manufacturing problem, human error or a combination of factors.

Q.Z. was heartbroken when she learned of that the failure. "I was
in total shock," she said. "I cried in my car for a long period
of time . . . . I trusted the clinic and the professionals. My
hopes and dreams are destroyed."

Q.Z. says the process of harvesting her eggs was not easy. Given
her age, physical condition and current circumstances, she is not
sure that she could go through it all again.

"The impact on individuals and couples who invested time, money
and emotional capital to protect a future family cannot be
overstated." explains Q.Z.'s lawyer, Jordan Assaraf. "They placed
their faith in a clinic to protect their future. The clinic
failed them and has caused them irreparable harm."

This lawsuit follows on the heels of two high profile failures of
similar freezer tanks manufactured by Chart in the United States.
Those failures affected hundreds of individuals who stored eggs
and embryos at clinics in San Francisco and Cleveland and is the
subject of multiple lawsuits in the U.S.

Q.Z. hopes through the lawsuit to get answers and accountability.
"For others, I hope what I do now can prevent this from happening
again," she says. "I hope no other families would suffer what I
have been suffering and be heartbroken, devastated and lost."

Fertility clinics in Ontario are not government regulated. As
such, there was no requirement for inspections or oversight which
might have avoided this tragedy.

         Contact:
         Jordan Assaraf,Esq.
         Telephone: (416) 408-4252 ext 280
         Website: www.repromed.gluckstein.com
         Email: assaraf@gluckstein.com [GN]


REVOLUTION PREP: Fails to Pay All Wages, Staley Says
----------------------------------------------------
RACHELLE STALEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION PREP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, the
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC713762 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 13, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages,
provide all meal, authorize or permit all paid rest periods,
fully reimburse work expenses, provide accurate wage statements,
and timely all wages upon separation employment, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Revolution Prep is an American-based company that offers test
preparation courses, including group classes, private tutoring,
and online courses for the SAT and ACT standardized achievement
tests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, APC
          12400 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310)207 8500
          Facsimile: (310)207 8515
          E-mail: lee@fbo-law.com

               - and -

          Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
          SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 677 0200
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: leonard@law-slg.com


S.J. DISTRIBUTERS: Gallardo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GALLARDO, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. S.J. DISTRIBUTERS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, the Defendants,
Case No. BC713760 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, remedies for missed or
late meal periods, remedies for missed rest periods, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees, inaccurate wage statement penalties, equitable
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant uses an electronic
timekeeping system to record the actual start and end times of
its hourly employees' work periods, including the time entered by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees. However,
Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly employees for all hours recorded. Instead, the Defendant
reduced the time actually entered by its employees for payment
purposes, resulting the underpayment of minimum and overtime
wages.

S.J. Distributors Inc. operates as a wholesaler of meat products
and seafood. The Company offers pork, beef, lamb, vegetables, dry
goods, and restaurant supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
          Ari E. Moss, Esq.
          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 982 2984
          Facsimile: (818) 963 5954
          E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com
                  ari@mossbollinger.com
                  dennis@mossbollinger.com


SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Miliate Alleges Unlawful Sale of Motorcycles
-------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE MILIATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES, INC.
dba NORTH COUNTY'S HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00035131-CU-BT-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018), alleges that North County
unlawfully sells and finances motorcycles in the State of
California, in violations of the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales
Finance Act and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Blake Miliate and the Proposed Class:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Adam J. Mcneile, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632 1900
          Facsimile: (415) 632 1901


SEATTLE, WA: Jewish Cemetery Board Files $250K Claim for Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LaMonica Peters, writing for Komo News, reports that the Jewish
Cemetery Board filed a $250,000 claim against the City of
Seattle, blaming them for a series of damages imposed by the
homeless.

After years of cleaning up trash, needles, and vandalism at the
cemetery, the Board has had enough, prompting the City to put a
stop to it once and for all.

"They throw their garbage over the fence, they throw their waste
over the fence," said Ari Hoffman, a Jewish Cemetery Board
member. "They're running drugs out of there, they're doing drug
deals here. There's prostitution going here. They're also coming
through here at night to hang out."

Although the City has heard the Board's concerns, they have no
intention of paying.

"Under the Public Duty Doctrine, the City is generally not liable
for the criminal acts of third parties that you identify," said a
spokesperson for the City of Seattle. "Based on the City's
understanding of the facts, none of the exceptions to the public
duty doctrine apply here."

This recent upset is not the first the Board has experienced in
recent months.

Hoffman says he requested that the area near the cemetery be
changed to two-hour parking back in May. Council member Deborah
Juarez agreed to the request in a letter, but the signs are still
the same.

Now that their claim has been denied by the City, Hoffman and the
Board may file a class action lawsuit.

"We know that there are other cemeteries, I've been contacted by
them," said Hoffman. "There's other organizations, there's other
businesses, there's other personal residences that have all been
affected by this and we can prove it."[GN]


SIBANYE GOLD: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Sibanye ("Sibanye" or the "Company") (NYSE:SBGL)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and docketed
under 18-cv-03902, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sibanye securities between April 7, 2017 through June 26, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sibanye securities between
April 7, 2017, and June 26, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until August 27, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Sibanye operates as a precious metals mining company in South
Africa, Zimbabwe, and the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sibanye's safety
protocols were inadequate to prevent a high rate of worker death;
(ii) Sibanye's mining supervisors routinely forced Company
employees to work in unsafe and unlawful conditions; (iii) the
foregoing issues would foreseeably subject Sibanye to heightened
regulatory oversight; and (iv) as a result, Sibanye's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On June 13, 2018, pre-market, The Mercury published an article
entitled, "Mine puts profits before lives -- claim," stating that
Sibanye's mining supervisors forced and intimidated miners to
work in dangerous conditions.

On this news, Sibanye's share price fell $0.07, or 2.6%, to close
at $2.56 on June 13, 2018.

On June 26, 2018, Bloomberg reported that "another worker was
killed at [Sibanye's] Driefontein operation in South Africa,
bringing the total deaths at the company's mines this year to
21." According to the article, Sibanye "accounts for nearly half
of the 46 people reported killed at South African mines in 2018
and is already the subject of an investigation by the chief
inspector of mines."

On this news, Sibanye's share price fell $0.31, or 10.99%, to
close at $2.51 on June 26, 2018.

Then, on June 27, 2018, pre-market, Bloomberg reported that
Citigroup Inc. cut its recommendation on Sibanye's stock to
neutral from buy, citing the Company's "track record" from "an
environmental, social and governance perspective, as well as the
underlying investment risk that it holds[.]"

On this news, Sibanye's share price fell $0.26, or 10.36%, to
close at $2.25 on June 27, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby,Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


SOTHEBY'S INC: 9th Cir. Strikes Down California Royalties Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Ninth Circuit ruled on July 6 that a California state law that
required artists be paid royalties from auction sales only
applies to art that was sold before the establishment of the
federal Copyright Act.

The decision comes from a seven-year-old class action lawsuit of
artists who sued auction houses Sotheby's and Christie's, as well
as auction website eBay. In April 2016, U.S. District Judge
Michael Fitzgerald found that the Copyright Act preempted
California's law.

The California Resale Royalties Act, which went into effect Jan.
1, 1977, gives artists a right to 5 percent of the proceeds of
the resale of their art if the transaction takes place in
California or the seller is based in the state.

The appellate panel affirmed the district court, finding that the
Copyright Act, which went into effect in 1978, preempted the
Golden State's law. Under the first-sale doctrine of the federal
law, the owner of a copyrighted work is allowed to sell it
without seeking permission of its creator.

In the panel's decision, Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote that the
state law is "designed precisely to alter the first sale
doctrine" by giving artists an "unwaivable right" to a 5 percent
royalty.

"In short, the [state law] does not merely grant an additional
right beyond what federal copyright law already provides but
fundamentally reshapes the contours of federal copyright law's
existing distribution right," the ruling states.

The panel did find that relevant art sales between implementation
of the state law and federal law, a period between Jan. 1, 1977
and Jan. 1, 1978, were subject to the state law.

This was the second time the case appeared before the Ninth
Circuit. In 2015, the court found that a clause of the state law
violated the Commerce Clause that grants the federal government
power to regulate interstate commerce.[GN]


TACONIC PLASTICS: Judge Grants Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
ABC's News 10 reports that Weitz & Luxenberg disclosed its
lawsuit against Taconic Plastics Limited over water contamination
has been granted by a judge.

