CAR_Public/180731.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 152

                            Headlines

AARP INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Levay" Insurance Fraud Suit
ACCIDENT FUND: Court Denies Joint Bid to Dismiss "Beatty"
ALARM.COM INC: Court Refuses to Stay "Abante" TCPA Suit
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of "Perez" Class Cert
AMERICAN SOLAR: Loses 2nd Summary Judgment Bid

AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Class of Travelling Nurses
AMP: Cases Put Australia's Class Action Industry in Limelight
APEX SYSTEMS: Webb Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
ARIZONA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Parsons" Suit
ARKANSAS: Lay, Webb Appeal Order and Judgment to Eighth Circuit

ARNS LAW: Combs Alleges Improper Operation of Nursing Facility
ARS NATIONAL: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Says Hosier
AT&T PENSION: Grosso & Wing Sue over Pension Benefit Plan
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Mortgage Assistance Policies Docs
BEST BUY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Herron" Consumer Suit

BIG PICTURE: Appeals Ruling in "Williams" Suit to Fourth Circuit
BMW FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Directed to File Non-Opposition Notice
BRISTOL-MYERS: Kozyak Tropin Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Anderson Sues over Nursing Facility Services
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Tests Future of Class Action Waivers

CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Worker Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
CAMPBELL SOUP: "Cabrega" Suit Alleges Deceptive Practices
CANADA: Long-Term Care Patients' Rights Group Files Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brown" Class Suit
CASTRO CONSTRUCTIVE: Romero Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

CATHERINE ROSELLI: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Ruling in 2008 Flood Class Action Upheld
CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Must Face Labor Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Blaha Calls Fines & Penalties 'Excessive'
CHICAGO, IL: ECHA Held in Contempt Over Warrantless Searches

CHILDREN'S MERCY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
CHRISTY INC: U.S. Gov't Seeks Dismissal of Patent Class Action
CIGNA CORP: Zhu Files ERISA Class Action in S.D. Calif.
CIM GROUP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
CLAY COUNTY, AR: Olsen Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

CLEMENS FOOD: Pork Consumers File Antitrust Class Action
CLEVELAND, OH: Faces Class Action Over Slamming, Cramming
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Mishra" Stay Extended Pending Settlement
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Dean Appeals C.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
COMMERCIAL INTERIORS: $307K Atty's Fees Award Endorsed in "Salinas"

COOK COUNTY COURT: Fails to Protect Motor Vehicle Data, Nisi Says
COUNTRYWIDE BANK: "Markowicz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
CRITTENDEN, AR: Mayo et al. Seek Overtime Compensation under FLSA
CYTRX CORP: Sept. 17 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeitures

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTION: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Chatman Sues Over Retained Biometrics Data
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Ad Clicks
FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: "Klein" Suit Transferred to N. D. Ohio
FIFTH THIRD: Waweru Seeks Damages for FCRA Breach

FMFS OF VS LLC: Willis Files Request for Judicial Intervention
FOUNDERS PLAZA: Underpays Activity Directors, Abercrombie Alleges
GLOBAL FINANCIAL: Constantinou Files Consumer Fraud Class Suit
GOLDEN STATE FC: Hernandez Files Suit to Recover Final Pay
GOOD GUYS NYC: Chagray Files Bid for Judicial Intervention

GORDON FLESCH: Charles Cook Files Suit for Racial Discrimination
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Jackson Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Damico Sues Over Vehicles' Powertrain Defect
IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

JAL CHEMICAL: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Craver Files Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Shepherd Files Antritrust Suit in Maryland
KNS BUILDING: "Castilla" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Collins et al. Seek to Certify Managers Class

MALACHITE VENTURE: Majano Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MDL 1203: Denial of Larrieu's Matrix A-1 Benefits Affirmed
MDL 2495: Makowski Appeals Order to 11th Cir.
MDL 2495: Seltzer Appeals Ruling to 11th Cir.
MDL 2495: Summ. Judgment Bid in Defective Roofing Suit Granted

MONRO INC: Mittelmark Sues over Warranties of Catalytic Converters
MOON RIDGE FOODS: Fails to Pay Wages, Morris Says
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Luczak Says
NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Defective Transmissions
NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit

ORLANDO, FL: Class Cert Denial in Red Light Camera Suit Affirmed
POWER SWEEP: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
PRETE CONSTRUCTION: Inguil Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PROFESSIONAL DEBT: Marquez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RACK ROOM: Peralta Seeks to Certify Class

RATHA REST:  Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Sooknanan" Lawsuit
RAYMOND JAMES: Passport Account Customers' Suit Dismissal Flipped
RIABLE LAW: Higgins Seeks to Certify 2 Arkansas Residents Classes
RUBICON OILFIELD: "Medved" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAADEH CORP: Pongnorsing Sues over Payment Packing

SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK: Moran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SILVER DOLLAR: Hill-Smith Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Vanderstelts Seeks Payment of Lost Wages
SONY COMPUTER: Final Judgment Entered in PS3 "Other OS" Class Suit
SONY COMPUTER: Settlement in PS3 "Other OS" Suit Has Final Approval

SOUTHEAST TITLE: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Drinosky" Suit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: ASEA/AFSCME Hits Defibrillator Battery Defect
STUMPS MARKET: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Martinez Says
SUSAN B. ANTHONY: Wijesinha Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
T&R PAINTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Macias Says

TAH PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Otis Claims
TAL EDUCATION: Extract Sues over False Reports, Share Price Drop
TARGET CORPORATION: Dormani Appeals D. Minn. Decision to 8th Cir.
TESLA INC: Settlement in "Sheikh" Suit Has Prelim Approval
TEXAS: Settlement in "Cole" Suit Has Final Approval

TITAN FIRE: Riveras File FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
TOTAL MERCHANT: "Collins" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Sporn Sues over Misleading Credit Scores
TRUST CAPITAL: Robert Bohlke Seeks Damages under TCPA
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Federman Balks at Disney Merger Accord

UMI SUSHI: Gao Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages under FLSA
UNION OF CALIFORNIA: State Workers Sue to Recover Union Fees
UNITED COLLECTION: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Cass County Joins Class Action Over PILT Funds
UNITED STATES: Court Orders Father-Son Reunification

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Refugee Program Termination
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Streamline Family Reunion Process
VAN RU: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed in Wood Suit
VERIZON COMMS: Underpays Wireline Workers, Graczyk et al. Say
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Cir. Affirms $10B "Clean Diesel" Settlement

VOLKSWAGEN: $10-Bil. Diesel Class Action Settlement Upheld
VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Partially Dismissed Exploding Sun Roof Case
WALKERHEALTHCAREIT: Bey Seeks to Certify Class
WILLIS & BROCK: Estes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
WILSON PIZZA: Fisher Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

[*] AICD Calls on Gov't to Address Class Action Insurance Issues
[*] Corporations Call for Loosening of Robocall Restrictions
[*] Increase in Securities Class Actions Hits Businesses, Society
[*] Jackson Lewis PC Attorneys Discuss Data Breach Class Actions
[*] Most of Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh's Rulings Pro-Business


                            *********

AARP INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Levay" Insurance Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
SIMON LEVAY, JUDITH WILLIS, and LIONEL BROWN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AARP, INC.,
AARP SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1
through 60, Defendants, Case No. 17-09041 DDP (PLAx)(C.D. Cal.).

The First Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs are
prospective insureds who are at least 65 years of age and have seen
and/or heard offers of insurance services, joined AARP and pay
membership fees to obtain the advertised insurance, and/or have
purchased insurance from United Healthcare and New York Life.
However, UnitedHealth records show that Simon Levay was the only
plaintiff who ever purchased UnitedHealth Medigap insurance
coverage.  Similarly, New York Life's policyholder records show
that none of the plaintiffs ever purchased New York Life insurance
policies.

On the basis of these allegations, the Plaintiffs brought suit
against the Defendants for (1) negligence, (2) violations of
California Insurance Code Sections 785 and 787, (3) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., (4) violations of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Business and
Professions Code Section 17500 et seq., and (5) financial elder
abuse.

The Defendants argue that this court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the action because no plaintiff has standing to
sue. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, whose
authority under Article III of the Constitution is restricted to
actual cases or controversies. To establish Article III standing, a
plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.

In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by
the Defendants' marketing of AARP-branded insurance policies.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants sold
insurance policies that were artificially inflated in light of
AARP's 4.95 percent commission, which AARP received on each policy
sold or renewed.

The only plaintiff to have purchased an AARP-branded Medigap policy
is Simon Levay. Even assuming that Levay relied upon AARP's
representations to his detriment in purchasing a Medigap policy, he
does not allege how he will continue to be harmed by the
Defendants' representations, thereby meriting the remedy of
prospective injunctive relief. In Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark, the
Ninth Circuit outlined the limited circumstances under which a
previously deceived consumer who brings a false advertising claim
can allege that her inability to rely on the advertising in the
future is an injury sufficient to grant her Article III standing to
seek injunctive relief.

Although a close question, the Davidson Court concluded that a
previously harmed consumer who had a reasonable desire to purchase
a product if it were to perform as advertised, but who could no
longer rely upon the validity of the information advertised, had
Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief. None of those
facts, however, are present here.
Therefore, the court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs
Judith Willis and Lionel Brown. It also dismisses the Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, and Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant New York Life.

Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

California Insurance Code Sections 785 and 787

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actions are in
violation of California Insurance Code Sections 785 and 787.

Even assuming that the Plaintiffs have a private right of action to
enforce these code provisions, however, they do not apply to the
Medigap insurance policy that Levay purchased from UnitedHealth.

Section 785 states: "Except where explicitly provided to the
contrary, this article shall not apply to. Medicare supplement
insurance as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 10192.4.
Subdivision (m), in turn, defines Medicare supplement insurance, to
include, subject to certain exceptions, a policy advertised,
marketed, or designed primarily as a supplement to reimbursements
under Medicare."

The parties do not dispute that Levay's Medigap insurance policy
falls within the definition of Medicare supplement insurance and is
therefore excluded from the scope of Sections 785 and 787.

UCL and FAL Claims

For the purposes of statutory standing, both the UCL and the FAL
require that Levay plead an economic injury related to the purchase
of his AARP-branded Medigap policy.

To properly plead an economic injury, a consumer must allege that
she was exposed to false information about the project purchased,
which caused the product to be sold at a higher price, and that she
`would not have purchased the goods in question absent this
misrepresentation.

The Defendants contend that Levay must have actually seen the
allegedly misleading representations before purchasing his
AARP-branded Medigap policy in order to plead reliance. However,
Levay has not alleged that he saw any of the advertisements or
representations of AARP-branded insurance that he now challenges.
Therefore, the court dismisses Levay's UCL and FAL claims against
UnitedHealth on this basis with leave to amend.

Fraud Allegations

The Defendants contend that the claims in the FAC do not plead
fraud with specificity, as required under Rule 9(b).

In California, the elements of a fraud claim are a false
representation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud,
justifiable reliance, and damages.

Here, the FAC alleges that the Defendants falsely represented
information about AARP-branded insurance policies; that the
Defendants did so knowingly; that the Defendants intended to
defraud consumers; and that consumers relied upon Defendants'
representations.

The question here is whether the fraud-based allegations in the FAC
are part of a unified course of fraudulent conduct central to the
Defendants' theory of liability, rather than non-essential elements
of the claims. Stripped of the fraudulent allegations, however, the
court finds that the FAC fails to state a claim for relief under
the UCL or FAL, or for financial elder abuse. If Levay is to retain
these allegations in the complaint, he must plead fraud with
specificity, and allege the who, what, when, where, and how of
Defendants' misconduct. Put differently, he must do more than
adequately plead that reasonable consumers are likely to be
deceived. Rather, he must set forth what is false or misleading
about a statement, and why it is false.

Accordingly, the court dismisses the remaining claims for failure
to allege fraud with specificity pursuant to Rule 9(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxavekr from Leagle.com.

Simon Levay, Judith Miller & Lionel Brown, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alan I. Schimmel -- aischimmel@spattorneys.com -- Schimmel and
Parks APLC, Arash Homampour -- arash@homampour.com -- Homampour Law
Firm PLC, Danielle Nicole Lincors -- Danielle@homanpour.com --
Homampour Law Firm &Michael W. Parks -- mwparks@spattorneys.com -
Schimmel and Parks APLC.

AARP, Inc. & AARP Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Sarah
Beth Burwick -- sarah.burwick@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP, Jeffrey S. Russell -- jsrussell@bclplaw.com -- Bryan
Cave LLP, pro hac vice & John W. Amberg -- jwamberg@bclplaw.com --
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. & Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company, and
Does 1 through 60, inclusive, Defendants, represented by Brian
David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Aaron Dane
Henson -- ahenson@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Meaghan
VerGow - mvergow@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice.

New York Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Carol
Lynn Thompson -- CTHOMPSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Lauren
Marie De Lilly -- LDELILLY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Joshua
E. Anderson -- JANDERSON@SIDLEY.COM  -- Sidley Austin LLP.

ACCIDENT FUND: Court Denies Joint Bid to Dismiss "Beatty"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
for Failure to State a Claim in the case captioned MICHAEL E.
BEATTY, M.D., d/b/a THE SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS PLASTIC & HAND
SURGERY ASSOCIATES, individually and as the Representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ACCIDENT FUND
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-CV-01001-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Michael Beatty, M.D., is an Illinois plastic surgeon who
provides medical services to patients for work-related injuries.
The Defendants in this matter are insurance companies that have
issued workers' compensation insurance policies covering Illinois
workers, third party administrators (TPAs) employed by Illinois
employers to administer workers' compensation claims, or claims
adjusting companies (CACs) employed by insurance carriers or TPAs
to administer workers' compensation claims.
  
Dr. Beatty filed this putative class action, pursuant to the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA). Dr. Beatty alleges Defendants violated the ICFA by engaging
in unfair practices related to the payment of interest due under
the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (IWCA).

The Defendants argue Dr. Beatty has failed to state a claim for
four reasons:

   -- First, insurers and TPAs have no duty to pay interest under
the IWCA.

   -- Second, medical providers lack standing under the IWCA to sue
insurers or TPAs.

   -- Third, Dr. Beatty cannot use the ICFA to circumvent the IWCA.


   -- And fourth, Dr. Beatty has not adequately pleaded the
elements of an ICFA claim.

Defendants' Duty to Pay Interest Under the IWCA

Dr. Beatty's ICFA claim presumes the Defendants have a duty to pay
interest under Section 8.2(d) of the IWCA, an obligation he claims
they unfairly skirt.

Here, the plain language Section 8.2(d) of the IWCA, which requires
an employer to make payment, must be read in conjunction both with
those sections referencing employer or insurer and with Section
4(a), which allows an employer to insure its entire liability in an
insurance carrier. When reading these provisions together, the
language of Section 8.2(d) requiring an employer to make payment
becomes ambiguous. If the legislature intended for insurers to pay
interest, why did it only reference employer? On the other hand,
why would it allow an employer to insure its entire liability but
then require an employer to pay interest when an insurer fails to
pay on time?

Because the statute is ambiguous, the Court turns to the purpose
and necessity for the law and the goals sought to be achieved. In
this case, the purpose of the IWCA in general and Section 8.2(d)
specifically is to promptly compensate employees for their
injuries. This includes the interest provision of Section
8.2(d)(3).  To effectuate that goal, if an employer has insured its
workers' compensation liability in an insurer, then the insurer
must be responsible for any interest accrued on late payments. An
insurance company that believes only the employer is responsible
for paying interest has no motivation to pay on time, thereby
defeating the purpose of the IWCA and rendering the interest
provision inconsequential. Furthermore, to conclude that only
employers are responsible for paying interest would absurdly result
in employers being penalized for insurers (to whom they already pay
premiums) choosing not to timely pay providers for their work.

The Defendants' argument that medical providers like Dr. Beatty
must rely on employees to apply for an adjustment of claim to the
Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission is similarly absurd and
inconvenient. Although the Defendants claim employees routinely
seek to recover interest in such proceedings, the cases the
Defendants cite to are examples of employees seeking statutory
penalties under Sections 19(k) and (l) for unreasonable or
vexatious delay of payment or intentional underpayment of
compensation. Those penalties are paid directly to the employee. An
employee with a compensable injury has no incentive to attempt to
obtain interest due to a provider under Section 8.2(d) from his or
her employer, as employees are never on the hook for paying
interest.
  
This conclusion is also supported by the Illinois Department of
Insurance's December 2012 Bulletin to all insurance companies and
self-insured entities licensed and approved to provide workers'
compensation coverage in Illinois. The bulletin, cited by Dr.
Beatty, is from Director of Insurance Andrew Boron and advises all
insurance companies and claims administrators who adjust workers'
compensation claims in Illinois of their duty to comply with the
statutory interest provisions of Section 8.2(d). While the Court is
not bound by the Illinois Department of Insurance's interpretation
of the statute, it may be given substantial weight and deference,
as it expresses an informed source for ascertaining the legislative
intent.

Here, the Court has determined that Section 8.2(d) is ambiguous;
therefore, the Court believes the amendment (if the bill passes)
will serve to clarify what the legislature intended. In this case,
that would mean the legislature indeed intended for insurers to be
on the hook for paying interest all along.

Medical Providers' Standing to Sue Under the IWCA

The Defendants assert this rule stems from Section 4(g) of the
IWCA, which names three classes of persons who can sue an
employer's insurer: (1) the employee (2) the employee's
representative and (3) the employee's beneficiary.

Dr. Beatty asserts this argument is irrelevant, as he is not
bringing an IWCA claim. The Court agrees. Dr. Beatty is not suing
under the IWCA, so whether providers have standing to pursue direct
claims against insurers under the IWCA has no bearing on this case.
Dr. Beatty is not trying to recover under the IWCA; therefore,
whether he has standing to sue under the IWCA is irrelevant.

Dr. Beatty's Use of the ICFA to Circumvent the IWCA

First, the Defendants claim, the ICFA does not alter the rights
available to a plaintiff under other statutes. Accordingly, if a
plaintiff cannot state a claim under the IWCA, he also cannot state
a claim under the ICFA.  Second, the Defendants assert the ICFA is
not a vehicle for artful pleading of claims.  In response, Dr.
Beatty argues that the ICFA does not require an underlying private
right of action.

Here, however, failing to pay interest is not allowed by the IWCA
and goes against the IWCA's public policy of prompt compensation
for workers' compensation claims.  Because the ICFA does not
require an underlying private right of action, and because Section
8.2(d) does require insurers to pay interest, the Defendants'
argument fails.

The Defendants' second and third arguments are similarly
unpersuasive. While the Defendants again assert that Dr. Beatty is
merely trying to bring a direct IWCA claim under the guise of a
consumer fraud action, Dr. Beatty counters that he is alleging
Defendants are intentionally engaging in an illegal scheme to
undermine public policy and avoid the requirements of the IWCA.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court agrees Dr.
Beatty is attempting to bring an ICFA claim.

Finally, the Defendants assert that this Court should not expand
Illinois state law to permit an ICFA claim to get around the IWCA's
restriction on direct actions by medical providers. As noted by Dr.
Beatty, however, there is nothing novel about asserting an ICFA
claim in federal court. While the subject of the ICFA claim may be
novel, that in itself does not preclude this Court from reviewing
the claim.

Failure to State an ICFA Claim

To state a claim under the ICFA, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a
deceptive or unfair act or practice by the defendant; (2) the
defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deceptive or
unfair practice; (3) the unfair or deceptive practice occurred
during a course of conduct involving trade or commerce; and (4) the
deceptive or unfair practice was the proximate cause of the
plaintiff's actual damage.

Consumer Nexus

Before analyzing whether Dr. Beatty has alleged the elements of an
ICFA claim, the Court must consider the threshold question of
whether Dr. Beatty is a consumer. The ICFA defines a consumer as
any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of
merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or
business but for his use or that of a member of his household. Dr.
Beatty concedes he is not a consumer under this definition.
Instead, he asserts he satisfies the consumer nexus test.