The lawsuit alleges that the release of PFOA from Taconic's
manufacturing facility contaminated the town's drinking water and
the surrounding environment.

"We are pleased that the court has recognized the significant of
the case and agrees that it should proceed as a class action,
said James Bilsborrow,Esq. an attorney in the Environmental and
Consumer Protection Unit at Weitz & Luxenberg. "For years, the
residents of Petersburgh were exposed to toxic chemicals in their
drinking water and this ruling represents a major step forward in
their quest for justice. We look forward to helping the community
and holding Taconic accountable for the harm it has caused."

The case has been certified as the first class-action case for
PFOA in the state.[GN]


TENNESSEE: Class Decertification Bid in "Wilson" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA WILSON, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WENDY LONG, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01492 (M. D. Tenn.), Judge
William L. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class and Dismiss the Case.

The Plaintiffs brought the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants,
alleging: (1) the Defendants unreasonably delayed adjudication of
their applications for medical assistance through Medicaid
(TennCare); and (2) failed to provide fair hearings on the
delayed adjudications.

In conjunction with their Complaint, the Plaintiffs asked the
Court to preliminarily enjoin the Defendants from (1) continuing
to deny their obligations under federal law to provide an
adjudication of TennCare claims with "reasonable promptness,"
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(8); and (2) refusing to
provide fair hearings on the delayed adjudications, as required
by 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(3).

On Sept. 2, 2014, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2),
the Court certified the class of all individuals who have applied
for Medicaid (TennCare) on or after Oct. 1, 2013, who have not
received a final eligibility determination in 45 days (or in the
case of disability applicants, 90 days), and who have not been
given the opportunity for a fair hearing by the State Defendants
after these time periods have run.  Additionally, the Court
entered a preliminary injunction, requiring the Defendants to
provide the class members with a fair hearing on any delayed
applications.

The Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction order, and the
Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Decertify the Class
and Dismiss the Case on Sept. 16, 2016.  They argue the process
employed by the Defendants and the Federal Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services ("CMS") for adjudicating TennCare
applications has changed dramatically since the Court certified
the class in September 2014.  Because of these changes, the
Defendants argue, the Plaintiffs' class no longer has any
members, and any claim TennCare applicants may have today bears
no resemblance to the claims asserted by the named Plaintiffs in
September 2014.  Accordingly, the Defendants argue the class must
be decertified because it no longer satisfies the numerosity
requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) or the typicality requirement of
Rule 23(a)(3).

Judge Campbell agrees with the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the
class certification.  An individual who has applied for Medicaid
and who has not received a final eligibility determination in 45
or 90 days satisfies the definition of a class member until that
individual has a fair hearing or receives a final eligibility
determination.  Because the Plaintiffs have pointed to evidence
that some Medicaid applications continue to be delayed, and
because the Defendants have not provided evidence that
individuals with delayed applications are immediately provided
with a fair hearing or a final eligibility determination, members
of the class necessarily exist.  Accordingly, he finds the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23 continues to be satisfied.

The Judge also finds the typicality requirement of Rule 23
continues to be satisfied.  When certifying the class, the Court
found the declaratory and injunctive relief the Plaintiffs sought
would apply to all Medicaid applicants.  The Court certified a
class of all individuals who have applied for Medicaid (TennCare)
and who have not received a fair hearing on their delayed
application.  The certification did not specify that it applied
only to individuals whose claims involved CMS.  While the
Defendants' representation that it has resolved its communication
issues with CMS is certainly positive news, the Defendants have
not presented evidence showing that all delays with Medicaid
applications have been resolved.  Accordingly, he finds the named
Plaintiffs' claims continue to arise from the same practice or
course that gives rise to the claims of other class members.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Campbell denied the Defendants'
Motion to Decertify the Class and Dismiss the Case.  The class
definition remains unchanged, and the preliminary injunction
remains in effect.  The case remains set for a bench trial on
Oct. 9, 2018, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no
continuances will be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GfxZnD from Leagle.com.

Melissa Wilson, April Reynolds, Mayan Said, S.P., by next friend
J.P., K.P., by next friend T.V., T.V., in her own capacity, C.A.,
by next friend D.A., D.A., in his own capacity, S.V., by next
friend M.M. & S.G., by next friend L.G., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situation, Plaintiffs, represented
by Christopher E. Coleman -- ccoleman@tnjustice.org -- Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
Emily C.R. Early, Southern Poverty Law Center, George Gordon
Bonnyman, Jr. -- gbonnyman@tnjustice.org -- Tennessee Justice
Center, James M. Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant
Justice Project, Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Micah
West, Southern Poverty Law Center, Michele M. Johnson, Tennessee
Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty Law Center
Immigrant Justice Project & Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law
Center Immigrant Justice Project.

Mohammed Mossa, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman,
Tennessee Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law
Program, Emily C.R. Early, Southern Poverty Law Center, George
Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, James M. Knoepp,
Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Micah West, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Michele M. Johnson, Tennessee Justice Center,
Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant
Justice Project & Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center
Immigrant Justice Project.

Larry B. Martin, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration & Dr. Raquel
Hatter, Tennessee Commissioner of Human Services, Defendants,
represented by Brian Barnes, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Carolyn E.
Reed, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Linda A. Ross,
Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Michael W. Kirk --
mkirk@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk, Nicholas R. Barry,
Tennessee Attorney General's Office & Nicole J. Moss --
nmoss@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk.

Wendy Long, Defendant, represented by Brian Barnes, Cooper &
Kirk, PLLC, Carolyn E. Reed, Tennessee Attorney General's Office,
Linda A. Ross, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Michael W.
Kirk, Cooper & Kirk, Nicholas R. Barry, Tennessee Attorney
General's Office & Nicole J. Moss, Cooper & Kirk.

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Mark
H. Wildasin, Office of the United States Attorney.


THAMES RIVER: Robert Reardon Wins Class Action Case
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that
New London attorney Robert Reardon Jr.Esq. has worked since 2003
to get tenants out of the rat-infected Thames River Apartments.
He succeeded this week, with all families in the 124-unit complex
receiving federal vouchers to move into better housing.

When New London attorney Robert Reardon Jr.Esq. got a phone call
in 2003 about a serious slip and fall in a city apartment
complex, little did he know the case would turn into a class
action that would last until 2018.

For Reardon, president of the Reardon Law Firm, the case of
Nicole Majette and her neighbors in the Thames River Apartments
became personal. After seeing what Reardon called "deplorable
living conditions" in the three buildings that made up the
complex, he and his firm committed to not only seeing the case
through, but seeing it through pro bono.

Majette was a single working mother who slipped and fell on human
feces in her apartment complex hallway at Thames River, her
attorney told the Connecticut Law Tribune on July 6. She
fractured her right arm, needing surgery. She also now has
permanent nerve damage to that arm.

Reardon said he was shocked, stunned and angry at what he saw
when he visited for a tour soon after Majette reached out to his
firm.

"It was a place for drug dealers and the homeless to go. Tenants
locked all doors to the apartment, but there was no lock on the
exterior entrances to the buildings, and therefore in the winter
all the drug addicts and homeless would sleep in the hallways,"
Reardon said. "There were no bathrooms in the hallways, so they
would relieve themselves in the hallway at night. I also saw
rats, mice and cockroaches in those hallways."

In 2008, Reardon settled Majette's personal injury case for $1
million.

But when he returned to his law office after first visiting the
complex in 2003, Reardon and his colleagues agreed on one thing:
They had an obligation as members of the New London community to
do something. The tenants did not have the funds to hire an
attorney, so the small firm committed to taking on the project
for free for as long as it took.

"We've been fortunate to be a law firm in New London through
generations," said Reardon, who has practiced in the state for
more than 40 years. "This firm has been in existence here since
1920. We know New London has been good to us and we felt it
important to do something for our community."

At first, Reardon said he thought by contacting the city, the
health department and the New London Housing Authority he might
make some progress. That, Reardon said, ended up not being the
case.

"At the beginning, the position of the Housing Authority was
'This is none of your business and we will handle our own
affairs,"' Reardon said.

Donn Swift,Esq. the housing authority's longtime attorney and a
lawyer with New Haven's Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, was on
vacation on July 6 and could not be reached for comment.

After not seeing any progress, Reardon decided to file a class
action lawsuit in July 2006. That class action led to a court-
stipulated agreement in 2014 that mandates new homes for the
tenants. The three buildings housed 124 units. While the court
mandated new homes, finding those homes was another story,
Reardon said.

"The stipulation was not being followed," Reardon said. The
housing authority was supposed to start construction by November
2017, but that never happened. One bump in the road occurred when
plans to move the families to the Cedar Grove avenue neighborhood
fell through as neighbors complained to the city about having
low-income housing in their backyard.

The next plan, Reardon said, was to seek out federal Housing and
Urban Development funds. HUD eventually agreed, with the help of
Reardon's firm and new members of the housing authority, to
provide vouchers to relocate families so they could rent from
private residences in New London and elsewhere.

Betsy Gibson, chairwoman of the housing authority since 2016,
called her first visit two years ago to Thames River "a life-
changing event."

"You can read about it all you want in the paper, but when you
actually see [the apartment complex] firsthand, it's something
else," Gibson told the Connecticut Law Tribune on July 6. "It was
obvious something had to be done. The housing authority did not
have the ability to handle fixing it up. If we could have handled
it, we would have."

Periodically this year, families were moving out of Thames River
and into better housing. The last two tenants left on July 3,
Reardon said. The buildings, which were first erected in the
1960s, were then boarded up. With class members now housed in
improved accommodations, Reardon officially withdrew the lawsuit
on July 5, closing the book on the 15-year saga.

For the last four years the case was assigned to Judge David
Sheridan in the complex litigation division in Hartford. It might
not have closed when it did, if not for Sheridan, Reardon said,

"For almost four years, Judge Sheridan followed the case on a
daily basis and was always aware of what was happening," the
attorney said. "He had a status conference every two weeks in
which he required the mayor to be present, as well as the
director of the housing authority. His commitment to the case was
invaluable. He was involved in hundreds of hours of meetings,
status conference calls and court hearings."

Reardon said he celebrated on July 5 with his staff by ordering
Subway lunches for everyone.[GN]


TIGER NATURAL: Court Allows Amendment to "Fishman" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint in the case captioned EMILY FISHMAN and SUSAN FARIA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC. and COMMUNITY GAS CENTER
INC., Defendants, No. C 17-05351 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendant called the plaintiffs to solicit them to buy
natural gas through Tiger's price protection program. During
those sales calls, the defendants represented that Tiger
customers would be charged a variable rate for natural gas based
on the market price, but with a price cap of $0.69 per therm. The
Plaintiffs allege that defendants made several misrepresentations
during these calls which, among other things, violated PG&E Gas
Rule 23.

The proposed third amended complaint seeks to amend the
plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary contract claims and add
claims for violations of PG&E Gas Rule 23 and regulations
concerning core transport agents.

In California, a person seeking to enforce a contract as a third
party beneficiary must plead a contract which was made expressly
for his or her benefit and one in which it clearly appears that
he or she was a beneficiary.

The Plaintiffs argue that the consumer protection provisions
incorporated into the CGAS Agreement demonstrate the parties'
intent that the contract benefit consumers (including the
plaintiffs). In response, Tiger argues that the four corners of
the CGAS Agreement indicate that the contract was made for PG&E's
own benefit. This order finds the plaintiffs' position more
convincing. To be sure, absent the agreement's incorporated
attachments, the contract would primarily concern the allocation
of pipeline and storage capacity and the payment of associated
costs. But Tiger also agreed to abide by the terms of Gas Rule 23
and Schedule G-CT, which were incorporated by reference.

These, in turn, contain several consumer protection provisions,
including a prohibition that Tiger not with dishonest,
fraudulent, or deceitful intent act to disadvantage customers.
Gas Rule 23 also explicitly contemplates consumers bringing
complaints if they believe that Tiger violated these consumer
protection provisions. It is hard to see how, as Tiger suggests,
Gas Rule 23 inures only to the benefit of PG&E. Clearly,
consumers were intended beneficiaries of these provisions. The
allegations in the plaintiffs' proposed complaint are therefore
sufficient to bring a claim for breach of contract as third-party
beneficiaries.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yabbzc4h from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam -
- calbar@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob
N. Harker -- harkerjacob@gmail.com --  Law Offices of Jacob
Harker & Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com --
Kralowec Law, P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- Janet.Chung@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- John.Canale@hklaw.com --
Holland and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta --
Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew
Leland -- Thomas.Leland@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP &
Vince Lee Farhat -- Vince.Farhat@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight
LLP.


TITLEMAX OF TENNESSEE: Can Compel Arbitration in "Curatola" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCENT CURATOLA, INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX OF
TENNESSEE, INC. and TMX FINANCE OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01263-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn.), Judge J. Daniel
Breen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Eastern Division, rejected the Magistrate Judge Edward
Bryant's order denying the Defendants' motion to stay the action
and to compel Curatola to submit his claims to individual
arbitration.

On Oct. 4, 2016, the Plaintiff, a former store manager for
TitleMax in Milan, Tennessee, individually filed an "opt-in"
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on
behalf of himself and all persons who, at any time during the
past three years and up until the date of entry of judgment, are
or were employed by Defendants and who worked overtime without
compensation.

On Nov. 18, 2016, the Defendants filed their motion to stay and
to compel individual arbitration, which the Court referred to
Magistrate Judge Bryant.  On Dec. 1, 2016, Curatola filed a
response, and TitleMax replied four days later.

Following a hearing on June 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied
the Defendants' motion, concluding that the Sixth Circuit's
finding in NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment that the right to
concerted activity is a substantive right, and the National Labor
Relations Board ("NLRB")'s decision in On Assignment, which is
due Chevron deference, that requiring employees to opt out of an
arbitration agreement that otherwise waives the right to
collective action interferes with an employee's exercise of
rights provided under the National Labor Relations Act control.

Following the Defendants' June 22, 2017 objections to the
magistrate judge's order, the Plaintiff submitted a response, to
which TitleMax replied.  Additionally, the parties each filed
notices of supplemental authority, after two district courts
reached near-opposite conclusions regarding the applicability of
Alternative Entertainment to FLSA claims.

The parties primarily dispute the enforceability of a class and
collective action waiver in their Aug. 3, 2015 Arbitration
Agreement ("AA") due to its 60-day opt-out language, as well as
whether the collective action waiver is severable or renders the
entire AA unenforceable.

On May 21, 2018, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion
in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, the Defendants filed a notice of the
decision, asserting that Lewis decided the issues before the
court in favor of TitleMax by upholding the enforceability of
class and collective waivers in arbitration agreements and by
abrogating Alternative Entertainment.

Judge Breen finds that the central disagreement pertains to the
third prong of the Stout v. J.D. Byrider framework: whether
Congress intended the Plaintiff's federal statutory claim under
the FLSA to be non-arbitrable and thus whether the AA's
collective action waiver, barring the Plaintiff's ability to
bring a collective action, is enforceable.  The first and second
steps under Stout are clearly met, and neither party disputes
that they agreed to arbitrate or that the scope of the AA covers
the present dispute.  The AA indicates 1) that it reaches claims
for wages and other compensation, for violations of any federal
or state law, and for breach of contract, thus covering the FLSA
and unjust enrichment claims; 2) that it is supported by
consideration; and 3) that both Curatola and TitleMax signed it.

Furthermore, because all of the claims in the action are subject
to arbitration, the Judge says he needs not address the fourth
prong of the Stout framework.  Therefore, as requested in the
Defendants' motion, the case will be stayed, and the Plaintiff
will be compelled to arbitrate his claims individually.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Breen sustained TitleMax's
objections, rejected the magistrate judge's order, and granted
the Defendants' Motion to Stay & Compel Individual Arbitration.
Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section, the case is stayed pending
arbitration.  In accordance with the AA, the Plaintiff will
proceed individually to arbitration on his claims under the FLSA
and for unjust enrichment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3FvQV3 from Leagle.com.

Vincent Curatola, Plaintiff, represented by Emily S. Alcorn,
GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC.

TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy B.
McConnell -- tmcconnell@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. & Zachary B. Busey --
zbusey@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON.