Here, the Defendants focus on whether Dr. Beatty has alleged their
conduct implicates consumer protection concerns. Dr. Beatty argues
the Court need not reach that analysis, as he has alleged the
Defendants' scheme involves trade practices directed to the market
generally. Specifically, Dr. Beatty cites his allegations that the
Defendants systematically and routinely fail and refuse to pay
interest on any late-paid or unpaid bill, thereby impacting every
patient and provider in the entire Illinois healthcare market that
is, the Defendants' scheme is directed to all of Illinois. At oral
argument, Dr. Beatty further emphasized that the fundamental
purpose of the IWCA is to protect and compensate employees,
Illinois consumers, completely and promptly.

The Court disagrees that the Defendants' scheme as alleged by Dr.
Beatty is directed to the market generally. While the conduct may
have repercussions for Illinois consumers, Defendants are not
targeting the market generally. Rather, they are allegedly failing
to pay medical providers and concealing their failure to do so by
various means.

Unfair Practice

The Defendants next argue Dr. Beatty's claim should be dismissed
because the Defendants did not engage in an unfair practice that is
actionable under the ICFA.

Considering the Court has already found that insurers are obligated
to pay interest under the IWCA, the Court also finds that Dr.
Beatty pleaded facts sufficient to allege a violation of public
policy when he alleged that the Defendants failed to pay that
interest. The Court further agrees that the Defendants' argument
that the IWCA was enacted to benefit employees and not medical
providers cuts against them. The Defendants' alleged refusal to pay
interest as required by the IWCA, must them ultimately hurt
employees if the statute is designed to fully and timely compensate
them for their workplace injuries.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 2, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb2tz7rl from
Leagle.com.

Michael Beatty, Plaintiff, represented by John G. Simon --
jsimon@simonlawpc.com -- Simon Law Firm PC, Benjamin R. Askew --
baskew@simonlawpc.com -- Simon Law Firm PC, Robert H. Wendt, Wendt
Law Firm, & Kevin M. Carnie, Jr. -- kcarnie@simonlawpc.com -- Simon
Law Firm PC.

Accident Fund General Insurance Company, Accident Fund Insurance
Company of America & Accident Fund National Insurance Company,
Defendants, represented by John Sandberg --
jsandberg@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony
L. Martin -- anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et
al. & Natalie J. Kussart -- nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com --
Sandberg, Phoenix et al.

Acuity, A Mutual Insurance American Compensation Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Glenn F. Fencl -- fenclg@jbltd.com --
Johnson & Bell LTD., Amber N. Lukowicz -- lukowicza@jbltd.com --
Johnson & Bell, Ltd. &Genevieve M. LeFevour -- lefevourg@jbltd.com
-- Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

ALARM.COM INC: Court Refuses to Stay "Abante" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Stay the case captioned
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ALARM.COM
INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06314-YGR(N.D.
Cal.) pending the outcome of Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Case
No. 14-56834 (9th Cir. December 14, 2016).

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the defendants
alleging four counts: (i) violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) for calls made to cellular telephones; (ii)
violations of the TCPA for calls made to residential telephone
lines; and (iii) violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c) and 47
U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for calls made to members of the National
Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC Registry).

In contemplating a stay, a court may consider whether (i) a final
result is imminently forthcoming; (ii) the impending decision would
have an impact on the issues raised in the instant matter (iii) the
moving party demonstrates hardship in moving forwarding; and (iv)a
stay will prejudice the non-moving party.

Although a decision may be forthcoming in Marks that would likely
have some impact on the issues raised in the instant matter, it is
unclear whether a resolution of Marks will have a direct impact on
the issues before the court, or substantially simplify the issues
presented. Even if the outcome in Marks was relevant to these
proceedings and favorable to the defendant, other issues would
remain ripe for consideration and resolution. Alarm.com points to
the potential for re-arguing motions for summary judgment as
evidence of hardship in moving forward without a stay.

However, that hardship would apply only to those claims the
adjudication of which depend solely on whether the calls were made
using an ATDS claims brought by the Cell Phone Class that do not
involve allegations of an artificial or pre-recorded voice system.

Therefore, the Court is open to considering bifurcation of the case
as between those alleged calls involving ATDSs and those involving
artificial or pre-recorded voice systems or calls to individuals on
the DNC Registry. However, the Court finds that a stay pending the
resolution of Marks is not appropriate in the instant case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tuy268 from Leagle.com.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Mark Hankins, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Philip J. Charvat, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrel@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., Brian A.
Glasser -- bglasser@baileyglasser.com - Bailey and Glasser, LLP,
pro hac vice, Chiharu Gina Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Edward A. Broderick --
ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C., Elizabeth
Anne Adams -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, John W. Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey
Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rehe Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser LLP, pro hac vice,
Kerem M. Levitas -- klevitas@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Matthew Passi McCue --
mmcue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue &
Ryan McCune Donovan -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey
Glasser, LLP.

Alarm.com Incorporated & Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Kasey C. Townsend -- ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com --
Murchison & Cumming, Susan Jane Welde -- swelde@murchisonlaw.com --
Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Craig S Primis --
craig.primis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Daniel I.
Schlessinger, Jaszczuk P.C., Keith Lowell Gibson, Jaszczuk P.C.,
311 South Wacker Drive. Suite 1775. Chicago, Illinois 60606,
Margaret M Schuchardt, Locke Lord LLP, Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk,
Jaszczuk P.C. & Seth Haines Corthell, Jaszczuk P.C.

ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of "Perez" Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed in part
and affirmed in part the judgment denying Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class and later granted summary judgment in the cases
captioned JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee, Nos.
17-55082, 17-55318 (9th Cir.).

Appellant Juan Perez was a delivery driver for Appellee Alta-Dena
Certified Dairy, L.L.C. Perez alleges that Alta-Dena violated state
wage-and-hour laws by subjecting him and the members of a putative
class to a route-restriction policy/practice, a non-compliant meal
and rest break policy/practice, and a policy/practice of
auto-deducting for meal breaks whether or not drivers took those
breaks.

The Court concludes that the district court abused its discretion
in denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for lack of
predominance of common class issues over individual ones.

The district court erred with respect to Perez's meal break timing
theory and his route restriction theory because the district court
focused on largely irrelevant factors to the exclusion of the
critical ones. The district court also erred with respect to
Perez's derivative auto-deduction theory. The Court express no view
on whether any of Perez's proposed subclasses ultimately should be
certified; The Court hold only that the district erred in its
assessment of predominance.

Summary judgment was appropriate on Perez's individual claims.

Contrary to Perez's contention, calculation of his damages from raw
time and pay records required more than simple math. The Court
cannot assume that time records showing no breaks meant that Perez
took no breaks, where the undisputed evidence was that the XATA
system did not always permit drivers to record breaks and drivers
sometimes forgot to record them. Summary judgment was appropriate
on Perez's individual claims.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 9, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9sul7rp from Leagle.com.

AMERICAN SOLAR: Loses 2nd Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District
California denied Defendant's Motion to Leave to File Second
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned KERRY
O'SHEA, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SOLAR SOLUTION, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB (S.D. Cal.).

This case is a class action alleging Defendant American Solar
Solution, Inc. (Defendant) violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), by using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) to place telemarketing calls to cell phones.  The
Defendant placed fifteen calls to named Plaintiff Kerry O'Shea's
(Plaintiff) cell phone.

The Defendant contends that ACA Int'l v. Federal Communications
Commission, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) changed the definition of
an ATDS such that the Defendant's ViciDial predictive dialer no
longer triggers it.

The TCPA broadly defines an ATDS as equipment which has the
capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,
using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such
numbers.

Germane to the present motion are two positions taken by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The first position is that
a predictive dialer is an ATDS. A predictive dialer is an automated
dialing system that uses a complex set of algorithms to
automatically dial consumers' telephone numbers in a manner that
predicts the time when a consumer will answer the phone and a
telemarketer will be available to take the call.

The ACA decision is unhelpful to the Defendant because the
Plaintiff is not arguing that the ViciDial predictive dialer is an
ATDS because it could be configured with autodialing functions.
Rather, the Plaintiff has submitted undisputed evidence
establishing that the ViciDial predictive dialer wasin fact
presently configured as a predictive dialer. The ACA decision left
intact the holding of both the FCC's 2003 and 2008 Order that an
autodialer is an ATDS. It follows that the ViciDial predictive
dialer is an ATDS.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's ex parte motion for
leave to file a second motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7agw8jn from Leagle.com.

Kerry O'Shea, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron --
ron@consumeradvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald Marron, Alexis M.
Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron & Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

American Solar Solution, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ken Ichi Ito &Margaret Juhyee Lee --
legal@greensoltech.com -- Green Solar Technologies, Inc.

AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Class of Travelling Nurses
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned ROBERT SHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMN
HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02816-JCS
(N.D. Cal.).

In their Motion for Class Certification in which the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of traveling nurses employed by
AMN who have worked at Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in California
during the proposed class period.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are employed by
Defendant AMN Healthcare, Inc. (AMN), a labor contractor that
recruits and places traveling nurses at various healthcare
facilities across the United States. They assert wage and hour
claims under California laws governing the payment of overtime and
provision of meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class under
Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rues of Civil Procedure:

     All traveling nurses who worked in the job position(s) of
Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or another nursing
position(s), for Defendant AMN and/or Defendant Kaiser, in one or
more Kaiser facilities in California during the applicable time
period.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the size of the proposed class be so
numerous that joinder of all the class members is impracticable.
The Defendants state 5,355 healthcare professionals employed by AMN
had assignments at Kaiser facilities in California during that
period.  The Plaintiffs also have offered declarations by 33
traveling nurses who were employed by AMN and worked at Kaiser
facilities during the proposed class period. The Defendants do not
dispute that the numerosity requirement is satisfied. The Court
therefore concludes that the proposed class is sufficiently
numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.

Defendants' Challenges to Commonality and Predominance

Whether Commonality and Predominance Requirements are Met as to
Overtime Claims

Under California law, employers must compensate their employees for
all the time the employees are suffered or permitted to work,
whether or not required to do so.

The Plaintiffs' overtime claims are based on the theory that Kaiser
instructs class members that it has a strict policy against
overtime by AMN traveling nurses and has a burdensome approval
policy even though the core duties required of all nurses at Kaiser
facilities make it all but impossible to avoid working overtime,
resulting in underreporting of overtime.

First, the Plaintiffs have offered evidence of a common policy,
reflected in assignment communications that were sent to AMN
traveling nurses assigned to at least ten different Kaiser
facilities in California conveying to them that Kaiser does not
permit overtime, or has a strict policy on overtime.

Second, evidence that Kaiser applies a different overtime policy to
its own nurses even while expecting all nurses at Kaiser
facilities, including traveling nurse, to perform the same core
duties with respect to hand-offs and charting and adhere to the
same ethical and professional obligations with respect to patient
care constitutes common proof that may reflect Kaiser's awareness
of the structural problems that result in failure to compensate
unscheduled overtime.

Third, the financial incentives and contractual arrangements
between Kaiser and AMN are common factors that result (under the
Plaintiffs' theory) in the Defendants' failure to take reasonable
measures to prevent underreporting of overtime.

The Defendants devote a significant portion of their brief to
arguing about what the statements in the assignment emails mean,
asserting Kaiser's policy does not prohibit overtime outright.

The Court concludes these common issues predominate over any
individualized inquiries with respect to the Plaintiffs' overtime
claims. First, the Defendants' reliance on nine declarations by
current AMN employees to demonstrate that individualized issues
predominate as to payment of overtime is unpersuasive.

Second, even if the Court gives some weight to the class member
declarations submitted by the Defendants, these declarations do not
defeat predominance. A well-defined class may inevitably contain
some individuals who have suffered no harm as a result of a
defendant's unlawful conduct.

Therefore, the Court finds that common issues predominate over
individualized inquiries as to the Plaintiffs' overtime claims.

Whether Commonality and Predominance Requirements are Met as to
Meal and Rest Break Claims

California employers must provide meal periods and authorize and
permit rest periods to all employees during their shifts. The
California Supreme Court has held that the required meal and rest
periods must be off-duty, which means that employees must be
relieved of all work-related duties, including the duty to remain
on call, and they must be free from employer control over how they
spend their time.

This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a common question as to
whether traveling nurses do not take breaks to which they are
entitled because of the pressures imposed by Kaiser's policies and
the Defendants' failure to adopt policies and procedures to ensure
that they receive compliant breaks, which other courts have found
to be sufficient to warrant certification under Brinker.  In
Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal.App.4th 388, 406
(2015), the mere existence of a lawful break policy will not defeat
class certification in the face of actual contravening policies and
practices that, as a practical matter, undermine the written policy
and do not permit breaks, citing Brinker, 53 Cal.4th at 1040, an
employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks
by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit
breaks.  

Nurses were not permitted to leave their unit for any break unless
they were relieved and a nurse who abandons patients without being
properly relieved of duty, places his or her professional license
in jeopardy. Although a nurse was employed to float among units to
provide meal break relief for members of the nursing staff no such
staff was available for rest breaks, and employees were expected to
arrange for any rest breaks on their own.  The Court reaches the
same conclusion here.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the legal claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class.

The Court rejects the Defendants' assertion that the typicality
requirement is not met because of variations in the experiences of
the proposed class representatives. The Defendants rely heavily on
testimony of Shaw, for example, that at Kaiser San Diego breakers
were used for meal and rest breaks.

In contrast, Plaintiffs Kucharski and Corona Teitelbaum testified
that at the Kaiser facilities where they worked, break nurses were
not used. The Defendants also point to declarations by other class
members that break nurses were used at Kaiser facilities where they
worked. However, neither Shaw nor the other class members state
that these break nurses were dedicated only to providing breaks and
had no other duties, or that their breaks were provided exclusively
by break nurses.

In any event, variations among facilities are not inconsistent with
the Plaintiffs' theory, which is based on the Defendants' failure
to adopt policies and procedures to ensure that the Plaintiffs were
consistently provided timely and uninterrupted breaks.
Therefore, the Court concludes that these variations do not defeat
typicality as to the rest and meal break claims.

Likewise, the Court finds unpersuasive the Defendants' reliance on
divergent situations as to the Plaintiffs' overtime claims.

The divergences the Defendants point out are inconsequential. As to
Shaw, his testimony about "nursing culture" was not offered to
explain why he did not claim overtime but instead, why he worked
overtime, and supports the Plaintiffs' theory that nurses'
professional obligations contribute to the pressure to work
overtime. Further, his testimony as to why he didn't claim overtime
was that he understood that he was required to obtain an approval
signature in order to claim the time and the process of obtaining
that approval was extremely burdensome.

The Plaintiffs' theory is that a variety of policies and practices
at Kaiser facilities, in combination, led to underreporting of
overtime. There is nothing in the testimony of the named Plaintiffs
that the Defendants have cited that suggests that their claims are
not typical of the class claims.

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representatives fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Court also finds that class counsel have no conflicts of
interest and that they are well-qualified to represent the
Plaintiffs. The Court rejects the Defendants' argument that class
counsel have a conflict of interest because they entered into a
class carve-out agreement with plaintiffs' counsel in a separate
class action involving a class of AMN employees who asserted
different claims. This agreement recognizes that the two actions
involve distinct alleged underlying wrongs and different claims and
factual predicates. It merely promises that class counsel will not
enter into any settlement agreement that purports to settle claims
asserted in the other case without the consent of class counsel in
that case.

In other words, counsel in this case have promised not to settle
claims that they are not asserting in this case but that the class
in Clark is asserting without the consent of Clark's counsel and
class counsel in Clark have made a reciprocal promise of the same
nature. The Defendants' novel assertion that this agreement creates
a conflict of interest is unsupported by any authority and makes no
sense as a practical matter as it is clear on the face of the
agreement that it is intended to protect the interests of the
putative class in this case.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the adequacy requirement is met
as to both the proposed class representatives and class counsel.

Superiority of Class Mechanism

The Court also finds that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

Here, the Court finds that individual class members are unlikely to
have an interest controlling the litigation and that it is
desirable and in the interests of judicial efficiency to
concentrate the litigation in a single judicial forum. The Court
further notes that the likely cost of litigating any particular
class member's claims vastly exceeds the class member's potential
recovery, a factor that further supports the conclusion that the
class mechanism is superior to requiring that each class member
bring a separate action to pursue the claims raised in this case.

The Court rejects the Defendants' assertion that the superiority
requirement is not met because class treatment of the Plaintiffs'
claims will not be manageable. The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs have failed to offer any trial plan showing how they
will prove their claims on a classwide basis and raise the specter
of a "trial by formula," which the Supreme Court has disapproved.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011),
holding that trial court erred in certifying a class where
plaintiffs relied on statistical evidence to prove that pay and
promotion disparities were the result of gender discrimination and
not other neutral factors.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yatbhflc from Leagle.com.

Robert Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie H. Joyner --
ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Michaela Wallin -- mwallin@bm.net -- Berger Montague,
P.C., pro hac vice, Nathan Bunnell Piller --
npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, P.C., pro hac vice,
Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Joshua Geoffrey Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.

Sharon Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie H. Joyner ,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Nathan Bunnell
Piller , Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Joshua
Geoffrey Konecky, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Jennifer Corona Teitelbaum, Lorenzo Holmes & Candy Kucharski,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

AMN Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarah
Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com -- Constangy
Brooks Smith and Prophete LLP, Steven Bernard Katz --
skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP,
Andrew More McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Kenneth Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy,
Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Matthew Scholl --
mscholl@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP,
Sarah Kepner Hamilton -- shamilton@constangy.com -- Constangy,
Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP & Tazamisha H. Imara --
timara@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP.

Kaiser Permanente International, Defendant, represented by
Christian Joseph Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Andrew More McNaught, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Eric Ghiya Ruehe --
eruehe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

AMP: Cases Put Australia's Class Action Industry in Limelight
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that it is shaping up as a watershed moment for Australia's class
action industry.

With two separate inquiries into class actions and litigation
funders and a battle brewing in the Federal Court and Supreme Court
of NSW over which jurisdiction five competing AMP shareholder class
actions should be heard, the industry has never been more in the
limelight.

It is a high stakes game, particularly if one of the inquiries
triggers changes to the country's continuous disclosure regime or
makes recommendations that rein in class actions.

In the case of the scandal-ridden AMP, four class actions were
instituted in the Federal Court and one class action was filed in
the NSW Supreme Court.

The class actions relate to the financial services giant admitting
it deliberately charged consumers fees for no services on a
systematic basis. It then misled the corporate regulator, in the
process letting down shareholders.

While all parties agreed one judge should hear all five cases, a
disagreement emerged over which court should hear them all.

That disagreement took a surprise twist when both courts looked set
to spray around injunctions.

It prompted Chief Justice Julie Ward of the Supreme Court of NSW at
the eleventh hour to step in and describe the situation as a
"debacle" and it ran the risk of bringing the administration of
justice into disrepute.

They were tough words that managed to get both sides to hold fire
for at least a month until the Federal Court makes its
determination on an application to transfer the Federal Court
proceedings to the NSW Supreme Court. After that, it is game on.

The court versus court stoush attracted little publicity outside of
the legal fraternity but it sent a warning signal to all about the
rise of class actions and how competing class actions need to be
managed to prevent what almost happened with AMP happening again.

Hugh McLernon, executive director of litigation funder IMF Bentham,
which is funding one of the AMP class actions in the Federal Court,
believes state-based class action systems are recent but necessary
developments in Australia's jurisprudence.

"They are required to enable class actions based upon state rather
than federal laws," he said. "It means problems will inevitably
arise when class actions involve claims under both federal and
state laws . . . The current imbroglio is the first example of what
will be involved in that sorting process."