TMX Finance of Tennessee, Inc., Defendant, represented by Zachary
B. Busey -- zbusey@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON.


TOM'S SHOES LLC: "Mussleman" Disputes Overtime Pay Computation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teena Mussleman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tom's Shoes, LLC and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04143, (C.D. Cal., May
17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys' fees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Tom's Shoes -- https://www.toms.com/ -- operates an apparel store
in Los Angeles where Mussleman worked as a non-exempt worker.
Toms allegedly failed to include commissions, non-discretionary
bonuses and other items of compensation when determining their
employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      Vladimir J. Kozina, 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
             vjkozina@mayallaw.com


TRINITY LOGISTICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRINITY LOGISTICS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-053-RGA (D. Del.), Judge
Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
recommending that (i) the Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or
strike class claims be denied; (ii) Defendant Trinity Logistics'
motion to dismiss the individual claim be granted, and (iii) the
Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant Pinkerton's motion to
join motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, deny motion and
construe as a reply be denied.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and of the
"Notice Class" of which she is a member, against Trinity
Logistics, Inc. and Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations for
violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
She alleges the Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to
provide pre-adverse action notice before Trinity terminated her
employment, relying on a consumer report generated by and
provided to Trinity by Pinkerton.

The Plaintiff applied for a job at Trinity on Aug. 6, 2016 by
completing an employment application, consumer report
authorization, and release form.  She was offered a position at
Trinity and accepted the position on Aug. 22, 2016.  As part of a
contractual relationship between the Defendants, Pinkerton
generates employment-purposed consumer reports for Trinity to use
in its hiring process.

On Aug. 25, 2016, Trinity received a consumer report from
Pinkerton regarding the Plaintiff that was "flagged" as
containing a criminal record.  The criminal record was
inaccurate, as it contained a criminal record from Maryland that
was expunged four years before the consumer report was furnished.

On Aug. 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified that Trinity had
received a consumer report that contained a criminal conviction,
and although she explained that the report was inaccurate, the
Plaintiff was still terminated the same day.

In her second amended complaint, the Plaintiff filed class action
and individual claims against both the Defendants.  The second
amended complaint alleges her termination was an adverse action,
and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii), the
Defendants had a duty to provide the Plaintiff with pre-adverse
action notice, but they did not provide her with a copy of the
consumer report or a Summary of Rights prior to her termination.

The Plaintiff further alleges Pinkerton violated section 1681
(k)(a)(1) for failure to provide "at the time" notice, Section
1681 c(a) for providing obsolete information, Section 1681 e(a)
for providing employment-purposed consumer report without a
permissible purpose and Section 1681 e(b) for failure to ensure
maximum possible accuracy.  Finally, she claims Trinity violated
Section 1681 b(t) for obtaining or using an employment-purposed
consumer report without a permissible purpose.

The Magistrate Judge has filed a Report and Recommendation, which
recommends the Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or strike class
claims be denied, Defendant Trinity Logistics' motion to dismiss
the individual claim be granted, and the Plaintiff's motion to
strike the Defendant Pinkerton's motion to join motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, deny motion and construe as a
reply be denied.

The Plaintiff filed one objection and the Defendants each filed
objections to which the Plaintiff has responded.

The Plaintiff moves to strike a sentence in the Report and
Recommendation regarding the legal standard used in the analysis
of 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3).  Judge Andrews finds this
objection as irrelevant as it has no bearing on any issue
presently in dispute.

Defendant Pinkerton makes two objections to the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that Pinkerton's motions to dismiss fail as to
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii), and that the Plaintiff cannot
obtain actual damages under the class claims.  The Judge finds
that Pinkerton claims that Trinity did not delegate any
employment decision-making responsibility to Pinkerton, and thus
Pinkerton cannot be considered a "user" of the consumer report
pursuant to the aforementioned provisions.  Also, in the
Plaintiff's response to Pinkerton's objection, she states she is
not claiming actual damages under the class claims.  Thus,
Pinkerton's objection is moot.

Defendant Trinity makes one objection to the Magistrate Judge's
conclusion that Trinity's motions to dismiss fail as to Section
1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii).  Trinity argues the Plaintiff's class
claims should be stricken because she should not be allowed to
claim actual damages from class action claims.  Because the
Plaintiff has stated in her response to Trinity's objections that
she is not claiming actual damages under the class claims,
Trinity's objection is moot.

For these reasons, Judge Andrews overruled the Plaintiff's and
the Defendants' objections.  He adopted the Report and
Recommendation.  Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' motions
to dismiss and/or strike class claims; granted Defendant
Trinity's motion to dismiss the individual claim; and denied the
Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant Pinkerton's motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, deny motion and construe as a
reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/IMFMeo from Leagle.com.

Jane Doe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mary F. Higgins --
questions@letsbelegal.com -- Law Office of Mary Higgins & Susan
M. Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation
Associates, PC, pro hac vice.

Trinity Logistics, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Michael C. Heyden, Jr. -- mheyden@grsm.com --
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Melissa Lynn Rhoads
-- m.rhoads@tighecottrell.com -- Tighe & Cottrell, P.A..


TROJAN HORSE: Settlement in "Longo" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARIBALDI E. LONGO, ALLEN F. HESTER, CARL W.
SWANSON, and STEVEN L. WHITE, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TROJAN HORSE LTD.; GLEN
BURNIE HAULING INC.; CAPITOL EXPRESSWAYS, INC.; BDH LOGISTICS
LLC; BRIAN HICKS; TROJAN HORSE LTD. 401 (K) PLAN; and ASCENSUS
TRUST COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-418-BO (E.D.
N.C.), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina granted the Parties' joint
motion for final approval of the settlement pursuant to the terms
of a Settlement Agreement dated Feb. 7, 2018.

The Judge ordered that the Settlement Fund monies, service
awards, and attorney's fees and costs called for in the Agreement
be paid and provided according to the Agreement.  He ordered and
directed the Independent Fiduciary to implement the Agreement and
perform its duties under it.

The Releasing Parties release the Released Claims as to the
Released Parties.

The Independent Fiduciary will have final authority to determine
the Allocated Share of the Settlement Fund to each Class Member
and with respect to payments or distributions, all questions not
resolved by the Agreement will be resolved by the Independent
Fiduciary in its sole and exclusive discretion.

Upon review of the Agreement, and of the Class Counsel's motion
for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Awards, the
Judge finds that the agreed upon fees and costs are reasonable
and the motion is granted.  He approved the amounts Ascensus
agreed to pay the Class Counsel and ordered reasonable fees in
the amount of $915,710.26 and costs in the amount of 10,295.26 as
set forth in the Agreement.  Each named Plaintiff will be awarded
a $5,000 service award to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

Upon entry of the Order, all the Class Members will be bound by
the Agreement and by the Final Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Final Order and
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/gSbtwL from Leagle.com.

Garibaldie E. Longo, Allen F Hester, Carl W Swanson & Steven L
White, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., S. Michael Dunn --
sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com -- Emanuel & Dunn, Steven R. Jaffe,
Steven R. Jaffe, P.A. & Stephen A. Dunn --
sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com -- Emanuel & Dunn.

Trojan Horse, Ltd., Defendant, pro se.

Glen Burnie Hauling, Inc., Defendant, pro se.

Trojan Horse LTD 401(k) Plan, Defendant, pro se.

Brian Hicks, Defendant, pro se.

Ascensus Trust Company, c/o CT Corporation System, its registered
agent, Defendant, represented by L. P. Hornthal, Jr., Hornthal,
Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP, Robert H. Bernstein --
bernsteinrob@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & L. Phillip
Hornthal, III, Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP.

Ascensus Trust Company, c/o CT Corporation System, its registered
agent, Cross Claimant, represented by L. P. Hornthal, Jr.,
Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP, Robert H. Bernstein,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP & L. Phillip Hornthal, III, Hornthal,
Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP.


UNITED STATES: Certiorari Granted in Pregnant Minor's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an Opinion vacating
the Court of Appeals' Order En Banc and directing the dismissal
of the Individual Claims as moot in the case captioned ALEX M.
AZAR, II, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v.
ROCHELLE GARZA, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO UNACCOMPANIED MINOR J. D.
No. 17-654. (U.S.).

Respondent Rochelle Garza, Doe's guardian ad litem, filed a
putative class action on behalf of Doe and all other pregnant
unaccompanied minors in ORR custody challenging the
constitutionality of ORR's policy.

Jane Doe, a minor, was eight weeks pregnant when she unlawfully
crossed the border into the United States. She was detained and
placed into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement
(ORR), part of the Department of Health and Human Services. ORR
placed her in a federally funded shelter in Texas. After an
initial medical examination, Doe requested an abortion. But ORR
did not allow Doe to go to an abortion clinic. Absent emergency
medical situations, ORR policy prohibits shelter personnel from
taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction
and approval from the Director of ORR.

The District Court issued a temporary restraining order allowing
Doe to obtain an abortion immediately.  The next day, a panel of
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated
the relevant portions of the temporary restraining order. Noting
that the Government had assumed for purposes of this case that
Doe had a constitutional right to an abortion, the panel
concluded that ORR's policy was not an undue burden.  The Court
of Appeals, sitting en banc, vacated the panel order and remanded
the case to the District Court.  The same day, Garza sought an
amended restraining order.  Garza's lawyers asked the District
Court to order the Government to make Doe available in order to
obtain the counseling required by state law and to obtain the
abortion procedure.  The District Court agreed and ordered the
Government to act accordingly.  Doe's representatives scheduled
an appointment for the next morning and arranged for Doe to be
transported to the clinic on October 25 at 7:30 a.m.  The
District Court agreed and ordered the Government to act
accordingly.

The Government planned to ask this Court for emergency review of
the en banc order.  Believing the abortion would not take place
until October 26 after Doe had repeated the state-required
counseling with a new doctor, the Government informed opposing
counsel and this Court that it would file a stay application
early on the morning of October 25.  The details are disputed,
but sometime over the course of the night both the time and
nature of the appointment were changed.  The doctor who had
performed Doe's earlier counseling was available to perform the
abortion after all and the 7:30 a.m. appointment was moved to
4:15 a.m. At 10 a.m., Garza's lawyers informed the Government
that Doe had the abortion this morning.

The abortion rendered the relevant claim moot, so the Government
did not file its emergency stay application. Instead, the
Government filed this petition for certiorari.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The Court
vacates the en banc order and remands the case to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with
instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the relevant
individual claim for injunctive relief as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 4, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybuhtkkk from Leagle.com.

Noel Francisco, Solicitor General, United States Department of
Justice -- SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov -- Attorney for Petitioner,
Alex M. Azar, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP -- cphillips@sidley.com --
Attorney for Respondent, Rochelle Garza, as Guardian ad Litem to
Unaccompanied Minor J.D.

Scott A. Keller, Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor
General -- scott.keller@oag.texas.gov -- for The States of Texas,
et al.

Andrew L. Schlafly -- aschlafly@aol.com -- for Legal Center for
Defense of Life.


UNITED STATES: Trump Seeks More Time to Reunify Migrant Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gonzales, writing for WGBH, reports that the Trump
administration is asking a federal judge for an extension of the
deadline set to reunify all of the migrant parents who were
separated from their children at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In court documents filed late on July 5, the administration says
it is working "diligently" and dedicating "immense resources and
effort" to comply with a court order to reunify the families.

U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw in San Diego, Calif., ordered
the government to return children under the age of 5 to their
parents by July 17. Older minors must be reunified with their
parents by July 26.

But in the court filings, the government says it "may need
clarification on or some relief from certain parts of the order,
so that Defendants can safely reunite families."

Judge Sabraw has scheduled a telephonic status conference on July
6 afternoon with lawyers from the Justice Department and also
from the American Civil Liberties Union, the group that sued the
government in a class-action lawsuit over family separations.
That lawsuit was filed even before Attorney General Jeff
Sessions,Esq. announced the "zero tolerance" policy in April,
promising to prosecute all illegal border crossers.

The administration's request for more time comes a day after
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters that
the government knows the identities and location of all the
minors under the department's care and will comply with the court
order. Azar also called Sabraw's deadlines "extreme."

The government's court documents describe an extensive and
painstaking effort to collect information between the Departments
of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services; verify the
parentage; and assess the parents' "fitness" to receive their
children.

The government is using DNA testing to verify that parents are
related to the children they claim.

In his comments on July 5, Azar said that "under 3,000" minors
were separated from their parents. The court documents say that
the government has identified "approximately 101 minors under age
5" under the care of HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement.[GN]


US BANK NA: Robinson Sues Over Excessive Bank Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson and Angela Hooper, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. US Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01059, (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2018), seeks
restitution of all relevant fees illegally paid to US Bank,
disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains derived by US Bank, actual,
statutory, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest,
costs and disbursements assessed in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief
resulting from breach of contract and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law under the Business and Professions Code.

US Bank is a national bank with its headquarters and principal
place of business located in Cincinnati and is in the business of
providing retail banking services.

US Bank, N.A. is alleged of assessing two out-of-network
Automated Teller Machine fees, out-of-network ATM withdrawals
preceded by a balance inquiry, and assessing overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw the account. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
      Sophia Gold, Esq.
      KALIEL PLLC
      1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
      Washington, DC 20009
      Tel: (202) 350-4783
      Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
             sgold@kalielpllc.com

             - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0900
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
      1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      Email: edelsberg@kolawyers.com
             ostrow@kolawyers.com

             - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


VECTREN CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 3:18-cv-00113, on
behalf of shareholders of Vectren Corporation ("Vectren" or the
"Company")(NYSE: VVC)  who held Vectren shares and have been
harmed by Vectren and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
sale of the Company to CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the "Proposed
Transaction").

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, Vectren shareholders
are only expected to receive $72.00 in cash for each share of
Vectren they own. The complaint questions the fairness of the
consideration offered to the Company's shareholders and alleges
that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Transaction (the
"Proxy") fails to disclose material information that is necessary
for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member
of the putative class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Filenko Dismissed from "Willoughby" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY, DAMIEN WARD, and DAN COOPER,
Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, COMMANDER GEORGE FILENKO,
JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE DEPUTY SHERIFFS, JOHN DOE
STATE POLICE AGENTS, and JOHN DOE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AGENTS, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 2800 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald
A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted Filenko's motion to
dismiss Count I of the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In the action, the Plaintiffs allege that their Fourth Amendment
rights were violated when they were arrested and detained in
conjunction with the investigation that occurred after the death
of Charles Joseph Gliniewicz, who was a police lieutenant for the
Village of Fox Lake, Illinois.  It was later revealed that
Gliniewicz had staged his suicide to look like a homicide.  It is
alleged that prior to taking his own life, Gliniewicz sent a
radio transmission to the Village police department falsely
stating that he was in pursuit of three individuals, two "male
whites" and one "male black."

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
(i) denying the Village's motion to dismiss Count II of the
Second Amended Complaint, and (ii) granting defendant Filenko's
motion to dismiss Count I of the Second Amended Complaint.

With leave of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint.  It contains the same claims the Plaintiffs previously
asserted: a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for unlawful
search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count I)
and a Monell claim against the Village (Count II).  The only
difference between the Second and Third Amended Complaints is the
addition of several paragraphs pertaining to Filenko, an attempt
to cure the deficiencies the Court previously discussed in its
memorandum opinion.

Filenko moves to dismiss the claim asserted against him.  The
Plaintiffs move for class certification.

Judge Guzman finds that the Plaintiffs fail to submit evidence of
a sufficient number of individuals who were arrested or detained
in connection with the investigation during the five-day period
the Plaintiffs cite and who are not included in the exceptions to
their class definition (or evidence from which an estimate can
reasonably be made), they fail to meet their burden of
demonstrating numerosity.  They also fail to meet their burden of
showing commonality and predominance.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs submit no evidence that supports
their argument that common issues predominate because all
putative class members were arrested or detained pursuant to the
same "narrow" and "specific" unconstitutional policy.  They're
not consistent even in identifying that alleged policy.

Having concluded that plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of
demonstrating numerosity, commonality, and predominance, the
Judge holds he needs not discuss the remaining Rule 23
requirements.  The Plaintiffs' claims must proceed as personal
rather than class litigation.

For these reasons, Judge Guzman granted Filenko's motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.  The complaint is dismissed
without prejudice as to Filenko.  The Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A status hearing is
set for June 14, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the next steps in
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/amAPge from Leagle.com.