Not surprisingly, companies and boards don't like class actions.
But at the end of the day, if a company isn't doing anything wrong,
it doesn't need to worry.

It is why former Australian Securities and Investments Commission
chairman Greg Medcraft described them as "very good at equalling up
the tables . . . they democratise access to the law" and can be "a
good market-driven solution".

Medcraft's contention was that if the market decided it wanted to
take on corporate malfeasance and somebody is willing to bankroll
it, rather than calling on the public purse, that was part of
market efficiency.

Over the years as more Australians have come to own shares --
either directly or indirectly through investments in managed funds
and super -- class actions have become a common weapon for
shareholders to draw on to enforce their rights.

But two inquiries could revise the class action landscape. They
include the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which recently
completed its inquiry into litigation funding, and the Australian
Law Reform Commission (ALRC), which was asked by the federal
government in December 2017 to "consider whether and to what extent
class action proceedings and third party litigation funders should
be subject to Commonwealth regulation".

The Terms of Reference require the ALRC to consider whether there
is adequate regulation of conflicts of interest between litigation
funder and lawyer, whether there are enough checks and balances
when it comes to the distribution of settlements and damages
awards, the "desirability" of imposing prudential requirements,
including relating to capital adequacy and requirements relating to
the character and suitability of litigation funders.

Submissions to the ALRC inquiry close at the end of July, and a
final report is expected on December 21.

In a paper released last month, the ALRC gave an insight into its
thinking when it suggested the federal government should commission
a review of the continuous disclosure obligations of listed
companies and those relating to misleading and deceptive conduct
contained in the Corporation's Act with regards to "the propensity
for corporate entities to be the target of funded shareholder class
actions in Australia". It also proposed looking at the availability
and cost of directors and officers liability cover within the
Australian market.

It was music to the ears of many boardrooms who would like nothing
more than to see the continuous disclosure regime watered down.
They would also like to put a lid on class actions.

But it is worth remembering that the continuous disclosure regime
was introduced for a reason: to protect shareholders. Companies
that breach this need to be held to account and sometimes the
regulator isn't in a position to follow through. Having a regime in
place that holds companies to account improves culture and
governance.

Class actions have been around in Australia for more than 25 years
and so it is right that they should be reviewed -- along with
litigation funders -- to ensure they meet best practice.

Over the years there have been a few shocking class actions, most
notably failed management schemes Timbercorp and Great Southern.
Burnt victims of the schemes received little back after years of
fighting and were left with massive loans after being advised by
the law firm not to make interest payments on their loans while the
class action was in process -- advice that turned out to be
disastrous for many, as the banks imposed penalties.

But on the whole, class actions have given hundreds of thousands of
Australians access to justice that they might not otherwise have
been able to afford. Many have been successful.

Critics argue there is an explosion in class actions, but the
numbers say otherwise.

According to a recent paper published by Professor Vince Morabito
from the department of law and tax at Monash Business School, since
Australia's first class action was lobbed in 1992, a total of 563
class actions have been filed on or before May 31, 2018. This
constitutes an average of 21.4 class actions every year.

In a country with a population of more than 24 million people, this
cannot rationally be viewed as excessive, he says.

To put it into perspective, Professor Morabito looks at the number
of class actions in places including Israel. He says in the nine
years from 2007 to 2015, 5867 class actions were filed in Israel,
which has a population of just over 8 million people. In Quebec,
which has a population of just over 8 million people, 1306 class
action cases were filed since 1993 and in Ontario, which has a
population of just over 14 million, 1459 class action cases were
filed.

The debate will only get louder ahead of the ALCR report and
submissions are released.

It is why a number of class action law firms have been writing
editorials in recent weeks outlining the benefits of class actions
and trying to dispel some myths.

And while a number of high-profile directors have been criticising
class actions, including that they are costly, a burden on business
and pushing up the cost of insurance, "very few end up benefiting
the class they are supposed to benefit and very few get to court,"
Westpac chairman Lindsay Maxsted was quoted as saying. [GN]

APEX SYSTEMS: Webb Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Webb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apex Systems, LLC and Dell Marketing Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00686, (M.D. Tenn., July 24, 2018),
seeks relief for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, attorney's fees and
declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Plaintiff worked at a call center operated by Dell in Dell Parkway
in Nashville, Tennessee. Defendants pay only for work activities
performed while they are logged into a phone dialing software
platform. Webb claims compensation for preparatory work activities
before their paid shifts begin, including activities related to the
operation of their computers, logging into their computers and into
a dozen programs needed to field calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      BARRET, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
             stift@barrettjohnston.com

             - and -

      John L. Mays, Esq.
      MAYS & KERR LLC
      235 Peachtree Street NE
      North Tower, Suite 202
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 410-7998
      Facsimile: (404) 855-4066
      Email: john@maysandkerr.com

             - and -

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


ARIZONA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Parsons" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court approved in 2015 a settlement agreement between the Arizona
Department of Corrections and inmates in its 10 state-run prisons,
which should improve medical care for prisoners.

Under the settlement, the Arizona Department of Corrections ask the
Legislature for increased funding for health care staffing and
institute plans to treat prisoners with chronic diseases.  The
agency, which admitted no wrongdoing, will also give annual flu
shots and provide colon cancer screenings and mammograms to inmates
of a certain age.  Corrections officers are to refrain from using
pepper spray on prisoners unless there is an "imminent threat"
present.

The settlement comes after a 2012 class action in which inmates
claimed they were subjected to "unnecessary pain and suffering,
preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and death" in Arizona
prisons.  They also claimed prison staffs were ill-prepared and
-trained to handle medical emergencies.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-16358, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 20, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on September 19, 2018;

   -- Appellants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan's opening
      brief is due on October 29, 2018;

   -- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne
      Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn
      Jensen, Desiree Licci, Victor Antonio Parsons, Joshua
      Polson, Sonia Rodriguez, Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz,
      Jackie Thomas, Christina Verduzco and Charlotte Wells'
      answering brief is due on November 28, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS, et al., are
represented by:

          Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq.
          Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq.
          John H. Gray, Attorney, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
          Telephone: (602) 351-8085
          E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
                  agerlicher@perkinscoie.com
                  jhgray@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Erin Brody, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          3707 N. 7th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 773-6011
          E-mail: kbrody@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Kirstin Eidenbach, Esq.
          EIDENBACH LAW PLLC
          P.O. Box 91398
          Tucson, AZ 85752
          Telephone: (520) 477-1475

               - and -

          David Cyrus Fathi, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          915 15th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 393-4930
          E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org

               - and -

          Amy Fettig, Esq.
          NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT-ACLU
          915 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 548-6608
          E-mail: afettig@npp-aclu.org

               - and -

          Alison Hardy, Esq.
          Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq.
          Rita Katherine Lomio, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Donald Specter, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: ahardy@prisonlaw.com
                  ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
                  rlomio@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com
                  dspecter@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Victoria A. Lopez, Esq.
          3707 N. 7th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 773-6011

               - and -

          Caroline Nason Mitchell, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5712
          E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com

               - and -

          John Laurens Wilkes, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          717 Texas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 239-3796
          E-mail: jlwilkes@jonesday.com

Defendants-Appellants CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections, and RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division
Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of
Corrections, are represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC
          3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Gottfried, Esq.
          ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          2005 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 542-7693
          E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov

               - and -

          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK, WIENEKE & LOVE, PLC
          3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: rlove@swlfirm.com
                  dstruck@swlfirm.com


ARKANSAS: Lay, Webb Appeal Order and Judgment to Eighth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jerimey Lay, Tabitha Lay and Katelyn Webb filed an
appeal from the District Court's Opinion & Order and Judgment, both
entered on June 20, 2018, in their lawsuit styled Katelyn Webb, et
al. v. Chelsea Smith, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00660-JLH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little
Rock.

Chelsea Smith is a Family Services Worker in Arkansas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge J. Leon
Holmes granted in part and denied in part the state officials'
motion to dismiss the case.

The parents of children taken into temporary protective custody by
the State of Arkansas bring the class action against state
officials of the Division of Children and Family Services of the
Department of Human Services ("DHS") in their individual and
official capacities alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Plaintiffs allege three categories of federal claims: (1) Webb
and the Lays claim separately from the class that the seizures of
their children were unconstitutional; (2) Webb and the Lays claim
separately from the class that they were deprived of an opportunity
to be heard in a timely manner after the seizures; and (3) Webb and
the Lays claim on behalf of themselves and the proposed class that
the Arkansas statutes governing the provision of post-deprivation
hearings to parents of seized children are constitutionally
deficient.

The appellate case is captioned as Katelyn Webb, et al. v. Chelsea
Smith, et al., Case No. 18-2541, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before August 28, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on September 7, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellants Jerimey Lay, Tabitha Lay and Katelyn
      Webb is due on September 7, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Katelyn Webb, as guardian and next friend of
K.S. and D.S. and on behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated; Jerimey Lay, as guardian and next friend of R.L. and
C.L.; and Tabitha Lay, as guardian and next friend of R.L. and
C.L., are represented by:

          Joseph E. Churchwell, Esq.
          CHURCHWELL LAW OFFICES
          214 Hobson Avenue
          Hot Springs, AR 71913
          Telephone: (501) 318-9921

               - and -

          Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Esq.
          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM
          310 W. Conway Street
          P.O. Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018-2012
          Telephone: (501) 315-1910
          Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
          E-mail: lucien.gillham@gmail.com
                  luthersutter.law@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees Chelsea Smith, Individually and in her
Official Capacity; Stacy Houck, Individually and in her Official
Capacity; Mischa Martin, Individually and in her Official Capacity;
and Cindy Gillespie, Individually and in her Official Capacity, are
represented by:

          Monty Vaughan Baugh, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          200 Catlett-Prien Building
          323 Center Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 682-2007
          E-mail: monty.baugh@arkansasag.gov

               - and -

          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          200 Catlett-Prien Building
          323 Center Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 682-2007
          E-mail: maryna.jackson@arkansasag.gov



ARNS LAW: Combs Alleges Improper Operation of Nursing Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE COMBS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
California residents, the Plaintiff, v. SHLOMO RECHNITZ; RECHNITZ
CITRUS GP; CITRUS WELLNESS CENTER, LLC; DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE &
WELLNESS CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through
250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC71365 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 17, 2018), alleges that Defendants actively and intentionally
concealed from Plaintiff and class members that Defendants did not
devote sufficient financial resources to the proper operation of
their California skilled nursing facility, did not devote
sufficient financial resources to protect the health and safety of
residents and ensure resident rights were not violated, and instead
diverted those resources to create ill-begotten profits for
Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
          GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Telephone: (562) 216 5270
          Facsimile: (562) 216 5271
          E-mail: edocs@Iawgarcia.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile (415) 495 7888


ARS NATIONAL: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Says Hosier
----------------------------------------------------------
Shana Hosier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARS National Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:18-cv-06503 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants' debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed
towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

ARS National Services, Inc., is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


AT&T PENSION: Grosso & Wing Sue over Pension Benefit Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT C. GROSSO and PATRICIA M. WING, On Behalf Of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T PENSION
BENEFIT PLAN and AT&T SERVICES, INC, AS PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06448 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), seeks
to recover full pension benefits accrued during Plaintiffs'
employment with AT&T Inc., pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, AT&T's denial of retroactive benefits
to Plaintiffs violates the so-called Special Update which, as in
effect when Plaintiffs left AT&T's employment, did not require a
written application as a condition of entitlement to unreduced
early retirement benefits, and did not prohibit retroactive
payments. Moreover, AT&T's application of the 2016 Amendment to
Plaintiffs' claims reduced their accrued benefits retroactively, in
violation of ERISA's anti-cutback rule.

In April 1997, AT&T adopted an amendment to the AT&T Pension
Benefit Plan which, effective August 1, 1997, entitled eligible
current and former management employees to receive unreduced early
retirement benefits at age 55, instead of having to wait to age 65
to receive the same monthly benefit. The Amendment is referred to
as the "Special Update." The only two requirements for eligibility
for the Special Update were that individuals must have been AT&T
employees and participants in the Plan on January 1, 1997. It is
uncontested that Plaintiffs met both requirements.

The Plaintiffs did not learn of the adoption of the Special Update
until, in the case of Mr. Grosso, January 2017, when he was 63
years old and, in the case of Ms. Wing, December 2016, when she was
59 years old. Upon learning of its adoption, Plaintiffs applied
immediately for the unreduced early retirement benefits to which
they had become entitled at age 55.  AT&T, however, awarded them
benefits only prospectively from the dates of their respective
applications, causing them to forfeit all retroactive benefits
payable between the date of application and age 55.

As calculated by AT&T, Mr. Grosso's retroactive claim is valued at
$229,108.29, plus interest, while Ms. Wing's is valued at
$87,381.84, plus interest.  AT&T predicated the denial of
retroactive benefits not on the Special Update, as adopted in 1997,
but on an amendment to the Special Update which it adopted in
December 2016, 19 years after Plaintiffs left AT&T's employment and
just days before they applied for benefits.  As applied, but not
explained by AT&T, the 2016 Amendment requires a written
application as a condition of entitlement to unreduced early
retirement benefits and, therefore, does not permit retroactive
payments.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Edgar Pauk, Esq.
          1066 Union Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11225
          Telephone: (718) 399 2023
          E-mail: lawoffice@edgarpauk.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Liebross, Esq.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 566 2151
          E-mail: rliebross@liebrosslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Mortgage Assistance Policies Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production in the
case captioned Bobbi Jackson and Matthew Jackson, Plaintiffs, v.
Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, No. 16-CV-787G (W.D.N.Y.).

This potential class-action case concerns allegations that the Bank
mishandled the Jacksons' attempts at loan modification when they
fell behind in their mortgage; the Bank's conduct allegedly sent
the Jacksons' home into foreclosure, increased fees that they owed,
and violated federal housing regulations in the process.

The Court rules that to the extent that it has not done so already,
the Bank must furnish the Jacksons with policies, procedures, and
training materials concerning how to process mortgage assistance
applications. The Bank additionally must furnish policies,
procedures, and training materials concerning how it tests
compliance with Section 1024.41.

Unless Section 1024.41(b) had its own distinct procedures and
compliance testing, the processing and testing materials must cover
all of Section 1024.41. The Bank also must furnish any reports,
presentations, or memoranda that it generated from 2014 through
2017 that summarize or discuss the results of compliance testing
for Section 1024.41. The Court can consider at a later time whether
and how the results of this document production might affect the
Jacksons' ability to establish typicality.

Consequently, and after considering the other requests in the
pending motion, the Court will direct three other forms of
discovery that will unfold incrementally as needed. For the
calendar years 2014 through 2017, the Bank will furnish the
Jacksons with copies of the complete files for the first 100
mortgage assistance applications submitted each year. Subject to
later requests for modification, the entire contents of the 400
sample files will be marked as confidential information and will be
handled in accordance with the protective order. Production of the
sample files should give the Jacksons some guidance as to how
routinely any regulatory violations occurred; the routine or
sporadic nature of any violations, in turn, will help the Jacksons
decide whether any potential class should cover any applicants for
mortgage assistance or should be defined more carefully.

For any current or former employee whose name appears anywhere in
the sample files, the Bank will search the email accounts for those
employees for any mention of (1) the names of the applicants; or
(2) the principal word or words in the addresses of the properties
subject to the mortgage obligations. That email search should
suffice to give the parties some idea as to whether Bank employees
in fact were processing mortgage assistance applications by email,
outside of official procedure and contrary to the Bank's
assertions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y97336bc from
Leagle.com.

Bobbi Jackson & Matthew Jackson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Catherine Creighton -- ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton
Johnsen & Giroux, Daniel Townsend -- daniel@guptawessler.com --
Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice, Ian H. Hayes --
ihayes@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Katherine
Aizpuru -- kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- Gupta
Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice, Annick Persinger --
apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice,
Geoffrey G. Bestor, The Bestor Law Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Keith E. Levenberg
-- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Courtney L.
Hayden -- chayden@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & James W.
McGarry -- jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.

BEST BUY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Herron" Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chad Herron filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit entitled Chad Herron v. Best Buy Stores, LP, Case No.
2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.

The appellate case is captioned as Chad Herron v. Best Buy Stores,
LP, Case No. 18-16343, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Herron
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is styled as Chad Herron v. Best Buy Stores, LP, Case No.
18-80056.

In or about January 2010, Plaintiff Chad Herron bought a new
Toshiba Satellite L505 from Best Buy after he was induced on the
representation that the battery life of such model was up to 3.32
hours.  However, the Plaintiff never once achieved even close to
the represented 3.32 hours of battery life.  The Plaintiff alleged
that the Defendant violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act or CLRA and under the "unlawfulness" portion of California's
Unfair Competition Law or UCL that is premised upon the CLRA
claim.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Chad Herron's opening brief is due on
      September 20, 2018;

   -- Appellee Best Buy Stores, LP's answering brief is due on
      October 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com
                  gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Niall McCarthy, Esq.
          Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  amurphy@cpmlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee BEST BUY STORES, LP, is represented by:

          Jill Sharon Casselman, Esq.
          Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-0824
          E-mail: jscasselman@rkmc.com
                  mageibelson@rkmc.com



BIG PICTURE: Appeals Ruling in "Williams" Suit to Fourth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Big Picture Loans, LLC, and Ascension Technologies,
Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, and
Felix Gillison, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt Martorello,
Ascension Technologies, Inc., Daniel Gravel, James Williams, Jr.,
Gertrude McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and Giiwegiizhigookway Martin,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 22, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Robert E. Payne.

Big Picture is a short-term loan company offering installment, or
personal, loans.

The appellate case is captioned as Lula Williams v. Big Picture
Loans, LLC, Case No. 18-1827, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that case
initial forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees LULA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, GLORIA TURNAGE, GEORGE HENGLE,
DOWIN COFFY and FELIX GILLISON, JR., are represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

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

Defendants-Appellants BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, and ASCENSION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Defendant MATT MARTORELLO are represented
by:

          David Neal Anthony, Esq.
          Timothy James St. George, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410
          E-mail: david.anthony@troutmansanders.com
                  tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com

Defendants-Appellants BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, and ASCENSION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., are represented by:

          Justin Alexander Gray, Esq.
          Karrie Sue Wichtman, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          24355 Red Arrow Highway
          Mattawan, MI 48071
          Telephone: (269) 283-5005
          E-mail: kwichtman@rosettelaw.com
                  jgray@rosettelaw.com

Defendant MATT MARTORELLO is represented by:

          Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq.
          David Foster Herman, Esq.
          Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS
          Avenue of the Arts
          123 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19109-0000
          Telephone: (215) 772-7228
          E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com
                  dherman@mmwr.com
                  rscheff@mmwr.com


BMW FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Directed to File Non-Opposition Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 22, 2018, in the case captioned MOHAMMAD SALIMI, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 12-cv-01754-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Defendant BMW Financial
Services NA, LLC ("BMW") filed a motion (i) to vacate the Court's
order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for contempt and (ii) requesting an order of preliminary approval
of a class action settlement.  Counsel for BMW indicated that the
request to vacate the Court's order on the motion for contempt was
unopposed, but did not attach a declaration (or an attestation of
any kind) from the Plaintiffs to this effect. It is therefore not
clear to the Court whether the Plaintiffs, in fact, do not oppose
BMW's request. Further, it is unclear from BMW's motion whether the
Plaintiffs oppose or do not oppose BMW's request for an order of
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The deadline (July 6, 2018) for the Plaintiffs to file an
opposition has passed, and the Plaintiffs have filed no
opposition.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California directed the Plaintiffs to file either (i) a
notice of non-opposition or (ii) a belated opposition to BMW's
request to vacate the contempt order and request for preliminary
settlement approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7d2ke9z from Leagle.com.