Raymond Willoughby, Individually, and on behalf of all Similarly
Situated Persons, Damien Ward, Individually, and on behalf of all
Similarly Situated Persons & Dan Cooper, Individually, and on
behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, represented
by Gregory E. Kulis, Gregory E. Kulis and Associates, Ltd., Brian
M. Orozco, Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd. & Monica Ghosh,
Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.

Village of Fox Lake, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Matthew Jacobi -- bjacobi@okgc.com --
O'Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook, LLC, Clifford Gary Kosoff --
ckosoff@okgc.com -- O'Halloran, Kosoff, Helander & Geitner, P.C.
& Gail Lynne Reich -- greich@okgc.com -- O'Halloran Kosoff
Geitner & Cook, LLC.


VIRTUAL BENCH: "Sonnier" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Sonnier, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
The Virtual Bench, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-01611 (S.D. Tex., May 16,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Virtual Bench provides recruiting and consulting solutions for
the engineering, human resource and corporate finance sectors.
Sonnier worked for Virtual Bench as a QC Inspector in Lake
Charles, Louisiana. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
but was not paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             litkin@ mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Certification of "Swank" AMs Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW SWANK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-1185 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule
23 Class Certification and 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(b) Conditional
Certification.

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs Swank, Sean McCracken, and James
Paolicelli filed the operative complaint in the case, the Third
Amended Individual and Collective/Class Action Complaint ("TAC"),
against Wal-Mart.  In the TAC, the Plaintiffs, all former
Assistant Managers of Wal-Mart ("AMs"), allege that Wal-Mart
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by not paying overtime
wages to its AMs.

In the case, the Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conditional
certification under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The
Plaintiffs originally sought a class that included all persons
employed by Wal-Mart as AMs within the State of Pennsylvania from
Aug. 16, 2010, until the date of the Court's class certification
order.  However, in their Reply brief, the Plaintiffs explain
that they wish to narrow their proposed class to include only
those AMs who worked in Pennsylvania from August 16, 2010,
through April 1, 2015, when Wal-Mart changed certain compensation
and bonus policies.

Wal-Mart opposes such class redefinition.  It argues that the new
class definition would be substantially prejudicial because Wal-
Mart conducted extensive discovery in reliance on the Plaintiffs'
initial class definition and did not have cause to question
either side's witnesses about the April 2015 policy changes or
defend against the Plaintiffs' new theory in any way.
Furthermore, Wal-Mart asserts that the Plaintiffs were aware of
the policy changes before they moved for class certification and
that the Plaintiffs have not cited any statements by any
witnesses to support their theory that the duties of AMs changed
in April 2015.  In fact, Wal-Mart argues that the 2015 policy
changes did not affect the AMs' duties in any material way.

The Court accepts the Plaintiffs' narrowed class definition for
the purposes of deciding the pending Motion.  It does so because
its conclusion as to class certification will not change based on
which class definition it uses -- in either case, the Court
cannot certify the class.  In addition, the Court concludes that
Wal-Mart is not substantially prejudiced by the Court's class
definition decision.  Under the Plaintiffs' narrowed class
definition, Wal-Mart is exposed to less potential liability and
damages, not more.

Furthermore, given that, as Wal-Mart points out, the Plaintiffs
have not cited any statements to demonstrate that the AMs' duties
changed in April 2015, Wal-Mart is not substantially prejudiced
by the fact that it did not know to question the witnesses about
the policy change.  Instead, the discovery that Wal-Mart has
conducted continues to be relevant for the Plaintiffs' more
narrow time period because, as Wal-Mart explained, Wal-Mart
gathered dozens of declarations from current and former AMs in
Pennsylvania, and all but four of them worked as AMs or as AMs
and co-managers before and after April 2015.  Not one of them
limited his or her testimony to a period after April 2015 or
suggested their primary duties changed at that time.

Accordingly, the Court will use the narrowed class of AMs who
worked in Pennsylvania from Aug. 16, 2010, through April 1, 2015,
for the purposes of deciding the pending Motion.

Judge Hornak finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a).  However, as to the Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements,  after considering the extensive record in this
case, he finds that the predominance requirement is not met here
because individual questions predominate over common questions.
His review of the record indicates that although the AMs' jobs
were similar in some ways, the AMs had a wide array of
individualized experiences that varied significantly in ways that
bear materially on the analysis of their primary duties.  Despite
the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, it is plain that
different AMs spent their days performing vastly different tasks
and working under varying levels of supervision.  Accordingly, he
concludes that individual questions predominate in the case and
therefore the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) has not
been met.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under
Rule 23 will be denied.

The Judge now turns to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Based on all of
the evidence in the record, he finds that the Plaintiffs have
shown that the proposed Plaintiffs are similar in certain ways:
they are all AMs employed by Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, for
instance, and the Plaintiffs' evidence with regard to Wal-Mart's
employment manual, job description, and other employment policies
provides some common links among the proposed collective
plaintiffs.  But the proposed Plaintiffs' common status as AMs is
not enough under the more searching standard to establish that
the Plaintiffs are sufficiently similarly situated to justify
facilitating notice and proceeding to the final certification
analysis.  The AMs' individualized experiences, as contained in
the record before the Court, vary significantly in precisely the
ways that bear on the Court's eventual determination of liability
and damages.

Accordingly, facilitating notice' at this stage of the case, in
light of the very extensive record that the parties have already
developed which strongly demonstrates that the proposed
collective Plaintiffs are not, in fact, similarly situated, is
both unnecessary and inappropriate.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification under Section 216(b) will be denied.

For the reasons he stated in the Opinion, Judge Hornak denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) Conditional Certification.  An appropriate Order
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/JCg9qj from Leagle.com.

ANDREW SWANK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H.
Chivers, David Borgen -- dborgen@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, pro hac vice, Katharine L. Fisher --
kfisher@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, pro
hac vice, Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho, pro hac vice & Megan Ryan -- mryan@gbdhlegal.com
-- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, pro hac vice.

JAMES PAOLICELLI, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by John R.
Linkosky, Joseph H. Chivers, David Borgen, Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho, pro hac vice, Katharine L. Fisher, Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Laura L. Ho, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian
& Ho & Megan Ryan, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, pro hac
vice.

WAL-MART STORES, INC, Defendant, represented by Kelly Dobbs
Bunting -- buntingk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Robert
M. Goldich -- goldichr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro
hac vice.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in "Beckman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, GINA BECKMAN,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02249-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

Beckman brings the putative class action lawsuit against
Defendants Wal-Mart, Espresso Supply, Inc., Eko Brands, LLC, and
Ekobrew, alleging that Defendants breached warranties and
violated other California law related to a product they sold.
She claims that the Brew & Save branded reusable coffee filter
advertises on its label that it is compatible with all "Keurig(R)
1.0 and 2.0" machines when, in fact, it is not.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from her purchase of a "Brew & Save"
branded reusable carafe cup for her Keurig 2.0 series coffee
maker.  She purchased the Carafe Filter from a Wal-Mart store on
or about May 22, 2017.  The Plaintiff alleges that according to
www.brewandsave.com, the Carafe Filter is compatible with most
Keurig(R) and single serve brewers.  She states that she
purchased the Carafe Filter for her Keurig 2.0 machine because
the packaging stated that the product was compatible with her
Keurig coffee maker.

The day after purchasing the Carafe Filter, the Plaintiff
attempted to use it, but received an error message when she
inserted the product.  She alleges that this error message
indicated that the Carafe Filter was not designed for her
Keurig(R).  She continued to receive the same error message
despite trying to use the Carafe Filter multiple times.  The
Plaintiff further alleges that many internet reviews of the
Carafe Filter on Wal-Mart's website states that other consumers
had the "same and/or similar issues."

On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff initiated the action in the San
Diego Superior Court, and filed the First Amended Complaint
("FAC") on Sept. 7, 2017.  In the FAC, she asserts claims for:
(1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (2) breach of
express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; and (4) violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law "UCL") and the California False Advertising Act
section 17500, et seq. ("Unfair Business Practices claim").

On Nov. 3, 2017, the Defendants removed the case to federal
court.  They now move to dismiss the FAC.