Mohammad Salimi & August Galarga, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan
Kemnitzer , Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP, Dan Leo Gildor , Chavez
& Gertler LLP, Elliot Jason Conn , Kemnitzer Barron and Krieg, LLP,
Mark Andrew Chavez , Chavez & Gertler LLP, Nance Felice Becker ,
Chavez & Gertler LLP & Nancy Barron , Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg,
LLP.

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
John Hassen -- mjhassen@reallaw.us -- Reallaw, APC.

Asset Acquisition Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
John Hassen -- mjhassen@reallaw.us -- Reallaw, APC & Christopher H.
Doyle -- chd@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Kozyak Tropin Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq., and Rachel Sullivan, Esq., of Kozyak Tropin
and Throckmorton, in an article for Daily Business Review, report
that class action defendants are attempting to rewrite longstanding
principles of personal jurisdiction, trying to defeat certification
of nationwide classes by arguing that a court lacks personal
jurisdiction over out-of-state class members' claims where the
defendant does not reside in the court's forum state. The court
cannot certify a class, the argument goes, unless it can establish
personal jurisdiction over the claims of every out-of-state class
member.

Defendants base this argument on a flawed interpretation of the
Supreme Court's recent opinion in Bristol-Myers-Squibb v. Superior
Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). Bristol-Myers was a
mass products liability action brought by more than 600 individual
plaintiffs in California state court against a pharmaceutical
manufacturer, involving only California claims. The defendant
challenged the state court's jurisdiction over nonresidents' claims
on the ground that neither the conduct challenged, nor those
plaintiffs' injuries, had occurred in California. The court held
that it lacked jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims because
they lacked any connection to California, and "the conduct giving
rise to [their] claims [had] occurred elsewhere."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent that the court "had
not confronted the question whether its opinion . . .  would also
apply to a class action in which a plaintiff injured in the forum
State seeks to represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, not all
of whom were injured there." The court was clear, however, that its
decision would not upset its longstanding personal jurisdiction
jurisprudence, noting that "settled principles regarding specific
jurisdiction controlled the case." And the court did address the
opinion's effect on class actions, if only by implication.

The respondents had argued that if personal jurisdiction did not
attach to nonresidents' claims, future federal litigants would be
prohibited from aggregating claims resulting in, among other
things, a multiplication of lawsuits. Respondents reasoned:
District courts rely in such cases on their home states' long-arm
statutes—which typically extend to the same due process
limit—for their personal jurisdiction . . . The same
multiplication of litigation thus inevitably results; the federal
courts will have no more power to hold these cases together than
their state court counterparts. That seemingly includes even the
most obviously appropriate class actions . . . under Rule 23."

Seemingly addressing the respondents' conclusions, the Supreme
Court assured that its "straightforward application" of settled
personal jurisdiction principles "would not result in the parade of
horribles that respondents conjure up." Thus, by insisting that its
opinion only affirmed well-settled personal jurisdiction
jurisprudence, and that the "parade of horribles" imagined by
respondents would be avoided, the court at least implicitly held
that its opinion would not disturb the longstanding rule that
personal jurisdiction lies with the named parties of a suit, not
absent class members.

District courts have already recognized Bristol-Myers' limitations.
In Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, for
example, the court explained that Bristol-Myers "did not change
existing law," noting "a significant difference" between mass tort
actions, where due process protections might be lacking for
defendants haled into court by nonresident plaintiffs, and class
actions. Similarly, in Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group, the court held that Bristol-Myers does not extend to class
actions because, unlike in a mass tort action where "each plaintiff
was a real party in interest to the complaints, . . . in a putative
class action . . . one or more plaintiffs seek to represent the
rest of the similarly situated plaintiffs," 2017 WL 4224723, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017).

Other courts have recognized Bristol Myers' limitations, though not
ultimately reaching the issue of its application to class actions.
And a few have even gone the other way and refused to exercise
jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state named plaintiffs and
out-of-state absent class members. But these decisions are devoid
of analysis and ultimately fail to persuade.

At bottom, though, the Bristol-Myers opinion makes good sense as
far as it goes. But it goes nowhere near federal class actions. By
conducting a rigorous Rule 23 analysis and confirming that named
plaintiffs, their counsel, and their claims fairly represent the
class, a federal court sufficiently resolves the due process
concerns that compelled dismissal in Bristol-Myers. The majority of
courts to address the application of Bristol-Myers in the class
action context have appropriately concluded as much. Courts across
the country should continue to follow suit.

Tal J. Lifshitz is an attorney in Kozyak Tropin and Throckmorton's
complex litigation department. He can be reached at tjl@kttlaw.com


Rachel Sullivan is an attorney and of counsel to Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton's complex litigation department. She can be reached at
rs@kttlaw.com [GN]

BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Anderson Sues over Nursing Facility Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
California residents, the Plaintiff, v. SHLOMO RECHNITZ; BRIUS
MANAGEMENT CO., INC; POINT LOMA REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC;
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC713766 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
17, 2018), alleges that Plaintiffs and members of the Class relied
on the representations of the Defendants that they would be
provided with minimum standards of care consistent with the
requirements of Health & Safety Code section 1599.1(a) as
incorporated into Title 22 C.C.R. section 72527(a)(25), yet did not
receive this promised standard of care and suffered pecuniary harm
by being deprived of the value of payments made for skilled nursing
services when these services were not actually rendered consistent
with the Defendants' representations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants make representations to
prospective residents and their families and others similarly
situated via their uniform admission agreements.  Pursuant to this
uniform representation that the services provided by the Defendants
would meet the particularized standards as set forth in the
Resident Bill of Rights attached to the uniform Admission
Agreement, the Defendants were to provide all residents of the
nursing facility services consistent with the mandatory
requirements of California Health & Safety Code.  Specifically, the
services represented by the Defendants that they would provide to
each resident, via the contractual Admission Agreement arrangement
with each resident, was explicitly stated by the Defendants to
include the obligation, and representation as to the standard of
care to be provided, that the Facility would ensure the rights
afforded to all residents of skilled nursing facilities under
Health & Safety Code section 1599.1 (a) and 22 C.C.R. section
72527(a)(25), most specifically the right to live in a facility
that employs "an adequate number of qualified personnel to carry
out all of the functions of the facility."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
          GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Telephone: (562) 216 5270
          Facsimile: (562) 216 5271
          E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile (415) 495 7888


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Tests Future of Class Action Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reported that a lawsuit accusing Buffalo Wild Wings Inc.
of owing wages to thousands of workers could soften the blow for
worker advocates reeling from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision
to legalize class action waivers.

The high court May 21 ruled in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that
companies can require workers to sign arbitration agreements
waiving their rights to file a class or collective action. The
decision was a major victory for employers who want to include
these clauses in employment contracts as a means of limiting their
exposure to costly and embarrassing litigation.

The ruling was seen as a devastating setback to workers' rights to
band together in court. Businesses now can resolve employee
disputes individually in an arbitration process that can leave
workers without legal representation because plaintiff attorneys
often can't afford to defend one worker at a time.

But the nearly 400 individual arbitrations that Buffalo Wild Wings
is facing over wage-and-hour disputes may represent a cautionary
tale for employers and a glimmer of hope for workers and their
attorneys. Lawyers for workers at the restaurant chain are pursuing
those cases individually because the employees signed arbitration
agreements waiving their right to bring a class action against the
company.

Rather than accept arbitration as an automatic loss, a select
number of firms want to flood a business with mass individual
arbitration filings to gain leverage for a settlement. Employers,
generally responsible for footing the bill of the arbitration
proceeding, can easily run up a tab of six figures or more if they
encounter a plaintiff's counsel determined to deliver arbitrations
en masse.

"The requirement to go one by one by one for workers in arbitration
doesn't help employers either," Cathy Ruckelshaus, general counsel
of the National Employment Law Project, told Bloomberg Law. "It's
incredibly expensive and if they're paying for it, at some point
the employers are going to say, ‘OK, 10 workers is enough. We
don't need to talk to all 5,000 workers.'"

Executing the Threat
By siding with industry on the waivers' legality, the justices
injected fresh relevance into a 2015 class action alleging Buffalo
Wild Wings failed to pay the minimum wage to tipped workers across
the country. The two sides later determined that 822 of those
seeking to join the action couldn't proceed in court because they
had signed arbitration agreements that include a class action
waiver.

Last fall, several weeks after oral arguments in Epic Systems, a
pair of plaintiffs' firms delivered a preemptive message: If an
employer wants to insist on resolving workplace claims out of
court, that means arbitration 391 times.

Buffalo Wild Wings lawyers are in the early stages of negotiating a
settlement with the workers. The outcome could mean millions of
dollars split among the 5,500 employees who had signed on to the
original complaint, including the 391 who are now split off into
arbitration. More broadly, employment lawyers think a big
settlement could lead other businesses to take the threat of mass
arbitration more seriously.

"The defendant never believes that you're going to actually do it,
so once you do and you've made good strategic decisions about who
you're moving forward with, that's a powerful thing to do,"
Racchana Srey, who chairs the wage-and-hour practice group at the
National Employment Lawyers Association, told Bloomberg Law. "I
think it would serve as a deterrent to other employers out there
who want to take the same strategy of enforcing these agreements."

Srey is a partner at Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis, one of a
handful of national plaintiff firms with the manpower to pursue
multiple arbitrations on behalf of workers who waived their right
to bring collective claims in court.

Lee Schreter, who co-chairs wage-hour practice at the nation's
largest management-side workplace law firm, isn't persuaded that
plaintiffs' lawyers typically have the will to execute on this
threat.

"It can be an expensive proposition" for employers, "but it can be
as well for plaintiffs' counsel, because they have to be able to
staff and defend individual arbitrations," Schreter, a shareholder
at Littler Mendelson in Atlanta, told Bloomberg Law. "My experience
is that they get into four or five cases and the appeal of that
approach quickly loses steam."

Can Mass Filings be Replicated?
The procedural history of the Buffalo Wild Wings case offers a
blueprint for specialized scenarios, but not one that can be
replicated as frequently as worker advocates would desire.

Attorneys from Outten & Golden in New York and Werman Salas in
Chicago identified 391 employees to bring individual arbitrations
because they earlier had represented those workers in the class
action.

For now, progress on that front is shielded because arbitration
proceedings are kept confidential. But the judge handling the 2015
litigation over the same initial wage violation claims agreed in
June to delay a hearing to allow the parties time to negotiate a
settlement. This suggests that the operational and financial
headaches of 391 arbitrations may have pressured the company to
settle.

Another factor possibly influencing the company's willingness to
settle is that Buffalo Wild Wings was purchased by a Roark Capital
Group, the owner of Arby's, late last year. The deal was finalized
in February.

A Buffalo Wild Wings spokeswoman did not respond to a request for
comment on why the company is trying to settle and what role, if
any, the new ownership played in the decision. Attorneys for both
the company and the workers declined to comment.

Joe Sellers, a partner at Cohen Milstein in Washington, has been
strategizing how plaintiffs' lawyers can rebound from Epic Systems.
He cautioned that it's much harder to find the volume of workers
needed to engage in mass arbitration when lawyers don't have a list
of clients from a class action.

Attorneys could pick up clients by scanning informal networks that
employees have among themselves or through referrals from unions or
worker centers.

"It's not to say that this could never be replicated, but I think
the likelihood of this kind of scenario arising several years from
now, where in the event there's a significant increase in the
number of class waivers in enforceable arbitration clauses, is
going to make this kind of strategy more challenging or less likely
to be available," Sellers told Bloomberg Law. [GN]

CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Worker Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiffs, v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services LLC, and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV331774, (Cal.
Super., July 24, 2018), seeks recovery of all wages for overtime
hours worked, minimum wages for all hours worked, redress for
Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay all earned wages at the conclusion of employment, failure to
adequately reimburse business expenditures incurred and required by
their jobs and failure to furnish timely statements accurately
showing, among other things, the total hours worked during each pay
period all in accordance with California Labor Laws.

California Cemetery and Funeral Services is a provider of funeral
services throughout the state of California where John Ortiz was
employed by Defendant from April 19, 2003 to January 31, 2018 as a
driver, transporting and cosmetizing bodies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ottinger, Esq.
      Ashley Pellouchoud, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      535 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 94133
      Tel: (415) 262-0096
      Fax: (212) 571-0505
      Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: "Cabrega" Suit Alleges Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Chelse Cabrega and Jamie Joslin, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Campbell Soup Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-03827
(E.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the N.Y. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant for
the deceptive practice of marketing its soups as having "No
Preservatives Added" and or claiming to be "Made with Patience, Not
Preservatives," when they actually contains the preservatives
citric acid and ascorbic acid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Jamie Joslin is a resident of Riverside County,
California and purchased Campbell's Slow Kettle Style Sweet Tomato
and Bisque soup for personal consumption.

The Plaintiff Chelse Cabrega is a resident of the State of New York
and purchased Campbell's Homestyle Harvest Tomato and Basil soup
for personal consumption.

The Defendant Campbell is a company organized under the laws of New
Jersey with its address at 1 Campbell Place, Camden, NJ 08103, and
address for service of process at c/o The Corporation Trust
Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
DE 19801. The Defendant develops, markets, and sells food products
under the "CAMPBELL" brand name throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CANADA: Long-Term Care Patients' Rights Group Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that Daniel
Pilote, 56, who has lived in a St-Jean-sur-Richelieu long-term care
nursing facility for the past four years, says medical staff there
are so overworked that he's afraid no one will get to him in time
should his breathing machine fail.

Paralyzed from the neck down with muscular dystrophy, Mr. Pilote
says he's being rough-handled by staff that has about 10 minutes to
wash and dress him each day.

Mr. Pilote has become the plaintiff in a class-action suit that a
patients' rights group is seeking to launch against Quebec's
network of long-term care centres for providing its residents with
"bad service" the lawsuit describes as abusive.

The Conseil pour la protection des malades (CPM) has spent months
preparing the suit, which cites "deplorable and shameful"
conditions inflicted on patients "too vulnerable to complain."

"Fundamentally, it's about dignity, how we treat our elderly people
in the system," said lawyer Philippe Larochelle, an expert in
class-action procedures who filed the suit. "It boils down to a
question of dignity as protected by the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms."

The class action cites 22 examples of living conditions it contends
are unacceptable, ranging from quality of care and food, to poor
hygiene and the maintenance of the centres.

"For example, in all the centres, the unwritten norm is that
patients who have difficulty walking are forced to wear diapers,"
said patients-rights advocate Paul Brunet, head of the Conseil pour
la protection des malades. "Why do they have to wear diapers if
they are not incontinent? Shame on them. It's disrespect to human
dignity."

The suit seeks compensatory damages of $250 to $750, as well as
exemplary damages of $100, for each month spent within the network
by its 37,000 users during the past three years, an award that
could add up to a minimum of $500 million.

The class action targets all public long-term centres in the
province as well as some private institutions where the CPM was
able to gather complaints from residents. It's also based on a
collection of media stories that paint a gloomy picture, for
example, of residents getting one bath a week, being left for hours
in soiled diapers and suffocating in rooms without air
conditioning.

Mr. Brunet blamed the decline of nursing home care on the health
reforms of 2015 that sought to save the health system about $200
million a year by cutting middle-management positions.

"Mr. Pilote called me because his neighbour almost died when his
breathing apparatus failed. The man died the next day and Mr.
Pilote was afraid he would be next," Mr. Brunet said. "Someone
wasn't there at the right time."

The decline in services has come to a point where it is now
infringing on patients' constitutional rights, he said.

Government officials declined to comment because the class-action
suit is likely to go before the courts, said Catherine Audet, press
attache to Quebec Health Minister Gaetan Barrette.

In a statement sent by email, Ms. Audet said her government has
made major investments to improve infrastructure at long-term
facilities and added 14 new nursing homes for a total of $470
million since 2014.

"Never has a government invested so much to improve the quality of
life of the people who live there," she said, from reviewing the
food and hiring more staff, to adding a second bath a week for
those residents who want it.

Every day, hundreds of orderlies, nurses and other health
professionals work relentlessly in nursing homes to care for the
elderly, she said.

Well, that's not good enough, Mr. Brunet said. The official
government response that "we're doing the best with what we have"
whenever his organization complained of poor services in nursing
homes just doesn't cut it, he said.

"I'm sorry, that's insufficient --  according to the constitutional
rights of patients to get safe, adequate and respectful service
that respects their personal integrity," Brunet said. "These are
charter rights. You can't limit them because of lack of
resources."

Mr. Larochelle, the lawyer handling the suit, said he would not
rule out extending the mandate of the legal action to other health
facilities that are failing to meet their duties of care.

"The suit is a cry of alarm that may act as a driving force for
change so people can get the resources they need with dignity," he
said. "I have heard horror stories of people who have died in
nursing homes because of an overdose."

Long-term residences are supposed to be a "milieu de vie" or a
living environment, Mr. Larochelle said, "and I haven't heard of
one that's exemplary."

Anyone interested in participating in the class-action suit,
whether nursing home residents or families of patients, can
register online at either Mr. Larochelle's website or through the
CPM, the patients' rights group. [GN]

CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brown" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ella S. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Ella Brown v. Capital One, N.A., Case No.
8:17-cv-03076-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt.

The appellate case is captioned as Ella Brown v. Capital One, N.A.,
Case No. 18-1816, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that case
initial forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ELLA S. BROWN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Cory Lev Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

Defendant-Appellee CAPITAL ONE N.A. is represented by:

          Jonathan S. Hubbard, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1407
          E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutman.com

               - and -

          Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1850 Towers Crescent Plaza
          Tysons Corner, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 734-4351
          E-mail: mohsin.reza@troutman.com



CASTRO CONSTRUCTIVE: Romero Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ROMERO on his own behalf and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CASTRO CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS, INC. and KD
CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-01723-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an hourly
worker for Defendants and performed related activities for
Defendants in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Plaintiff routinely
worked overtime, but was not paid overtime for all of the hours
that he worked, at the correct rate of pay.

Castro Constructive Solutions specializes in reinforcing steel
placement.  The Company offers an apprenticeship program for those
serious about becoming skilled craftsmen of the trade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmetron Rd., Ste. 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524 6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


CATHERINE ROSELLI: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a South Florida law
practice was hit with a putative class action in federal court on
July 9 alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act for stating incorrect and confusing information in the
disclosures within a debt collection notice.

Plaintiff Victor Gabbai filed suit against the Fort
Lauderdale-based Law Office of Catherine Roselli and as yet unknown
individuals and companies for which Roselli attempted to collect
debts.

The case is captioned Gabbai v. The Law Office of Catherine Roselli
et al, Case No. 0:18-cv-61554 (S.D. Fla.). The case is assigned to
Judge Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.  The case was filed July 9,
2018. [GN]

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Ruling in 2008 Flood Class Action Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Erianne Leatherman, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a district court ruling that
prohibits a group of property owners from suing railways for
damages related to a 2008 Iowa flood.

In the June 22 ruling, Justice Edward Mansfield said, "After
careful review of the (Federal Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act) and authorities interpreting it, we conclude this
federal law does indeed preempt the property owners' action
alleging that the railroads' design and operation of their railroad
bridges resulted in flood damage to other properties."

In 2013, a group of property owners filed the class action lawsuit
against the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co., Union Pacific
Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corp. and Alliant Energy Corp.,
alleging the companies were responsible for damage to their
property caused by the 2008 flood. The lawsuit sought $6 billion in
damages.

The companies own bridges that traverse the Cedar River that were
washed out and "worsened the effects of the flooding for the other
property owners," the opinion said. The defendants parked railcars
loaded with rocks on the bridges in an effort to weigh them down
and prevent them from washing away during the flood, but two of the
four bridges collapsed two days later and the railcars fell and
clogged the Cedar River, allegedly causing or worsening the
plaintiffs' property damage, the opinion said.

The lawsuit had been moved to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa on the basis that state law claims were preempted
by federal law. That court agreed and the case was dismissed.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed and
remanded it.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiffs' state-law damage
claims against the railways are preempted by the ICCTA.

Mansfield said that "not all state-law tort claims involving
railroads are preempted by the ICCTA. But state tort claims like
the ones alleged here that involve second-guessing of decisions
made by railroads to keep their rail lines open are expressly
preempted by Title 49 § 10501(b) of the ICCTA."

Justices Brent Appel, David Wiggins and Daryl Hecht filed a
dissenting opinion.

"Whether the United States Supreme Court wishes to more closely
align the caselaw with congressional intent and the court's
traditional approach to preemption remains to be seen," Appel
wrote.

"In the absence of Supreme Court action, this case now sends a
clear message to Congress, namely, that if Congress wishes to
prevent preemption of nonregulatory state tort law and statutory
law claims when it enacts economic deregulation, it had better
state so expressly.

"The limitations of ordinary language in economic deregulation
legislation are no longer a reliable barrier to expansive
approaches to implied preemption. For the above reasons, I would
not run for the exit, but would reverse the holding of the district
court." [GN]

CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Must Face Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sophia Morris, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on July 10 declined to dismiss a proposed class
action accusing a catering company of labor law violations,
including failing to provide adequate meal and rest breaks to
employees, saying that the claims are not the same as the ones
addressed by an earlier wage-and-hour settlement involving the
company.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh said that Centerplate of
Delaware Inc. had not shown that plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and
Ronald Martinez should be barred from bringing their claims

The case is captioned Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware Inc.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-03828 (N.D. Calif.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Lucy H. Koh.  The case was filed July 5, 2017. [GN]

CHICAGO, IL: Blaha Calls Fines & Penalties 'Excessive'
------------------------------------------------------
MIKE BLAHA, individually and of behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH08945 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July
17, 2018), complains that in the City of Chicago something as
simple as failing to affix a city sticker to one's car windshield
or an expired parking meter can cost residents hundreds of dollars
in fines and penalties, and that there are a number of minor
standing, parking and compliance violations for which the City
imposes hefty fines and penalties, all of which are funneled into
the City's own system of administrative adjudication where the
typical rules of evidence and civil procedure are disregarded.
Because administrative courts do not afford the same rights and due
process as state courts, Illinois law limits their authority to
adjudicate only minor violations that carry relatively minor fines
and penalties.

According to Blaha, the City of Chicago has demanded and received
fines, penalties and other amounts from Plaintiff and other members
of the Class under an unconstitutional ordinance and for violations
for which the City is preempted from administratively adjudicating.
The complaint says all such liabilities, fines, penalties and
other amounts stemming from city ordinance violations are void ab
initio, and the City has collected fines, penalties and other
amounts from Plaintiff and members of the Class to which it was not
entitled.  The City knowingly appreciated and accepted this
benefit, which has resulted and continues to result in an inequity
to Plaintiff and members of the Class. The City has thus unjustly
received and retained a benefit belonging to Plaintiff and members
of the Class, who have therefore suffered a commensurate detriment.
The City's retention of this benefit violates the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S.  Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock Center,
1,451-ft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com
                  bswetland@cherry-law.com
                  jchavin@cherry-law.com


CHICAGO, IL: ECHA Held in Contempt Over Warrantless Searches
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Cross, writing for nwi.com, reports that a federal
magistrate judge has sided with the American Civil Liberties Union
by holding the East Chicago Housing Authority in contempt of court
for violating a previous order that barred the local housing agency
from warrantless searches.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry in his ruling
stated ECHA has violated a preliminary injunction entered in
October 2016.

The injunction was born from a March 2016 lawsuit that challenged
ECHA's practice of conducting inspections and apartment searches
without tenants' voluntary consent, without a warrant, and through
use of drug-sniffing dogs in the hallways.

The suit alleged such searches violated the Fourth Amendment.

At the center of the latest American Civil Liberties Union
challenge is strongly worded language ECHA chose for a blanket
consent form that -- once signed by tenants -- gave ECHA permission
to gain access to apartment units for inspections.

If the tenant refused to sign, ECHA warned them with a disclaimer
at the bottom of the form -- presented in all-capital letters —
that they could be threatened with possible eviction in a court of
law, court records show.

Shawn Polk, a former ECHA resident with interest in the matter,
argued in court filings the form does not advise tenants of their
right to revoke consent at any time, and that ECHA's form implies
the opposite.

He further argued residents "are being coerced" into providing
consent for searches.

Judge Cherry agreed with Mr. Polk's interpretation.

"The Court finds that the plain language of the Blanket Consent
Form, for those who sign it, is coercive and conditions the
signatory's continued residency in the building on continuing to
give consent once the form is signed for the remainder of the
tenant's residency with ECHA," Cherry writes in his findings.

Consent must be "voluntary — that is freely and intelligently
given" and "cannot be coerced by 'explicit or implicit means, by
implied threat or covert force,' " Judge Cherry continues, citing a
previous court case.

Judge Cherry has ordered ECHA staff to "cease and desist" from
using the blanket consent form in any of its buildings.

Polk filed a petition in February 2017 seeking to hold ECHA in
contempt of court and, on that same day, Edith Bradshaw, a longtime
John B. Nicosia Building resident, filed a motion to intervene as a
representative in the class action lawsuit.

Ms. Bradshaw, 67, alleged ECHA conducted a warrantless
"housekeeping" inspection of her apartment on Nov. 7, 2017, despite
her explicit objections.

Ms. Bradshaw alleges she was hospitalized for 10 days starting Nov.
1, and told a building manager the following day she did not want
anyone to enter her apartment before her release from the hospital,
according to court records.

She returned Nov. 10 to find a notice from ECHA management stating
that staff inspected her unit, anyway. When she asked staff to tell
her if they had a warrant, they refused to say either way, court
records state.

Ms. Bradshaw and the ACLU have argued ECHA did not have a warrant
for any of their November 2017 entries for inspections.

The court determined no sanctions against ECHA are necessary at
this juncture, noting the building manager, Clara Salinas, has
ceased making entries at the John B. Nicosia Building without
consent or a warrant after receiving notice of Bradshaw's complaint
filed in federal court.

Nick Snow, attorney for ECHA, said he filed an objection to
Cherry's ruling on behalf of ECHA, which argues the manner in which
the form was presented to tenants "is critical to the determination
of whether or not the form is so unreasonable as to rise to the
level of a finding of contempt."

"At this time, although we object to the finding of contempt, ECHA
has stopped using the forms in question until a definitive ruling
is made. At that time, we will review the ruling of the court and
take the necessary steps to comply with it," ECHA attorney Snow
said in a statement to The Times.

ECHA also has proposed lease revisions to HUD that further advise
tenants of their right to refuse consent and more clearly define
procedures for gaining entry, court records show.

Judge Cherry has ordered Mr. Polk be awarded reasonable costs and
attorney fees and that Bradshaw be awarded $100 in damages and
reasonable costs and attorney fees. [GN]

CHILDREN'S MERCY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Ryan, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
Kansas City law firm filed a class action lawsuit against
Children's Mercy Hospital after personal data from more than 60,000
individuals may have been compromised as part of an email phishing
scam that targeted hospital employees.

The suit, which was filed on July 10 in Jackson County Circuit
Court, is the fourth lawsuit filed by the firm McShane and Brady
over the disclosure of patient medical records by the hospital.

"I thought I was making the best decision for my child by taking
him to Children's Mercy for care," said one of the suit's
plaintiffs in a statement through an attorney. "This is the second
letter I have received stating his private medical information has
been released. These two violations have really shaken my trust in
Children's Mercy Hospital."

Specifically, the lawsuit accuses the hospital of breaching its
fiduciary duty to protect patient privacy under Missouri law.

"Patients trust health care providers with our medical information
and when that is released without our authorization, they're
breaking our trust and breaching what we've asked them to do," said
Maureen Brady, a partner at McShane and Brady. "When we pay them
for our treatment, part of that price point goes to training and
computer software and records maintenance and making sure our
privacy is kept."

A Children's Mercy spokeswoman said the hospital does not comment
on pending litigation.

Children's Mercy previously said that emails sent to employees gave
the appearance they were from a trusted source and often contained
links to a phony login page on a fake website. That gave hackers
access to the employee accounts if they entered their user names
and passwords.

The compromised data may have included patient names and
information, medical record numbers, dates of hospital stays and
procedures, diagnoses and conditions and other clinical
information, according to a letter sent from Children's Mercy to
those affected.

Children's Mercy said its IT team discovered unauthorized access to
multiple employee email accounts in December 2017 and January 2018.
The letter said the hospital is investigating the incidents,
notifying patients, and that it was not aware of specific misuse of
the patient information.

As a precaution, Children's Mercy automatically enrolled the
affected patients in the AllClear ID program for a year at no cost,
the letter said. A spokesperson said Children's Mercy has
established a call center (1-855-354-4116) and an informational
webpage to provide answers to families that may have been
affected.

While the hospital posted a notification about the incident on its
website in January, families in the area still were getting notices
that their information may have been compromised.

Brittany McWilliams of Tonganoxie, Kan., told The Star that her
family received a letter. She said she contacted the monitoring
company, but didn't get more answers, such as specifics on how the
breach occurred or how this information could affect her child.

"Now I have this letter and no more real answers, other than 'Hey,
here, you can be monitored,' " Ms. McWilliams said, calling it a
"Band-Aid for the problem."

She said it was frustrating that her family was just now being
notified of the potential breach when it occurred in January.

"It's frustrating because they've had months to use my kiddo's
information if they got a hold of it," she said. "I can't fix it. I
can't change it. We just have to deal with it."

A spokesperson with the hospital said that they have notified those
affected in batches as they have progressed through the large
amount of data that had to be evaluated.

Because the lawsuit does not specify an amount to be awarded to the
more than 63,000 individuals affected, it is unclear how much money
individuals could potentially get from the suit. If the case
proceeds and there is an award or settlement, all of those affected
would be notified automatically and don't have to contact the law
firm to join the case first.

This isn't the only data breach of Children's Mercy in recent
years, and it isn't the first lawsuit over Children's Mercy privacy
breaches.

The firm also filed another class action suit against the hospital
earlier this year for a 2017 incident where the personal
information from more than 5,500 people was put on a personal
website by a physician. The breach included names, dates of birth,
diagnoses and conditions.

In order to prevent a similar breach from happening in the future,
"CMH reviewed and updated policies, created a new online course,
retrained employees, (the) physician received monetary sanctions,
and conducted additional counseling," according to a federal health
care breach website.

The hospital was also recently sued for a 2016 incident where paper
records for more than 200 patients were stolen from the trunk of a
hospital employee's vehicle.

And it settled a suit with a single plaintiff when, in 2015, a
physician from Children's Mercy took the child's medical records
home and they were stolen from her car while it was parked at Loose
Park. [GN]

CHRISTY INC: U.S. Gov't Seeks Dismissal of Patent Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Monyak, writing for Law360, reports that the government has
asked the Court of Federal Claims to scrap a $100 million class
action challenging the cancellation of an Oklahoma company's patent
in an America Invents Act review, arguing the company cannot skirt
jurisdictional rules by masking an appeal of a Patent Trial and
Appeal Board ruling as a constitutional claim.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued in its motion to dismiss on
July 9 that Oklahoma-based Christy Inc. cannot claim that the
PTAB's decision to cancel Christy's vacuum cleaner patent violates
the takings clause. [GN]

CIGNA CORP: Zhu Files ERISA Class Action in S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Jianliang Zhu and Joyce Allen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cigna Corporation, Cigna
Health and Life Insurance Company, American Specialty Health
Incorporated and American Specialty Health Group, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-01029 (S.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), seeks equitable and
injunctive relief, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and such other and further relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Cigna Corporation and its subsidiaries allegedly misappropriated
millions of dollars from Cigna members and employers who sponsor
Cigna-administered health insurance plans. Cigna secretly inflates
member and plan responsibility to pay for claims and its vendors,
American Specialty Health Incorporated and American Specialty
Health Group, Inc. under the false pretense that their charges are
medical expenses and secretly assess these charges to members and
plans as part of members' and plans' financial responsibility for
health care claims.

American Specialty Health Incorporated and American Specialty
Health Group, Inc. administers physical therapy and other benefits
and provides claims administration for physical therapy services
for Cigna. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
     Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     361 West Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Tel: (610) 642-8500
     Fax: (610) 649-3633

            - and -

     Jason M. Knott, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: (202) 778-1813
     Fax: (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
     Tel: (212) 704-9600
     Fax: (212) 704-4256


CIM GROUP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit that alleges CIM
Group, L.P., failed to provide their commissioned employees with
meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Wage Order
and Labor Code. The class action lawsuit, Case No. BC709666 is
currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the
State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.

According to the class action Complaint, CIM Group, L.P., allegedly
violated the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and
the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage
Order, CIM Group, L.P., as a matter of company policy, practice and
procedure, intentionally and knowingly failed to compensate their
California non-exempt employees at the correct rate of pay for all
overtime worked. This uniform policy and practice of CIM Group,
L.P., is intended to purposefully avoid the payment of the correct
overtime compensation as required by California law which allowed
CIM Group, L.P., to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage
over competitors who complied with the law.

The complaint also alleges PLAINTIFF was also from time to time
unable to take off duty meal and rest breaks and was not fully
relieved of duty for meal periods. PLAINTIFF was required to
perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours
during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. DEFENDANT
allegedly provided PLAINTIFF with a pay stub that failed to
accurately display PLAINTIFF's correct rates of overtime pay and
payments for missed meal and rest periods for certain pay periods
in violation of Cal. Lab. Code§ 226(a)

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a California
employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping
employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including
violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act. The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN]

CLAY COUNTY, AR: Olsen Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY OLSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLAY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00129-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 17, 2018), seeks
declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages;
prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a
result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals proper overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Clay County is a county located in the U.S. state of Arkansas.  As
of the 2010 census, the population was 16,083.  The county has two
county seats, Corning and Piggott.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy Gibson, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CLEMENS FOOD: Pork Consumers File Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Consumer rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 10 disclosed
that purchasers of pork products have sued major food companies for
participating in an alleged nationwide antitrust overpricing
scheme. The companies involved include: Clemens Food Group, Hormel
Foods, Indiana Packers Corporation, JBS USA, SeaBoard Foods,
Smithfield Foods, Triumph Foods, Tyson Foods, and Agri Stats, Inc.
Affected brands include, but are not limited to: Ball Park Franks,
Bosco's, Craft Meats San Francisco, Hillshire Farm, Hormel,
Jennie-O, Jimmy Dean, Lloyd's Barbeque, Nathan's Famous, SaraLee,
Smithfield, SPAM, Steak-eze, Tastemakers, and Tyson.

Pork Manufacturers Accused of Severely Overcharging Consumers for
Nearly a Decade

According to the complaint, major meat companies, which control 80%
of the $20 billion pork market, engaged in a scheme to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork since at least 2009. In
furtherance of their scheme, the companies coordinated their output
and limited production, while exchanging detailed, competitively
sensitive, and closely guarded non-public information about prices,
capacity, sales volume, and demand. With this information, the pork
industry's top players dominated the market, effectively forcing
out new competitors. According to prices published by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the hog market year average price was at
or below $50 every year between 1998 and 2009, before increasing to
$76.30 per pound in 2015—an increase of more than 50 percent. As
a result, consumers were forced to pay high prices for bacon, ham,
hot dogs, and other pork products.

Pork Distributors Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and potential
remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003,
LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the information form on the
firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a consumer
and shareholder rights law firm that has helped its clients realize
more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested. [GN]

CLEVELAND, OH: Faces Class Action Over Slamming, Cramming
---------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Serino, writing for WKYC3, reports that no doubt your
energy bill has increased with all these hot days. But have you
paid attention to the charges . . . or the companies listed on your
bill? You might be paying for services you didn't authorize because
of two popular scams.

They're called Slamming and Cramming. Slamming is when your energy
supplier is switched without your authorization. Cramming is when a
company charges you for a service you didn't request.

It starts with someone at your door, or a flyer in your mailbox,
with an offer to sell you electricity -- for a song. They'll go
over the details and some will assure you that you can cancel at
any time, says the Office of the Ohio Consumer's Counsel, a utility
advocacy group.

What they don't say is that canceling may come with penalties.

And some companies have variable rates, meaning they can change the
cost whenever they want, so you can kiss any savings good bye.

Then there are sales people who aren't who they say they are.

"They look very official. They've got the orange vest. They've got
the clipboard," described Shawn Goodwin, who almost fell victim to
a scam.

The City of Cleveland provided the following statement regarding
the class action lawsuit: "The city of Cleveland is confident all
customer charges were applied appropriately. The Class Action
Notice is a standard part of the class action process and was
coordinated between both parties involved in this case. Since the
litigation is still pending, we cannot comment further at this
time. "But even if you're not crammed or slammed . . . review your
bill and compare plans on sites like the Ohio Consumers Council,
which can help keep you from getting shocked.

"I've stopped getting surprised by what people do," said
Mr. Goodwin. "If people will eat a Tide Pod, I'm sure people will
sign up for some bad electricity supply."

Now there are government aggregation programs, when your
municipality buys its electricity or natural gas for residents in
bulk. Usually, you have to opt-out of the program or else you're
automatically enrolled.

To file a complaint over your Utility Company:

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

https://www.puco.ohio.gov/be-informed/consumer-topics/get-help-with-a-complaint/

For more information on your energy bill:

Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel.

http://www.occ.ohio.gov/[GN]

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Mishra" Stay Extended Pending Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento Division, issued an Order Extending Stay of
Proceedings Pending Settlement in the case captioned DEBI MISHRA,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Real
Party in Interest, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S.
CORPORATION, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants Case No. 2:17-cv-01785-TLN-EFB
(E.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered an Order
that, among other things, stayed all proceedings until the earlier
of July 22, 2018 or a joint notice from the parties of an
unsuccessful mediation, and which provided deadlines for Cognizant
to file a responsive pleading in the event of an unsuccessful
mediation.

The parties are in the process of negotiating and preparing a class
action settlement agreement in this matter and accordingly wish to
extend the stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbdt764 from Leagle.com.

Debi Mishra, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Stralen , Clayeo C.
Arnold A Professional Law Corporation & Joshua H. Watson , Clayeo
C. Arnold.

Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation & Cognizant
Technology Solutions Corporation, Defendants, represented by Julie
A. Totten -jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP & Katie Elizabeth Briscoe -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Dean Appeals C.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jacqueline Dean and Melanie Barber filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jacqueline Dean, et al. v.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00107-JGB-RAO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacqueline Dean, et al. v.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 18-55982, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 5, 2018, the
Plaintiffs also filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit.  That appellate lawsuit is styled Jacqueline Dean, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 18-80057.

The Plaintiffs have sought certification of a class defined as:

     All persons in California, Delaware, the District of
     Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia
     and West Virginia who purchased Optic White on or after
     October 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on
     or after February 1, 2014.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 20, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on September 18, 2018;

   -- Appellants Melanie Barber and Jacqueline Dean's opening
      brief is due on October 29, 2018;

   -- Appellee Colgate-Palmolive Company's answering brief is due
      on November 29, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JACQUELINE DEAN and MELANIE BARBER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1 California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

Defendant-Appellee COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY is represented by:

          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          Jeffrey Scott Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 808-8073
          E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com
                  jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


COMMERCIAL INTERIORS: $307K Atty's Fees Award Endorsed in "Salinas"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mario Salinas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Commercial
Interiors, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
8:12-cv-1973-PWG (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Gina L. Simms of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern
Division, recommended that the Court grants the Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and award costs.