Judge Bashant finds that though the law permits the Plaintiff to
allege standing for injunctive relief, she fails to do so.  The
Plaintiff fails to include any allegations in the FAC to support
a finding that her injury would be repeated.  Tellingly, in her
opposition, the Plaintiff does not cite to any such allegations
in support of her argument for standing.  Because the Plaintiff
fails to sufficiently plead standing for her requests of
injunctive relief, the Judge granted with leave to amend the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the claims for
injunctive relief.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to state her claims
because she does not plead her claims with sufficient
particularity.  The Plaintiff disputes this argument and states
that all of her claims are sufficiently pled.

The Judge denied the motion to dismiss for the Plaintiff's first,
second, and third causes of action.  Based on these allegations,
she finds that the Plaintiff adequately pleads her warranty
claims.  Accepting all factual allegations in the FAC as true,
the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants expressly and impliedly
warranted that the Carafe Filter is compatible with Keurig 2.0
machines, such as the one used by the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff
also expressly states that she relied on these warranties that
the product would function with her machine in deciding to
purchase the product.  Lastly, the Plaintiff pleads that she
suffered damages when the product would not operate as intended
and was useless for the purpose for which she purchased it.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff adequately pled her
Unfair Business Practices claims.  The Plaintiff sufficiently
pleads each of the "who, what, when, where, and how" requirements
with specificity.  Therefore, she finds that the Plaintiff
sufficiently pled this claim by providing the "who, what, when,
where, and how" elements.  Accordingly, she denied the motion to
dismiss for the Plaintiff's Unfair Business Practices claim.

Lastly, the Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiff's request
for non-restitutionary disgorgement of profits and attorneys'
fees for her Unfair Business Practices claim, which are brought
pursuant to sections 17200 and 17500 et seq. of the California
Business and Professional Code.  The Plaintiff does not dispute
this argument.

The Judge will grant with leave to amend the motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's request for these damages for her Unfair Business
Practices claim.  She finds that the California Supreme Court has
made it clear that these damages are unavailable for individual
private actions under these statutes.

For these reasons, Judge Bashant granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiff may file a
Second Amended Complaint that only provides additional factual
allegations relating to her request for injunctive relief no
later than June 19, 2018.  If the Plaintiff does not file a
Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants must answer the First
Amended Complaint no later than June 29, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SPusJM from Leagle.com.

Gina Beckman, as an individual, on behalf of herself and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Monique
Renee Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com -- Clark Law Group
& Robert Craig Clark -- clarkc@clarkcraig.com -- Clark Law Firm.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an Arkansas corporation authorized to do
business in the state of California, Espresso Supply, Inc., a
Washington corporation authorized to do business in the state of
California & Eko Brands, LLC, a Washington corporation,
Defendants, represented by David Allen Lowe --
Lowe@LoweGrahamJones.com -- Lowe Graham Jones, pro hac vice &
Norman A. Ryan -- nryan@ryanlitigators.com -- Ryan Carvalho &
White LLP.


WAL-MART TRANS: "Luna" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Leonard Luna, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-
Mart Transportation, LLC, an Arkasas Corporation and Does 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00331, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (Fayetteville) on July 13, 2018. The Western
District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-05141-
TLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Timothy L. Brooks.

Wal-Mart Transportation LLC operates as a subsidiary of Wal-Mart
Stores Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          Aashish Y Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614 5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271 4190
          E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com
                  aashish@desai-law.com

Attorneys for Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC:

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com


WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over In-Home Caregiver Ripoffs
-----------------------------------------------------
Sean Higgins, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against Washington state and the
Service Employees International Union seeks damages on behalf of
potentially thousands of state-subsidized in-home caregivers,
arguing that the state and the union conspired to divert subsidy
money from caregivers who had no intention of joining SEIU.

The lawsuit was filed on July 3 and comes in the wake of a
Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees that found that compelling public
sector workers to join unions was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed by the free market Freedom Foundation on
behalf of four caregivers but seeks class certification to
represent all people who were part of the state's subsidy program
and had a 3.2 percent deduction placed on their checks,
ostensibly to pay for collective bargaining by SEIU Local 775,
which the state made the workers' sole representative. The
workers could opt out of making the payment, but the burden to do
it was on them, and the lawsuit alleges that the state and union
purposefully obscured this requirement.

"The state of Washington to our knowledge has not taken any
action whatsoever to alert the caregivers to their First
Amendment rights to refrain from supporting SEIU," said Maxford
Nelson, the foundation's director of labor policy. SEIU does send
caregivers letters acknowledging they do not have to join the
union, Nelson said, but it doesn't tell them everything.

"A lot of folks are under the assumption that if they don't sign
up for union membership no money will be taken from their pay...
They don't realize that even if they don't sign up for union dues
will still be withheld from their pay and they have to
affirmatively opt-out to stop the payments."

That system would appear to be unconstitutional under the Janus
ruling, which said that funds can only taken from public sector
workers with their affirmative consent. The same week the Supreme
Court issued Janus the justices also invalidated a 7th Circuit
Court ruling denying class action certification in a case called
Riffey v. Rauner, which involved non-union state-subsidized
Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds
they were forced to pay to a union. The justices told the appeals
court to reconsider allowing class certification in light of
Janus, leaving open the question of whether such lawsuits are
permissible.

SEIU and other unions like AFSCME have sought for years to
organize in-home caregivers in states across the nation. Most
states have programs, typically funded at least in part by
Medicaid, that pay people subsidies to take care of invalids,
many of whom are the caregivers' family members, in their homes.
Unions have had Democratic allies in governors' offices and
statehouse declare the caregivers to be state employees, which
allows the state to then enter into a contract with unions to
represent the caregivers.

The Supreme Court declared in the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn that
homecare workers in Illinois were not state employees and
therefore could not be organized. Since then, unions in other
states have typically allowed the caregivers to opt out of
membership if they request it rather than risk a lawsuit invoking
the Harris v. Quinn decision. But the unions have done little to
alert the caregivers to these options. Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee
signed a union-backed law in March that requires employers to
automatically deduct union fair share fees from worker paychecks
regardless of whether the workers themselves authorize it. The
workers would have to opt out in writing.

The Foundation's lawsuit alleges that Inslee and SEIU Local 775
"conspired to deny plaintiffs and class members of their First
Amendment rights by deducting union dues from plaintiffs' and
class members' wages without their clear, prior, affirmative
consent." Nelson said it was unclear exactly how much money is at
stake should class certification be granted because because it is
unclear how many people would qualify under it.

Representatives for Inslee and SEIU Local 775 could not be
reached for comment.[GN]


WELK GROUP: "Carreno" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Carreno and Charlotte Baxter Burden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Welk
Resort Sales, Inc., Member Development, Inc., Welk Resort Group,
Inc., Welk Resort Properties, Inc. and Does 1 through 5G,
inclusive, Defendants, Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00024210 (Cal.
Super., May 17, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime under California labor code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to provide meal breaks, and
failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures.

Plaintiffs were employed by Welk as commissioned, in-house sales
agents selling time share ownership in Welk resorts from the Welk
Resort and facilities in Escondido, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
      5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (310) 652-2242
      Email: walterhaines@yahoo.com


WINS FINANCE: Discovery Confidentiality Order in "Desta" Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has issued a discovery
confidentiality order in the case, MICHEL DESTA, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WINS
FINANCE HOLDINGS INC., JIANMING HAO, RENHUI MU, AND JUNFENG ZHAO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02983-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

The Disclosure and Discovery Material in the Action are likely to
involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private
information for which special protection from public disclosure
and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting the Action
may be warranted.  Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and
petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order.  The
Order is intended to facilitate the Parties' production of
Discovery Material.  It covers the production and use of all
Confidential Discovery Material in the Litigation.

The counsel for the objecting party will serve on the Designating
Party a written objection to such designation within 14 days of
receipt of the Confidential Discovery Material, which will
describe with particularity the documents or information in
question and will state the grounds for objection.

If a Receiving Party (or any person receiving documents through
the Receiving Party) is served with a Demand issued in any other
action, investigation, or proceeding, and such Demand seeks
Confidential Discovery Material produced to the Receiving Party
in the Litigation, the Receiving Party will give prompt written
notice within three business days of receipt of such Demand and
at least five days prior to the deadline for the Receiving
Party's response to such Demand to the Designating Party and, if
requested in writing by the Designating Party, will postpone
producing documents until such time as the Designating Party has
timely filed a motion for a protective order and, the relevant
court has ordered the production of such documents. The burden of
opposing the enforcement of the Demand will fall upon the
Designating Party.