The protracted litigation began almost six years ago on July 2,
2012, when the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant
Commercial and J.I. General Contractors, Inc. ("J.I."), alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.  The
Plaintiffs initially intended to bring the action individually, as
a collective action under the FLSA, and as a Class Action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  The class and collective action
certifications were ultimately denied, and the Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint on March 31, 2014 with five remaining
individuals.

On June 13, 2014, Commercial filed a motion for summary judgment,
asserting, in relevant part, that Commercial is not liable as a
"joint employer."  On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination
that Commercial is jointly liable.  The Honorable Frederick J. Motz
entered an order and memorandum opinion granting Commercial's
motion and denying the Plaintiffs' motion.

A three-day bench trial with J.I., the remaining Defendant,
resulted in judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.  The parties
subsequently briefed the first of the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and bill of costs, and the Court granted a partial
award of fees and costs on May 6, 2015.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration as to
Commercial's joint employer status with Judge Motz.  They filed an
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of the
order granting Commercial's motion for summary judgment.  The
Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded on Jan. 26, 2017, finding for
the Plaintiffs, and established a new six-factor test to determine
whether an employer is a joint employer under the FLSA.

On remand, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
against Commercial on the joint employer issue, which was granted
by Judge Motz on June 19, 2017.  The Plaintiffs promptly moved for
an award of attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Commercial subsequently moved for reconsideration based on a
discovery irregularity, which was granted.  The Plaintiffs then
withdrew their motion for attorneys' fees for their motion for
summary judgment against Commercial.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
granting Commercial's motion for reconsideration on Aug. 15, 2017,
which the parties fully briefed.  The case was then reassigned to
the Honorable Paul W. Grimm, who granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on Nov. 13, 2017 following a status conference.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for attorneys' fees and
bill of costs.  The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Simms
to author a Report and make recommendations.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the requested fees are reasonable
and that no further downward adjustments are necessary.  She has
multiplied the number of reasonable hours expended by the
reasonable rates for each attorney as instructed by Randolph, and
followed the other Randolph requirements.  She ultimately
recommends a total attorney's fees award of $306,777.53.

She also finds and recommends that the Plaintiffs be awarded
$9,485.95 in costs.  She holds that the Plaintiffs not only relied
on the deposition transcripts for their unsuccessful motions, but
also for their successful motions against Commercial related to the
joint employer issue.  She finds that the Plaintiffs' use of the
same transcripts as exhibits to a losing motion is irrelevant, as
they relied on them for the joint employer issue.  She therefore
finds the $8,423.95 in deposition transcript costs appropriate.
Finally, she says the amount on the bill of costs related to the
mandate was timely filed ($1,062).

Magistrate Judge Simms respectfully recommended that the Court (1)
awards the Plaintiffs $306,777.53 in attorney's fees; and (ii)
awards the Plaintiffs $9,485.95 in costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Report &
Recommendations is available at https://is.gd/xltU2f from
Leagle.com.

Mario Salinas, William Ascencio, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Bernaldino Salinas &
Franklin Henriquez, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea Joie Vaughn,
Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice
Center Inc, Barbra A. Kavanaugh, Employment Justice Center, pro hac
vice & Ryan E. Griffin -- regriffin@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman,
P.C., pro hac vice.

Henry Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Joie Vaughn, Public
Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc
& Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C., pro hac vice.

Commercial Interiors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Jack, Law Office of Michael J Jack.

J.I. General Contractors, Inc., Defendant, pro se.

Juan Flores Ramirez, personally, Defendant, pro se.

Isaias Flores Ramirez, personally, Defendant, pro se.

COOK COUNTY COURT: Fails to Protect Motor Vehicle Data, Nisi Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY NISI, On behalf of herself and the class, the Plaintiff, v.
DOROTHY BROWN, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04861 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2018), alleges that Defendant
improperly disclosing personal information contained in motor
vehicle records pursuant under the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically violates
the DPPA by making unredacted motor vehicle records available to
the public at all Cook County courthouse electronic terminals. At
the terminals, anyone can obtain an individual's personal
information by searching traffic citations with an individual's
name or even just their license plate number.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Zamparo Jr., Esq.
          Steven J. Uhrich, Esq.
          ZAMPARO LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2300 Barrington Road, Suite 325
          Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
          Telephone: (224) 875 3202
          Facsimile: (312) 276 4950
          E-mail: roger@zamparolaw.com
                  steven@zamparolaw.com


COUNTRYWIDE BANK: "Markowicz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jill S. Markowicz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., Bank of America,
N.A., Real Time Resolutions, Inc., RTR CP Opportunity Trust 1,
Yakte Properties, LLC, and Does I-XX, Case No. 8:18-cv-01164 (C.D.
Calif., July 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This case concerns yet another unfair business and unlawful debt
collection practice carried out by and for the predatory lender
most deeply implicated in the recent mortgage meltdown and
recession -- namely BofA/Countrywide, says the complaint. This
practice is being carried out in collusion with a debt collection
company -- namely RTR and its affiliates.

The Plaintiff Jill S. Markowicz is a resident of California, living
and working as a beautician in Orange County. Her home there is
also her workplace, having a salon on the ground floor and living
quarters on the second floor. It is located among many similar
mixed use homes at 413 29th Street, Newport Beach, California,
92663

The Defendant Countrywide Bank, N.A. is a national banking
association headquartered in Calabasas, Los Angeles County,
California. Throughout the material time, it conducted banking
operations including issuing, servicing, and selling home mortgages
throughout California and nationwide.

The Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking
association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Throughout
the material time, it conducted banking operations including
issuing, servicing, and selling home mortgages throughout
California and nationwide.

The Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It conducts mortgage servicing and
consumer debt collection operations throughout California and
nationwide.

The Defendant RRA CP Opportunity Trust 1 is a Delaware statutory
trust headquartered with RTR in Dallas, Texas. It owns or has owned
second mortgages purchased from BofA/Countrywide on homes
throughout California and nationwide.

The Defendant Yakte Properties, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company headquartered with RTR and RRA in Dallas, Texas. It owns or
has owned second mortgages purchased from BofA/Countrywide on homes
throughout California and nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Yunker, Esq.
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5560
      Fax: (619) 233-5535
      E-mail: sfy@yslaw.com

CRITTENDEN, AR: Mayo et al. Seek Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROY MAYO, DUANE ROBERTS and PATRICK ROBILIO, Each Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00128-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 17, 2018), seeks to declaratory
judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment
interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals proper overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Crittenden County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Arkansas. As of the 2010 census, the population was 50,902.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CYTRX CORP: Sept. 17 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on July 9 announced proposed settlement
in In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation
Case No.: 2:16-CV-05519-SJO-SK
Honorable S. James Otero

NICHOLAS CRIHFIELD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYTRX CORPORATION,
STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN, and
JOHN Y. CALOZ,

Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; (III) MOTION
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES;

AND (IV) PLAN OF ALLOCATION

TO:

All persons and entities who, during the period between September
12, 2014 to July 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CytRx
Corporation ("CytRx Common Stock") or exchange-traded call options
on CytRx Common Stock ("CytRx Call Options"), or sold
exchange-traded put options on CytRx Common Stock ("CytRx Put
Options"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY AS YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS
COURT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (IV)
Plan of Allocation (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $5,750,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on September 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable S. James Otero at the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, United States Courthouse,
350 W. 1st Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom 6D, Los Angeles, California
90012, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 4, 2018 (the "Stipulation") (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved; and (v) Lead Plaintiff's application
for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses in connection
with representing the Settlement Class should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.CytRxSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.,
P.O. Box 173011, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-800-547-4406.  

If you are a member of the Settlement 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 16,
2018. If you are a member of the Settlement Class 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.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 27, 2018,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you have the right to object to
the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of costs and expenses. Any objections to the proposed
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and/or Lead
Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of costs and expenses, must
be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
August 27, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in this Action.

All capitalized words and terms not defined in this notice shall
have the meanings stated in the Stipulation, which can be
downloaded from www.CytRxSecuritiesSettlement.com.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, CytRx
Corporation, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions
about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.

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

          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          Kara Wolke, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          (310) 201-9150
          info@glancylaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

          In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 173011
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          800-547-4406
          www.CytRxSecuritiesSettlement.com

Dated: July 9, 2018  

By Order of the Court [GN]

DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeitures
------------------------------------------------------
George Hunter, writing for The Detroit News, reports that Stephen
Nichols didn't have valid insurance when he was pulled over by
Lincoln Park police on July 2, 2015, so his car was seized and
towed away.

More than three years later, the 1998 Toyota Avalon is still
sitting in a Brownstown Township impound lot as Mr. Nichols awaits
a hearing to get it back.

Mr. Nichols, 42, is part of a class-action federal lawsuit filed
last month by him and two other people whose vehicles were seized
by police. The suit alleges their 14th Amendment due process rights
were violated.

"Mr. Nichols still hasn't had a hearing, which is ridiculous," said
Shaun Godwin, attorney for the plaintiffs. "The law says
prosecutors have to bring a case promptly, but it's not defined
under the law what 'promptly' is."

Wayne County prosecutors and sheriffs are defendants in the
lawsuit. The county's corporation counsel, which is handling the
suit, did not respond to requests for comment.

Ed Zelenak, attorney for Lincoln Park, which also is named in the
lawsuit, said Nichols pleaded guilty to having fraudulent
insurance, and that the holdup in his case is likely due to a
backlog at the understaffed prosecutor's office.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, comes as the practice
of civil forfeitures is being scrutinized in Michigan and
nationwide.

In May, the state House approved a bill that would require police
in Michigan to secure a criminal conviction before seizing
property. The bill is being debated in the Judiciary Committee.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last month to hear the case of an
Indiana man whose $40,000 Land Rover was seized after he pleaded
guilty to selling less than $200 worth of drugs. The High Court
will decide if the seizure violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on
"excessive fines."

Critics of civil forfeitures say they violate the presumption of
innocence by punishing people before they've been found guilty of a
crime. Supporters of the practice insist forfeitures help police
fight drug dealers and other criminals.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year announced he would
revive civil forfeitures at the federal level. He said seizures
provide a "key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized
crime, take back ill-gotten gains and prevent new crimes from being
committed."

Sessions issued a directive reinstituting the Department of
Justice's Equitable Sharing Program, which allowed state and local
law enforcement agencies to seize money and property, and then
transfer those assets to federal control. The program allowed local
agencies to bypass state regulations that limit how forfeiture
funds are used.

Sessions' announcement drew criticism from across the political
spectrum. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he doubted
civil forfeitures were constitutional.

"This system -- where police can seize property with limited
judicial oversight and retain it for their own use -- has led to
egregious and well-chronicled abuses," Thomas wrote. "Whether this
Court's treatment of the broad modern forfeiture practice can be
justified by the narrow historical one is certainly worthy of
consideration in greater detail."

The Supreme Court has rejected previous challenges to civil
forfeitures, including the landmark 1996 case of a Royal Oak woman,
Tina Bennis, who argued her car was improperly seized because she
didn't know her her husband had used it to pick up a prostitute.

"Normally, the Supreme Court has looked at these cases as
violations of the Fourth Amendment (which covers probable cause and
unreasonable search and seizure), and they've been upheld, but now
they'll look at it from a different perspective," said Jarrett
Skorup, a policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy,
a Midland-based free market think tank.

"The argument the court will now hear is that forfeitures
constitute an unreasonable fine on people's assets," Mr. Skorup
said. "It'll be interesting to see how they rule."

Previous High Court rulings have found that while people have
rights, their property doesn't. In civil forfeiture cases, the
defendants are the property, not the owners.

Michigan lawmakers in recent years have taken steps toward curbing
civil forfeitures, Mr. Skorup said.

"I think the state has made some progress," said Mr. Skorup, who in
2015 co-authored a report for the Mackinac Center that identified
problems with the state's forfeiture practices and offered
recommendations — some of which have been adopted.

One of the recommendations was to require more transparency by law
enforcement agencies that confiscate property.

"When I first started on this five years ago, we tried to require a
yearly report, but we couldn't get a hearing in committee,"
Mr. Skorup said. "Since then, they've mandated an annual report."

Mr. Skorup said police in Michigan during most of the 2000s seized
an estimated $20 million-$25 million in assets annually. "But the
first time they had to put a report out (in 2017, which covered
2016), that went down to $15 million," he said.

Last year, police in Michigan seized about $13 million in assets,
according to the state police 2018 Asset Forfeiture Report, which
was released June 30 to the Mackinac Center and is set to be
released to the public soon.

Among the findings in the 2018 report, which was provided to The
News:

Law enforcement forfeited $11.8 million in cash and $1.3 million
in property, including eight homes, 711 weapons and 7,999
vehicles.

Of the 2017 forfeitures, 736 people were not charged with a crime,
with another 220 were charged but not convicted. Another 228
weren't charged because they cooperated with prosecutors. Only 43
percent of those whose property was forfeited were charged and
convicted.

"The rest were either not charged, found innocent, cooperated or
are still pending," Mr. Skorup said. "This is problematic because
it means that the state took ownership of their property before
proving these citizens were guilty of anything."

The majority of Michigan's law enforcement agencies did not
initiate civil forfeitures. Of the 673 local police departments,
sheriffs offices and prosecutors in Michigan, only 265 agencies
seized property. Only five prosecuting attorneys prosecutors out of
83 counties in the state handled seizures.

Only 25 percent of the forfeiture cases last year went to court.

"That's because the vast majority of people didn't contest the
claim of the property," Mr. Skorup said. "In many cases, that may
be because they knew they were guilty. But in others, as is common,
they may simply have decided it wasn't worth it to hire an attorney
to get back a few hundred dollars or an inexpensive vehicle."

Nearly all of the proceeds from forfeited assets went back to the
local law enforcement agencies that initiated the seizures. They
spent 36 percent on equipment, 9 percent on vehicles, 8.5 percent
on personnel, 5 percent on training and the rest on other areas,
including K-9 units and supplies.

Among other recent tweaks to Michigan forfeiture law: In 2015, the
standard needed to seize property went from the preponderance of
evidence, which requires that more than 50 percent of the evidence
points to wrongdoing, to clear and convincing evidence, which has a
75 percent requirement.

Prior to last year, Michigan was one of only five states that
required people to post a bond if they wanted to try to get their
property back. Anyone seeking the return of seized property was
required to post 10 percent of its value. That requirement was
eliminated by the state Legislature.

Robert Stevenson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of
Police, said his organization had no problem with lifting the bond
requirement and the higher proof of evidence needed to seize
property -- but he said he opposes the pending legislation that
would require conviction before seizure.

"I'd like to see if the recent changes have an effect before
throwing the baby out with the bath water," said Mr. Stevenson, a
former Livonia police chief. "We supported the other recent
changes, but not this proposal.

"I don't think it's a good idea to require a conviction before you
can seize property," Mr. Stevenson said. "Let's say you raid a dope
house and find drugs and a lot of money. In order to get a criminal
conviction, you'd need to give that money back to them, even though
it's clearly proceeds from drug trafficking.

"So if you do get a conviction, where do you think that money will
be? By the time the case gets through the court process, that money
would be long gone."

Mr. Stevenson said forfeiture laws also help the quality of life in
poor neighborhoods.

"Let's say you have a slumlord where renters are dealing drugs out
of the house," he said. "If police raid it, you can have an
innocent owner defense: 'I didn't know this was happening.' That's
true the first time, but if you repeatedly have violations and
don't do anything about it, your house is forfeited.

"If we had to have a conviction first, we'd never be able to
convict the homeowner, so there's no incentive for him to stop
allowing this activity," Mr. Stevenson said. "That impacts the
poorest communities. It's not good for people who live in these
neighborhoods to allow property owners a pass on what happens on
their property."

But some critics, including 36-year-old fence installer
Ryan Chappell, insist police abuse their power to seize property.

Mr. Chappell said Wayne County sheriff deputies took his father's
1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee "for no reason" on July 27, 2016. Chappell
and his father, Adam Chappell, 61, are part of the class-action
lawsuit against the county.

Ryan Chappell said he was driving his father's truck when he
briefly ducked into a medical marijuana facility.

"I had just got off work and stopped at the store sharing the
parking lot with the dispensary," he said. "Then I stopped in the
dispensary, went in and walked right back out. I asked them a quick
question."

He said he was stopped by police as he neared his house on
Detroit's west side.

"They didn't even search me," he said. "They didn't give me a
reason why they were towing my car. I was furious. I asked 'how am
I supposed to get to work tomorrow? You got my vehicle.' (The
police said) 'figure it out.' I ended up bumming a ride."

Ryan Chappell was never charged with a crime. "But they had my
truck for so long, I had to buy another vehicle," he said. "Then, I
had to take off work to go down there three times, but they kept
rescheduling (the hearing with prosecutors), giving me the
runaround."

Ryan Chappell retained Mr. Godwin, who challenged the forfeiture.

"We asked for discovery; let's see your evidence, let's see the
police reports, turn over all those things," Godwin said. "And the
Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wasn't able to do that.

"We were about to have a hearing to compel them to produce that
information, and then they agreed to dismiss the case and give back
the vehicle without any of the towing and storage fees," Godwin
said.

But when he got his vehicle back, Ryan Chappell said the
transmission was damaged. "I can't even drive it," he said.

Mr. Godwin said an officer wrote in his police report that Ryan
Chappell had told him he'd bought $15 worth of marijuana from the
dispensary.

"That's very interesting, because there's nothing listed that he
recovered any marijuana," Godwin said.

Ryan Chappell added: "That's a lie. I never told the officer I'd
bought any marijuana."

Mr. Godwin said he hopes Michigan becomes the 15th state to require
a conviction before property could be forfeited -- but barring
that, he said there should at least be prompt hearings.

"Due process requires a hearing," he said. "If they do not give you
a hearing prior to taking your property, then they need to give you
a prompt hearing after they take it . . . within a week.

"These cases need to be heard by a judge immediately, and the judge
needs to be able to decide if they should give the vehicle back
pending the outcome of the case."

Adam Chappell said police who seize property without seeking
charges are abusing their power.

"These people got badges; they do what they want to do," he said.
"Ain't nothing you can do. They should've given him a ticket at
least. How can you take someone's vehicle and not even write him a
ticket for anything? The police are like gangsters; they just take
what they want."

Ryan Chappell added: "I want be compensated for all the headaches.
I lost my transportation to get to work; I had to get another
vehicle. It was a pain to get the new insurance, plates, work on
the new vehicle. All for nothing."

Mr. Stevenson said there have been individual cases where it
appears police may have overstepped their authority -- "although a
lot of times, when you dig deeper, you find out there's more
information you weren't told initially.

"One of the people who testified (during previous Legislature
hearings) talked about how the police took his car for no reason,"
Mr. Stevenson said. "We got in touch with the police department and
found out the story behind the story: It turns out the car was
seized because it had stolen parts on it."

Mr. Stevenson added: "Even in those cases where there may have been
something improper, the person gets their day in court. It would be
ludicrous for police to just take stuff from people. Police have to
present a case, and now they have to show clear and convincing
evidence.

"You don't want to make law based on a few bad cases,"
Mr. Stevenson said. "Are there a few cases where an innocent person
gets their property taken? Yes -- but you don't base the law on
those few cases. Maybe tweak the law a bit."

Mr. Skorup, of the Mackinac Center, said conviction should come
before forfeiture.

"Nobody should lose their property until they've been convicted
beyond a reasonable doubt," he said. "Then, after the conviction,
the court should decide if their assets were part of that criminal
activity.

"If someone has a small amount of marijuana on them, that doesn't
mean their car should be seized," Mr.  Skorup said. "That's
ridiculous." [GN]

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTION: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF CAPE CORAL MUNICIPAL FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT
PLAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS, INC., HQ, ET
AL., Defendants, Case No. RWT 16-cv-2625 (D. Md.), Judge Roger W.
Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted the Lead Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class
Certification.

The case involves alleged violations of federal securities laws by
the Defendants.  Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company
and sole provider of  the only U.S. Food and Drug
Administrationlicensed anthrax vaccine, BioThrax.  The primary
purchaser of BioThrax has been the United States Government via the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC").  In July 2010,
the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
awarded a six-year contract to Emergent to expand its BioThrax
manufacturing capabilities at a new facility, Building 55.

In 2011, Emergent obtained a five-year BioThrax procurement
contract from the CDC for Emergent to supply up to 44.75 million
doses of BioThrax for the Strategic National Stockpile ("SNS").
This contract was set to expire on Sept. 30, 2016.  In August 2015,
the Defendants began discussions with the CDC about the renewal of
the BioThrax contract.

The Plaintiffs allege that beginning on Jan. 11, 2016, the
Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions that made
investors believe that the Government intended to purchase
Emergent's newly increased production capacity.  On May 5, 2016, in
a press release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Emergent confirmed that the Government would award it a
renewed BioThrax contract.

From May 5, 2016 to June 1, 2016, the price of Emergent's Common
Stock, which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"),
increased nearly 15%, from $37.85 per share on May 5, 2016 to
$43.49 per share on June 1, 2016.  On June 22, 2016, Emergent
disclosed that the Government sought the continued procurement of
29.4 million doses of BioThrax over a five-year period, which was
less than the expiring contract that called for 44.75 million.  The
same day, the price of Emergent Common Stock declined by
approximately $8 per share, falling from its close of $39.32 per
share on June 21, 2016 to a close of $31.33 per share on June 22,
2016.  On unusually high trading volume of more than 9.5 million
shares traded, or 21 times the average daily trading volume over
the preceding 10 trading days.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, initiated the lawsuit
against the Defendants, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  On Oct. 26, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead
Counsel, appointing Plaintiffs Cape Coral Fire and City of Sunrise
Police Officers' Retirement Plan as the Lead Plaintiffs and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On Dec. 27, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all the
Defendants and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Individual Defendants.
On Feb. 27, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  After a hearing, the Court denied
the Motion to Dismiss by order on July 7, 2017.

Having prevailed on the Motion to Dismiss, the Lead Plaintiffs
returned with a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel, filed on Nov. 29, 2017.
On Dec. 20, 2017, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and
Class Counsel, seeking to appoint Geoffrey L. Flagstad instead of
Sponn, in addition to the Lead Plaintiffs, as the Class
Representative.

In their Amended Motion, the Lead Plaintiffs seek certification of
a plaintiff class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
consisting of all persons or entities who, between Jan. 11, 2016
and June 21, 2016, purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent
publicly traded common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE), Inc. and who were damaged thereby.

The Defendants oppose the class certification and ask the Court to
strike the opinions in the Report on Market Efficiency of the Lead
Plaintiffs' expert.

Judge Titus finds that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3).  The parties do not dispute that Robins Geller meets
all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(1)(A) to serve as the Class Counsel.  Robbins Geller has been
appointed class counsel in hundreds of securities class actions and
has competently met its obligations under Rule 23 in those cases.
The Judge has no doubt that Robbins Geller will meet its obligation
here to vigorously pursue the litigation.  Accordingly, he will
appoint Robbins Geller as the Class Counsel.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Titus granted the Lead Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Class Certification, and certified the proposed
Class based on the shortened Class Period, appointed Flagstad as
the Class Representative, and appointed Robbins Geller as the Class
Counsel.  A separate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/aTUkHX from Leagle.com.

City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan & City
of Sunrise Police Officers' Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Dana Whitehead McKee , Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP,
Francis P. Karam -- fkaram@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark T. Millkey
-- mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert D. Gerson -- rgerson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Samuel Howard Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

William Sponn, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Whitehead McKee, Brown
Goldstein and Levy LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Emergent Biosolutions, Inc., HQ, Fuad El-Hibri, Daniel J.
Abdun-Nabi, Robert G Kramer & Adam R. Havey, Defendants,
represented by Matthew Solum -- matthew.solum@kirkland.com --
Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Yosef J. Riemer --
yosef.riemer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis.

EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Chatman Sues Over Retained Biometrics Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chatman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Euromarket Designs, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2018CH09277 (Ill. Cir., July 24, 2018), seeks
an injunction requiring Defendant to destroy her biometrics in its
possession, and to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics.  Chatman
further seeks statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Euromarket operates as "Crate and Barrel," a retail store
specializing in housewares, furniture and home accessories. Chatman
alleges that the Defendants implemented a timekeeping system that
relied on the collection, storage, and usage of employees'
fingerprints and biometric information without informed consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233 1550
      Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com
             hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Ad Clicks
-----------------------------------------------------
Erik de la Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a small business owner in Arkansas claims in a class action
that advertisers on Facebook are routinely overcharged for
fraudulent or bogus clicks generated through fake accounts.

Lead plaintiff William F. Doshier and his company dotStrategy Co.
sued the social media giant in Faulkner County Circuit Court on
July 10, seeking punitive damages and restitution for its alleged
failure to detect and filter invalid clicks.

Facebook, the world's largest social media platform, said in May
that it had deleted 583 million fake accounts during the first
three months of 2018.  That announcement tipped Mr. Doshier off to
"the widespread extent that fake accounts populate the Facebook
platform," according to his 87-page complaint filed by Little Rock
attorney David Hodges.

Mr. Doshier, who teaches marketing classes at the University of
Central Arkansas, says Facebook should have instituted policies
that detected those fake accounts -- and potentially millions of
others -- sooner.

A doubling of Facebook's review staff to 20,000 and artificial
intelligence systems capable of filtering fake accounts could have
been deployed "a long time ago . . . but, Facebook chose not to,"
the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, Facebook estimates that fake accounts on
their social network make up about 3 to 4 percent of users, or
about 66 million accounts.

"Facebook's self-serve advertisers are not interested in increasing
fake traffic from fake Facebook accounts," the complaint states.
"Facebook knew or should have known that it has overbilled and
continues to overbill Doshier and class members for fake traffic
that is generated from fake accounts on Facebook."

Facebook's press team did not immediately respond to an email
seeking comment on July 10.

The proposed class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of breach of contract, fraud and deceptive trade practices
for Facebook's alleged misrepresentation of "the actual number of
genuine accounts on their social network."

Mr. Doshier wants to be reimbursed for clicks determined to be
invalid, along with a court order requiring Facebook to perform an
automated and manual review on all ads placed by Doshier and the
class members.

The complaint estimates that 20 percent of the clicks class members
were charged will be determined to be bogus clicks generated
through fake accounts.

Mr. Doshier says of the 55 ads he has placed since December 2013,
Facebook has provided data on only 39, limiting his ability to
review his account.  He asserts in his complaint that Facebook has
a duty to perform manual reviews if the company is alerted to
invalid click activity.

Facebook, which estimated 2.2 billion monthly active users as of
March, has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.

A federal judge in California ruled in 2012 that advertisers making
similar claims cannot sue Facebook as a class.  The plaintiffs in
that case could not clearly show what constituted their contract
with Facebook or prove they were injured.

FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: "Klein" Suit Transferred to N. D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Fairmount Santrol
Holdings Inc., Jenniffer D. Deckard, Matthew F. Lebaron, William E.
Conway, Michael G. Fisch, Charles D. Fowler, Stephen J. Hadden,
Michael C. Kearney, William P. Kelly, Michael E. Sand and Lawrence
N. Schultz, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00646, (D. Del., April 27,
2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on May 23, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01186.

Klein seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed merger between Fairmount and Unimin Corporation, a
subsidiary of SCR-Sibelco NV, or rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger.  
The Plaintiff seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance of attorneys' and experts' fees and
such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Each share of Fairmount's common stock will be converted into the
right to receive the number of shares of Unimin common stock that
will result in the holders of Fairmount Common Stock, together with
the holders of certain Fairmount equity awards, owning 35% of the
Unimin Common Stock and an amount in cash equal to the result of
$170,000,000, divided by the Fully Diluted Fairmount Share Number,
without interest.

Fairmount provides high performance sand and sand-based product
solutions used by oil and gas exploration and production companies
to enhance the productivity of their wells.

Fairmount's financial advisor, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC failed
to disclose the inputs and assumptions underlying the calculation
of the discount rate range of 12.1% to 13.1% used for Unimin, the
inputs and assumptions underlying the calculation of the discount
rate range of 13.3% to 14.2% used for Fairmount, the inputs and
assumptions underlying the selection of the perpetuity growth rate
range of 2.5% to 3.5% used to calculate Unimin's terminal value,
the inputs and assumptions underlying the selection of the
perpetuity growth rate range of 2.5% to 3.5% used to calculate
Fairmount's terminal value and the actual terminal values
calculated, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Patrick Murray, Esq.
     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE
     Ste. 1000, 901 North Market Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 778-4000
          (302) 778-4002
     Fax: (302) 778-4002

Defendants are represented by:

     Blake Rohrbacher, Esq.
     Sara M. Metzler, Esq.
     RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
     Ste. 600, One Rodney Square
     920 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 651-7847

            - and -

     Brandon G. Mordue, Esq.
     Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
     JONES DAY - CLEVELAND
     901 Lakeside Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: (216) 586-1048
     Email: bmordue@jonesday.com
            gjritts@jonesday.com

            - and -

     Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq.
     JONES DAY - COLUMBUS
     Ste. 600, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd.
     Columbus, OH 43215-5017
     Tel: (614) 469-3939
     Fax: (614) 461-4198
     Email: mpduffy@jonesday.com


FIFTH THIRD: Waweru Seeks Damages for FCRA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Viona Waweru, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank and Fifth Third Bancorp,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02260, (S.D. Ind., July 24, 2018), seeks
punitive, actual, consequential, statutory and/or nominal damages,
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses and such other and further relief for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Fifth Third Bank is a bank located across ten different states with
over 1,200 full-service locations. Fifth Third Bancorp is the
principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp. Plaintiff is the
bank's banking, credit card and investment customer.

Defendants mailed an overdraft notification to Waweru via United
States mail and printed her Social Security Number together with
her address, thus exposing her to identity theft, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Jeter, Esq.
      Marietto V. Massillamany, Esq.
      MASSILLAMANY JETER & CARSON LLP
      11650 Lantern Road, Suite 204
      Fishers, Indiana 46038
      Telephone: (317) 576-8580
      Facsimile: (317) 203-1012

             - and -

      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-5270
      Facsimile: (317) 426-3348


FMFS OF VS LLC: Willis Files Request for Judicial Intervention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned Shanice Willis and Daana Queen, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FMFS of VS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 703029/2018, (N.Y. Sup.,
February 22, 2018), filed a Request for Judicial Intervention on
May 23, 2018.

FMFS of VS LLC operates as Buffalo Wild Wings, a restaurant located
at 6 Green Acres Rd. W, Valley Stream, New York 11582, where
Plaintiffs worked as servers. Plaintiffs claim full minimum wage
rate of pay because they spend more than twenty percent of their
shift or more than two hours performing non-tipped work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
     THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 Northern Boulevard
     Roslyn, NY 11576
     Tel: (516) 625-0105 Ext. 18

FMFS of VS LLC is represented by:

     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     900 3rd Avenue
     New York, NY 01002
     Tel: (212) 583-9600


FOUNDERS PLAZA: Underpays Activity Directors, Abercrombie Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DENA ABERCROMBIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNDERS PLAZA NURSING &
REHABILITATION PARTNERS; and FOUNDERS PLAZA NURSING &
REHABILITATION, LP, Defendants, Case No. DC-18-08627 (Tex. Judicial
Dist. Ct., Dallas County, July 2, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Ms. Abercrombie was employed by the Defendants as activity director
from August 2012 to May 2, 2017.

Founders Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Partners is a Texas
corporation that is authorized to do business in Dallas County,
Texas and may be served at their business located at 721 S. Highway
78, Wylie, TX 75098. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq.
          Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq.
          The Bhatti Law Firm, PLLC
          14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 253-2533
          Facsimile: (214) 279-0033
          E-mail: Vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
                  Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com


GLOBAL FINANCIAL: Constantinou Files Consumer Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polyxeni Constantinou, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Financial Credit, LLC
(d/b/a Medchex) and Athletico, Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-61540 (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2018), seeks
actual, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and such other relief for violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

Constantinou was involved in a vehicular accident on or about
December 2, 2016 and received medical treatment from Athletico at a
cost of $11,943.00, who partnered with Global Financial Credit,
operating as MedChex, to manage the medical receivables. Plaintiff
alleges that Athletico has no authority or basis in fact or law to
assign its liens to MedChex, nor did MedChex have any authority or
basis to file, notify or serve Notices of Medical Lien upon the
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Larry D. Drury, Esq.
       Thomas Rebholz, Esq.
       LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
       100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
       Chicago, IL 60602
       Tel: (312) 346-7950
       Fax: (312) 346-5777
       Email: ldd@larrydrury.com

              - and -

       John H. Alexander, Esq.
       John H. Alexander & Associates LLC
       55 West Monroe, Suite 2455
       Chicago, IL 60603
       Tel: (312) 263-7731


GOLDEN STATE FC: Hernandez Files Suit to Recover Final Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Hernandez, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as representative of the State of
California on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v.
Golden State FC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Does
1 through 50, inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00025550,
(Cal. Super., May 23, 2018), seeks redress for meal and rest break
violations, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to
provide proper wage statements and failure to pay earned wages upon
discharge including waiting time penalties under the Unfair
Business Practices statutes of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission
Orders.

Golden State is an Amazon fulfillment center and/or delivery
station located at 2777 Loker Ave., Carlsbad, California 92010
where Hernandez was employed as a Tier 1 associate from October
2016 to March 14, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel V. Santiago, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, P.C.
      Torrey Reserve North Court
      11622 El Camino Real, 1st Floor
      Del Mar, CA 92130
      Phone: (760) 652-9801
      Facsimile: (760) 652-9802
      E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com


GOOD GUYS NYC: Chagray Files Bid for Judicial Intervention
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned Jorge Carrasco Chagray and Manuel
Carrasco Chagray, Plaintiffs, v. Good Guys NYC Construction Corp.
and John Mihalios Contracting Corp., George Mihalios and John
Mihalios, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 706823/2018, (N.Y.
Sup., May 2, 2018), filed a request for judicial intervention on
July 24, 2018.  

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
New York State labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act,
compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Plaintiffs worked as a laborer, construction worker and painter for
Defendant's construction firms from in or around 2006 until in or
around October 2017. Chagray worked approximately fifty-four hours
or more per week for Defendants without being paid time and a half
for hours worked over forty, says 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

Defendants are represented by:

      MICHAEL P. GIAMPILIS, P.C.
      94 Willis Avenue
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Tel: (516) 739-5838

GORDON FLESCH: Charles Cook Files Suit for Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES P. COOK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and ROBERT J. ROSEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GORDON FLESCH CO., INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-00711-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 20, 2018), alleges age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; race
and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act; retaliation for reporting sex harassment under Title VII; and
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Gordon Flesch Co., Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Ohio in
Columbus.  Gordon Flesch distributes office equipment, supplies,
and software in the United States.  The Company offers copier
machines; multifunction devices that combine the capabilities of
various input and output devices, such as printer, scanner, copier,
and fax; production systems for commercial printers, reprographics
departments, direct marketing firms, and other fast-paced
environments; printers; scanners; fax machines; and document
management and imaging solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Benson, Esq.
          DAVID M. BENSON LLC
          970 Hanna Building
          1422 Euclid Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 241-2510
          Facsimile: (216) 241-2510
          E-mail: david@davidbensonlaw.com


GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Jackson Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI, PLLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, SHERMAN
FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP, WILLIAM C.
GROSSMAN, AND DARLEEN V. KARASZEWSKI, Case No. 2:18-cv-04116
(E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On July 19, 2017, G&K, on behalf of LVNV, filed a lawsuit against
Mr. Jackson in the District Court of the County of Suffolk under
Index No. CV-004646-17/CE to recover a past due debt owed to the
"debt collector" LVNV.

G&K is formerly known as or is the successor-in-interest to William
C. Grossman Law, PLLC.  G&K is a New York Professional Services
Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business
located in East Amherst, New York.

LVNV is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and a New York Foreign
Limited Liability Company.  LVNV's primary business consists of the
purchases of defaulted debts due from consumers from entities which
currently own the defaulted debts and then, via agents, attorneys,
and/or third-party debt collectors, attempting to collect these
defaulted debts from consumers.

Resurgent is a Delaware Limited Partnership and a New York Foreign
Limited Partnership.  Resurgent possesses a license to operate as a
"Debt Collection Agency."

Sherman is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and a New York
Foreign Limited Liability Company.  Sherman wholly owns numerous
subsidiaries, such as LVNV and Resurgent, which are a "debt
collector" as defined by the FDCPA.  The Individual Defendants are
employees, officers or partners of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Damico Sues Over Vehicles' Powertrain Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE DAMICO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-06282 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2018), is brought on behalf
of those who purchased or leased 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles
with Powertrain Defect.

Beginning in 2016, if not before, the Defendant knew that the Class
Vehicles contain one or more defects that cause, among other
problems, significantly delayed acceleration, loss of power, or
rough shifting ("Powertrain Defect"), Mr. Damico alleges.  He
contends that the Powertrain Defect has been documented to occur
without warning during vehicle operation and poses an extreme and
unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Fountain Valley, California,
and doing business in California and throughout the United States.
The Defendant is responsible for the design, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, sale and lease of the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  dmanning@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com


IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton, and Shelia Spencer, individually, on
behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC,
MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Defendant, Case No.
RG18906191, (Cal. Super., May 23, 2018), seeks redress for meal and
rest break violations, failure to compensate for all hours worked,
failure to provide proper wage statements and failure to pay earned
wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties under Unfair
Business Practices statutes of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission
Orders.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as enrollment agents
throughout California, enrolling individuals into the federal
Transportation Security Administration's Universal Enrollment
Services programs including TSA Pre-Check and Transportation Worker
Identification Credential and providing customers with other
identity-related products and services offered by the Defendants.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERVA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.  3:17-cv-05653-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court for an order on August 16, 2018:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the terms of a
      Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate under
      Rule 23(e) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
      including the amount of the Settlement; the amount
      of distributions to class members; the procedure for
      giving notice to class members; the procedure for
      opting out of the settlement; and the amounts
      allocated to the enhancement payments and  
      attorney's fees and costs;

   2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes a
      Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all applicants for employment, employees or other
      agents of Defendant in the United States who were
      subject to any background, credit, consumer, or
      investigatory check or report during the Class
      Period (the period from August 25, 2012 to November
      3, 2017)"

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative for the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Setareh Law Group as counsel for the
      Settlement Class;

   5. approving Simpluris Inc. as settlement administrator;

   6. directing that notice be issued to members of the
      Settlement Class as provided in the Agreement; and

   7. scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on
      a date approximately 175 days after preliminary
      approval (February 7, 2019 is proposed) to consider
      whether the Agreement should be finally approved as
      fair, reasonable and adequate  under Rule 23(e) of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to rule on
      the motion for attorney's fees, costs and
      enhancement award submitted by Plaintiff.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://is.gd/nfu7pk at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


JAL CHEMICAL: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Josh Williams, Quayterez Brawley, Zachary Coleman, Jasper Fryer,
Kevin Gollman, Avery Lenton, Tavarus Norman, Dorian Ray, Cristhian
Rosario, Anthony Spratt, Marjester Thorton, Ashton Threatt, Derrick
Ward, Lonzo Williamson and D'Anthony Copeland, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAL
Chemical Co., Inc., Case No. 18-cv-02429 (N.D. Ga., May 23, 2018),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary and liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, fees and costs, as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay lawful minimum and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant's business serves car dealerships in several states,
where Plaintiffs are current and former automotive detailer
technicians. [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 -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Craver Files Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CRAVER, individually and on be-half of all others similarly
situated v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY; NEW YORK AIR
BRAKE CORPORATION; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-00957-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 20, 2018), challenges the
Defendants' alleged conspiracy to restrain competition in the labor
market in which they compete for employees (the "No Poach
Conspiracy"), in violation of the Sherman Act.