If the Designating Party obtains an order from any court or
administrative agency of competent jurisdiction directing that
the Demand be complied with, it must serve such order upon the
Receiving Party within at least three business days of the order;
the Receiving Party must then promptly comply with the terms of
the order.

At the close of the Litigation, the Order will remain in effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yilFsT from Leagle.com.

Michel Desta, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm PA.

Brian Gabrich, Lead Plaintiff, Christopher Ikeocha, Lead
Plaintiff & Raymond Mentor, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,
represented by Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm PA & Yu Shi --
yshi@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Murphy -- dmurphy@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Jay Musoff --
jmusoff@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Jason -- jjason@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, John Piskora --
jpiskora@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, pro hac vice & Peter
Pottier -- ppottier@loeb.com -- Leob and Loeb LLP, pro hac vice.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Casino Dealers Sue Over Illegally-withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quy Ngoc Tang and Joseph Cesarz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wynn Las Vegas,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00891 (D. Nev., May 16, 2018),
seeks full damages for the value of the tips taken from them with
an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Wynn Las Vegas is also known as Encore where Plaintiffs
worked as casino dealers. According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendant compelled them to turn over a portion of their tips and
distributing them to the supervisors or managers who do not
customarily and regularly receive tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leon Greenberg, Esq.
      LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      2965 South Jones Boulevard, Suite E3
      Las Vegas, NV 89146
      Tel: (702) 383-6085


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Ct. Severs Plaintiffs From "McEarchen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jeffrey McEarchen, Daniel Lawson and Thomas
C. Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-03569 (E.D. N.Y., June 24, 2013), Judge
James Orenstein granted a motion on May 16, 2018, to sever
Plaintiffs from this action and open separate civil actions for
each of their claims with the amended complaint under Case No.
18-cv-02914.

Urban Outfitters is a retail store chain selling clothing and
household goods, generally aimed at young adults. It allegedly
misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt and failed to pay them for all
hours worked by them as well as overtime pay for hours above 40
in a workweek. [BN]

Thomas C. Wolfe is represented by:

     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 South Federal Hiway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
            gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

            - and -

     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Marc Scott Hepworth, Esq.
     Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Ste. 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 545-1199
     Fax: (212) 532-3801
     Email: CGershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
            droth@hgrlawyers.com
            marc@hgrlawyers.com
            rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

            - and -

     Christopher McNerney, Esq.
     Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
     Michael Joseph Scimone, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2060
     Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
            jms@outtengolden.com
            mscimone@outtengolden.com

            - and -

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Tel: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220
     Email: fran@klafterolsen.com
            michael.reed@klafterolsen.com
            slesser@klafterolsen.com

            - and -

     Naomi Briana Sunshine, Esq.
     NYU SCHOOL OF LAW
     245 Sullivan St., Suite C-20
     New York, NY 10012
     Tel: (212) 998-6314
     Fax: (212) 995-4539
     Email: naomi.sunshine@nyu.edu

            - and -

     Ossai Miazad, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     60 East 42nd Street, 25th floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2060
     Email: omiazad@outtengolden.com

            - and -

     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
            scarson@bm.net

Urban Outfitters, Inc. is represented by:

     Cheryl D. Orr, Esq.
     Jaime D. Walter, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415) 591-7500
     Fax: (415) 591-7510
     Email: cheryl.orr@dbr.com
            jaime.walter@dbr.com

            - and -

     Thomas Barton, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     One Logan Square, Suite 2000
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 988-2834
     Fax: (215) 988-2757
     Email: thomas.barton@dbr.com

            - and -

     William R. Horwitz, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     600 Campus Drive
     Florham Park, NJ 07932
     Tel: (973) 549-7000
     Fax: (973) 360-9831
     Email: william.horwitz@dbr.com


ZICAM LLC: Settlement in "Melgar" Suit Has Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YESENIA MELGAR, on Behalf of Herself and all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZICAM LLC and MATRIXX
INITIATIVES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the parties'
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement.

Class Representative Melgar and the Defendants have reached a
proposed settlement and compromise of the claims in the matter,
which is embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement that has been
provided to the Court.

Judge England, subject to further consideration by the Court at
the time of the Final Approval Hearing, preliminarily approved
the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class, as falling within the range of possible final
approval, and as meriting submission to the Settlement Class for
its consideration.

He certified the Settlement Class, which consists of all
purchasers of Zicam RapidMelts Original, RapidMelts Ultra, Oral
Mist, Ultra Crystals, Liqui-Lozenges, Lozenges Ultra, Soft Chews,
Medicated Fruit Drops, and Chewables in the United States from
Feb. 15, 2011 to the date the Order was signed.

He provisionally appointed Yesenia Melgar as the Class
Representative of the Settlement Class, and appointed Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., as the Class Counsel for purposes of the
Settlement.
A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court at 2:00
p.m., on Dec. 13, 2018.

Since the Settlement set forth in the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement is within the range of reasonableness for possible
Final Approval, the Class Notice should be provided to the
Settlement Class pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, as
follows:

      a. The Judge appointed RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, a
well-qualified and experienced claims and notice administrator,
as the Settlement Administrator.

      b. The Judge approved the Long-Form Notice.  Not later than
30 days following the date th3 Order is electronically filed, the
Class Counsel will cause a copy of the Long Form Notice, in both
English and Spanish, to be posted on a dedicated website together
with links to important case documents.

      c. The Class Counsel will register www.ZicamClassAction.com
for notice purposes, along with several additional domains that
will mirror and/or link to that website.

      d. The Judge approved the Short Form Notice.  Not later
than 30 days following the date this Order is electronically
filed, the Settlement Administrator will cause a copy of the
Short Form notice to be sent by email to all class members for
whom email addresses are identified.

      e. The Settlement Administrator will undertake Publication
Notice, which means publication of the Short Form Notice in
accordance with the Media Plan.

      f. The Publication Notice will run from 30 days after the
electronic filing of this Order to 120 days after the electronic
filing of the Order.

      g. The Judge approved the Class Notice and Claims forms,
including the Long Form Notice, the Short Form Notice, and the
Claim Form, attached as Exhibit A to the parties' stipulation of
settlement

      h. The Judge directed that the Class Notice will be given
to the Class as provided herein and in Section IV of the parties'
Stipulation of Settlement.

The Settlement Class Members will have until the Claim Deadline,
which will be 90 days after the start of Publication Notice, to
submit a Claim Form.

At least seven calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the
Class Counsel will prepare or cause the Settlement Administrator
to prepare a list of the persons who have excluded themselves in
a valid and timely manner from the Settlement Class, and the
Class Counsel will file that list with the Court.

The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file and serve papers in
support of their application for final approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement, as well as the Class Counsel's motion
for fees, costs, and incentive awards, will be 14 days before the
Objection deadline.  The Class Counsel will also include
contemporaneous time records sufficient to enable the Court to do
a lodestar analysis.

Any objections by any Settlement Class Member to the
certification of the Settlement Class, the approval of the
proposed Stipulation of Settlement set forth in the parties'
Stipulation of Settlement, or the award of attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards, will be heard and any papers
submitted in support of said objections will be considered by the
Court at the Fairness Hearing only if, on or before the Objection
deadline, which will be 90 days after the start of Publication
Notice, such objector files with the Court a written objection
and notice of the objector's intention to appear, and otherwise
complies with the requirements set for in Article V of the
Stipulation of Settlement.

The deadline for the parties to file and serve any response to
any timely objections will be 14 days after the Objection
deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Br2rFA from Leagle.com.

Yesenia Melgar, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph I. Marchese --
jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice,
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and
Fisher, PA, Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher PA & Thomas Andrew Reyda -- treyda@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

Zicam LLC & Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Alan J. Lazarus -- alan.lazarus@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Ashley Neglia -- ashley.neglia@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Kathryn Michelle Jackson -- katie.jackson@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Leslie M. Smith --
leslie.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Robyn E. Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Ryan S. Fife -- ryanfife55@gmail.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP & William A. Hanssen -- william.hanssen@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle and Reath LLP.





                            *********


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  * * *