Knorr-Bremse AG is a privately-owned German company with its
headquarters in Munich, Germany.  Knorr is a global leader in the
development, manufacture, and sale of equipment for rail and
commercial vehicle systems.

Knorr Brake Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knorr
incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Westminster,
Maryland.  Knorr Brake manufactures train control, HVAC, braking,
and door systems used on passenger rail vehicles.  New York Air
Brake Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knorr
incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Watertown, New
York.  NYAB manufactures railway air brakes and other rail
equipment used on freight trains.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation is a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.
Wabtec is a publicly-held company, listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.  With over 100 subsidiaries globally, Wabtec is the
world's largest provider of rail equipment and services with global
sales of $3.9 billion in 2017.

Faiveley Transport North America, formerly a subsidiary of Faiveley
Transport S.A., is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Wabtec, and is
a New York corporation headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina.
Prior to the acquisition, Faiveley Transport S.A. was the world's
third-largest rail equipment supplier behind Wabtec and Knorr.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Shepherd Files Antritrust Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Shepherd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr Brake Company LLC,
New York Air Brake LLC, Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation, Faiveley Transport, S.A., Faiveley Transport North
America Inc. and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02253 (D.
Md., July 24, 2018), seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive
relief for injuries caused under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
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.

Shepherd was employed by Wabtec as a Lead PTC Installer for Wabtec
Global Services, from approximately February 2013 to February 2014.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
      GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD
      100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 825-2300
      Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
      Email: bcarney@gwcfirm.com

             - and -

      Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
      Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
      Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
      Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
      Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: rheimann@lchb.com
             kdermody@lchb.com
             bglackin@lchb.com
             dharvey@lchb.com
             ashaver@lchb.com
             lchan@lchb.com
             msheen@lchb.com

             - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             gdever@finekaplan.com

             - and -

      Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
      Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
      FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
      15 W. Carrillo Street
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 962-9495
      Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
      Email: tfoley@foleybezek.com
             rcurtis@foleybezek.com

             - and -

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
      440 W. First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
             skokonas@donahoo.com
             jcamilleri@donahoo.com


KNS BUILDING: "Castilla" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Castilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KNS Building Restoration, Inc., and Dennis Doceti, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03838 (E.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018), seeks damages and
equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from January 2013 until September 2016.

The Defendant KNS Building is a roofing and construction company
located in Maspeth, New York.

The Defendant Dennis Doceti was a manager of Defendant KNS
Building. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 679-5000
      Fax: (212) 679-5005

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Collins et al. Seek to Certify Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STACY COLLINS, TIANGE LUSENI and LISA
PETERSON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and
KOHL'S CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification of an "opt-in" collective action, and
authorizing the issuance of notice to:

   "all Assistant Store Managers employed by Defendant
   Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Defendant Kohl's
   Corporation at any time from May 21, 2015 forward, and
   an Order that Defendants produce the names, last known
   addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses."

The Plaintiff further moves, pursuant to Local Rule 7(a)(3), for
expedited consideration of this motion, as the statutes of
limitations for the members of the putative collective action are
running.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/DXEltb at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271 8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271 8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          The Hayber Law Firm, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary Edward Phelan, Esq.
          MITCHELL & SHEAHAN PC
          80 Ferry Blvd - Ste 102
          Statford , CT 06615
          Telephone: (203) 873 0240
          Facsimile: (203) 873 0235
          E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com


MALACHITE VENTURE: Majano Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MAJANO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MALACHITE VENTURE CORP.; THE MALACHITE
GROUP OF TEXAS, INC.; CHELSEA COMMONS, LLC; MESA COMMONS, LLC;
HOUSTON TRIANGLE III, LLC; WESTHEIMER COMMONS, LLC; POPOLO COMMONS,
LLC; HOUSTON OFFICE/WAREHOUSE CORP.; HIGHWAY SIX TWINS, INC.;
SOUTHVIEW REALTY CORP.; CROSSROADS PARTNERS INC.; MAXI REALTY
CORP.; 9030 NORTH FREEWAY CORP.; GREENRIDGE COMMONS, INC.; TOWNSHIP
ONE REALTY CORP.; T.C. JESTER REALTY CORP.; WILLOWRIDGE COMMONS,
LLC; HOUSTON TRIANGLE II, LLC; MADISONVILLE COMMONS, LLC; CHAMPION
COMMONS LLC; POPOLO VILLAGE, LLC; GATEWAY COMMONS LLC; HIGHWAY 6
COMMONS, LLC; and MANOUCHEHR MALEKAN, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-02469 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2018), alleges that Malachite
Group violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by employing Majano and
other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer
than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment
in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which they are or were employed.

Malachite Venture Corp. is in the tax return preparation services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


MDL 1203: Denial of Larrieu's Matrix A-1 Benefits Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 99-20593, MDL
No. 1203, No. 2:16 MD 1203 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
affirmed the AHP Settlement Trust's denial of Miguel A. Larrieu's
claim for Matrix A-1 Benefits.

Mr. Larrieu, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") with Wyeth,
seeks benefits from the Trust.  Based on the record developed in
the show cause process, the Court must determine whether claimant
has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support his claim
for Matrix Compensation Benefits.

To seek Matrix Benefits, a claimant must first submit a completed
Green Form to the Trust which consists of three parts.  The
claimant or the claimant's representative completes Part I of the
Green Form.  Part II is completed by the claimant's attesting
physician, who must answer a series of questions concerning the
claimant's medical condition that correlate to the Matrix criteria
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  Finally, the claimant's
attorney must complete Part III if the claimant is represented.

In June 2015, Mr. Larrieu submitted a completed Green Form to the
Trust signed by his attesting physician, Marta C. Sayers, M.D.,
F.A.C.C.  Based on an echocardiogram dated March 5, 2015,3 Dr.
Sayers attested in Part II of Mr. Larrieu's Green Form that
claimant suffered from severe mitral regurgitation and had surgery
to repair or replace the aortic and/or mitral valve(s) following
the use of Pondimin® and/or Redux™.  Based on such findings,
claimant would be entitled to Matrix A-1, Level III benefits in the
amount of $823,285.

Dr. Sayers also attested that Mr. Larrieu did not suffer from
mitral annular calcification.  Significantly, the Settlement
Agreement requires the reduced payment of Matrix Benefits for a
claim based on damage to the mitral valve when mitral annular
calcification is present.

The Trust does not contest claimant's entitlement to Level III
benefits.  Thus the only issue before us is whether claimant is
entitled to payment on Matrix A-1 or Matrix B-1.

In October 2015, the Trust forwarded the claim to M. Michele
Penkala, M.D., one of its auditing cardiologists, for review. In
audit, Dr.  Penkala concluded that there was no reasonable medical
basis for finding that claimant did not have mitral annular
calcification.  Based on Dr. Penkala's findings, the Trust issued a
post-audit determination that Mr. Larrieu was entitled only to
Matrix B-1, Level III benefits.

Although not required to do so, the Trust forwarded the claim to
the auditing cardiologist for a second review.  Thereafter the
Trust issued a final post-audit determination again in which it
concluded that Mr. Larrieu was entitled only to Matrix B-1, Level
III benefits.

He disputed this final determination and requested that the claim
proceed to the show cause process established in the Settlement
Agreement. The Trust then applied to the court for issuance of an
Order to show cause why Mr. Larrieu's claim should be paid.  On
Sept. 20, 2016, an Order was issued to show cause and the matter
was referred to the Special Master for further proceedings.

Once the matter was referred to the Special Master, the Trust
submitted its statement of the case and supporting documentation.
The Special Master assigned a Technical Advisor, Gary J. Vigilante,
M.D., F.A.C.C., to review the documents submitted by the Trust and
claimant and to prepare a report for the court.  The Show Cause
Record and Technical Advisor Report are now before the Court for
final determination.

The issue presented for resolution of this claim is whether Mr.
Larrieu has met his burden of proving that there is a reasonable
medical basis for finding that he did not have mitral annular
calcification.

Judge Bartle rejects Mr. Larrieu's argument that his claim should
not be reduced because the level of his mitral annular
calcification, if any, is "relatively minute or insignificant."
The Judge finds that the Settlement Agreement specifically provides
that a claimant will receive reduced Matrix Benefits for a mitral
valve claim if he or she is diagnosed by echocardiogram with mitral
annular calcification.  Unlike some of the other factors that
reduce a claim to Matrix B-1, any presence of mitral annular
calcification, regardless of the amount, places the claim on Matrix
B-1.

Finally, Mr. Larrieu's suggestion that any mitral annular
calcification is the result of his age is misplaced.  The Judge
finds that causation is not at issue in resolving Mr. Larrieu's
claim for Matrix Benefits.  Rather, claimant is required to show
that he meets the objective criteria set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Bartle concludes that Mr. Larrieu has not
met his burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical basis
for finding that he did not have mitral annular calcification.
Therefore, he affirmed the Trust's denial of Mr. Larrieu's claim
for Matrix A-1 Benefits.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/tZXD1t from Leagle.com.

WILLIAMS DAILEY, Special Master, represented by MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS
-- lawgive@lclark.edu -- WILLIAMS O'LEARY LLC.

VIVIAN NAUGLE & QUINTIN LAYER, Plaintiffs, epresented by ARNOLD
LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, CHRISTOPHER
MICHAEL PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA &
ROTH PC, DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, GENE
LOCKS -- glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, JOHN J.
CUMMINGS, III, CUMMINGS CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER, MARK W. TANNER --
mtanner@feldmanshepherd.com -- FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER,
TANNER & WEINSTOCK, MICHAEL D. FISHBEIN, LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN &
BERMAN, RICHARD S. LEWIS -- rlewis@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP,
RICHARD S. WAYNE -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS & TROY,
ROBERT ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS, SOL H. WEISS --
sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS & STANLEY M. CHESLEY, WAITE,
SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A..

JOAN S. LAYER, Plaintiff, represented by SOL H. WEISS --
sweiss@anapolweiss.com --ANAPOL WEISS.

BRENDA CHAMBERS, DONNA JARRELL & ISABEL CONNOR, Appellants,
represented by ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN.

CHARLENE ALLSPAUGH, Appellant, pro se.

DORIS ATANMO, Appellant, pro se.

EVELYN AMEND, Appellant, pro se.

JOAN BAKANOWSKY, Appellant, pro se.

STEVEN BERKOWITZ, Appellant, pro se.

KATHY BURROW, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA BUSBY, Appellant, pro se.

JO BUTTERFIELD, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA CASTON, Appellant, pro se.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Andrew A. Chirls, Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC; Kevin A. Cline, Esq. --
kevin.cline@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; Leslie Anne
Benitez, Esq. --
lbenitez@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP; Edward F. Hanover,
III, Esq. -- ehanover@reedsmith.com --  Louis W. Schack, Esq. --
lschack@reedsmith.com -- and Milind M. Shah, Esq. --
mshah@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.

MDL 2495: Makowski Appeals Order to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bryan Makowski filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
multidistrict litigation titled IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION
CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
1:13-md-02495-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the litigation
is a products liability action involving allegedly defective
roofing shingles.

The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Makowski v. Atlas Roofing
Corporation, Case No. 18-12904, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN MAKOWSKI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com




MDL 2495: Seltzer Appeals Ruling to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brian David Seltzer, Bryan Makowski and Stratford Club
Condominium Association filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
multidistrict litigation titled IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION
CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
1:13-md-02495-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the litigation
is a products liability action involving allegedly defective
roofing shingles.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Seltzer v. Atlas Roofing
Corporation, Case No. 18-12899, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
August 7, 2018, as to Appellee Atlas Roofing Corporation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN DAVID SELTZER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and BRYAN MAKOWSKI are represented
by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-8900
          E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden Street
          Plaquemine, LA 70764
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN DAVID SELTZER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLIC CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick G. Warner, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI, CO., LPA
          383 N Front St. L1
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 437-2522
          E-mail: pgwarn@climacolaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN MAKOWSKI is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          19 N Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          E-mail: john@wbmllp.com

Plaintiff - Appellant
STRATFORD CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12800 University Dr., Suite 600
          Ft. Meyers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

          James Plummer Lukes, Esq.
          WISE & DONAHUE, PLC
          11325 Random Hills Rd., Suite 302
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          E-mail: jlukes@wisedonahue.com

Defendant-Appellee ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION is represented by:

          Kip T. Bollin, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE, LLP
          127 Public Square, Suite 3900
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1291
          Telephone: (216) 566-5500
          E-mail: kip.bollin@thompsonhine.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Saffold Collins, Esq.
          Joel G. Pieper, Esq.
          William McKenzie Ragland, Jr., Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          271 17th Street NW, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 872-7000
          E-mail: jennifer.collins@wcsr.com
                  jpieper@wcsr.com
                  wragland@wcsr.com

               - and -

          Henry B. Smythe, Jr., Esq.
          James E. Weatherholtz, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLC
          5 Exchange St.
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 722-3400
          E-mail: HSmythe@wcsr.com
                  jweatherholtz@wcsr.com



MDL 2495: Summ. Judgment Bid in Defective Roofing Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. BRYAN MAKOWSKI on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS ROOFING
CORPORATION doing business as Meridian Roofing Company, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-3034-TWT, MDL Docket No. 2495, No.
1:13-md-2495-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The action arises out of the marketing and sale of allegedly
defective roofing shingles.  Makowski is the owner of a home
containing Atlas Shingles.  In 2010, the Defendant discontinued
sales of the Shingles.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Shingles are
defective in design, and filed the action seeking to represent a
class of homeowners who own homes with the Shingles.

On Aug. 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Prior to filing his Complaint, he received a letter from a law firm
that ultimately became the Plaintiff's counsel in the case.  On
Sept. 22, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the action to be consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation pending before the Court.

After the Court granted part of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiff's remaining claims are for negligence (Count I),
negligent misrepresentation (Count II), strict products liability
(Count III), breach of express warranty (Count IV), breach of
implied warranty (Count V), violation of the Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act (Count VI), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count
VII), and fraudulent concealment (Count VIII).  The Defendant now
moves for summary judgment as to each of these claims.

Judge Thrash finds that the Plaintiff has not shown that the
blisters, cracks, and surface losses have caused any other type of
injury to his property, which would be recoverable under Kentucky
tort law.  Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment.  

The Judge concludes that the transfer limitation is not
unconscionable.  Since the Limited Warranty did not transfer to the
Plaintiff, and since the Plaintiff did not rely on any other
express warranties made by the Defendant, his claim for breach of
express warranty fails.

He explains that the economic loss rule bars recovery in such a
situation where only economic damages are sought because the
"essence" of such a claim is that losses occurred as a result of
the defects and failure to perform as expected" and the "injury
suffered -- the failure of the product to function properly -- is
the essence of a warranty action, through which a contracting party
can seek to recoup the benefit of its bargain.  Thus, the negligent
misrepresentation claim also fails for this reason.

Since the Plaintiff cannot show that he relied upon these
communications, or was induced to act in some way by them, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent
misrepresentation fails as a matter of law.  In addition, since the
Plaintiff believed that the Defendant was untruthful concerning its
representations that the Shingles met manufacturing specifications,
he cannot also assert that he was induced to act by the Defendant's
alleged partially disclosure of the truth.  For this reason, his
fraudulent concealment claim also fails as a matter of law.

Finally, because there is no statutory or contractual basis for an
award of attorneys' fees, and because all of the Plaintiff's claims
fail as a matter of law, the Plaintiff's request for attorneys'
fees also fails.

For these reasons, Judge Thrash granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6MlttO from Leagle.com.

Bryan Makowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Whitfield --
john@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP & Daniel K. Bryson
-- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, doing business as Meridian Roofing
Company, Defendant, represented by Joel G. Pieper --
joel.pieper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Jennifer
Saffold Collins -- jennifer.collins@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP & William M. Ragland, Jr. --
bill.ragland@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP.

MONRO INC: Mittelmark Sues over Warranties of Catalytic Converters
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN MITTELMARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONRO, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00841-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant has a uniform policy of selling and installing new
aftermarket replacement catalytic converters in New York and
throughout the United States without adequately informing its
customers of the applicable, legally-mandated warranties, and
without completing or providing warranty cards to its customers as
required by law.  The Defendant falsely represents to its customers
that the warranty on their new aftermarket replacement catalytic
converters is only good for "the earlier of 90 days or 4,000
miles," and routinely refuses to replace converters that fail after
this brief time frame even when such failures occur within the
longer, legally-mandated warranty period.  Because of Defendant's
unlawful policies, the Plaintiff and the classes have been
compelled to pay money to repair or replace the aftermarket
replacement catalytic converters purchased from and installed by
Defendant, which were covered by warranty and should have been
repaired or replaced for free.

Federal law mandates that all new aftermarket replacement catalytic
converters must be warranted to comply with federal emission
performance standards for 25,000 miles after purchase and
installation, and also must be accompanied by a 5-year, 50,000-mile
warranty on the converter shell and end pipes.

Monro, Inc. provides automotive undercar repair, and tire sales and
services in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979 3642
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


MOON RIDGE FOODS: Fails to Pay Wages, Morris Says
-------------------------------------------------
DAWN MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MOON RIDGE FOODS, LLC, and HERITAGE FOODS,
LLC, Defendants, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-03219-SRB (W.D. Mo.,
July 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and ERISA benefits
for 60 days, none of which has been paid.  According to the
complaint, the Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act by failing to give the Plaintiff and
the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants at least
60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the
WARN Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall L. Rhodes, Esq.
          Christopher L. Kurtz, Esq.
          ROUSE FRETS GENTILE RHODES, LLC
          5250 W. 116th Place, Suite 400
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 387 1600
          Facsimile: (913) 928 6739
          E-mail: rrhodes@rousefrets.com
                  ckurtz@rousefrets.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581 5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581 2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433 8181

               - and -

          THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR
          LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND
          SOCIAL JUSTICE, a non-profit law firm
          4605 Cass Ave.
          Detroit, MH 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993 4505


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Luczak Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS W. LUCZAK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP., NICK
A. CAPORELLA, and GEORGE R. BRACKEN, the Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-61631-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired National Beverage securities between July 17,
2014 through July 3, 2018, both dates inclusive.

National Beverage, through its subsidiaries, develops, produces,
markets, and sells a portfolio of flavored beverage products in
North America and internationally.  The Company offers beverages to
the active and health-conscious consumers, including sparkling
waters under the LaCroix, LaCroix Curate, LaCroix NiCola, and
Shasta Sparkling Water brand names. It serves retailers, as well as
various up-and-down-the-street accounts through the take-home,
convenience, and food-service distribution channels. The Company
sells and markets its products through an internal sales force, as
well as specialized broker networks.

According to the complaint, on May 4, 2017, National Beverage
issued a press release stating that it "employs methods that no
other company does in this area -- VPO (velocity per outlet) and
VPC (velocity per capita)". National Beverage asserted that it
"utilize[s] two proprietary techniques to magnify this measure and
this creates growth never before thought possible." 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) National
Beverage's sales claims and the supposed underlying "proprietary
techniques" lacked a verifiable basis; (ii) National Beverage's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Nick A. Caporella
engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct between 2014 and 2016;
and (iii) as a result, National Beverage's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 8, 2017, National Beverage issued a press release
announcing its financial and operating results for the period ended
October 28, 2017. Notwithstanding the Company's representations in
its May 2017 press releases with respect to "creating growth never
before thought possible," analyst Laurent Grandet of Credit Suisse
assigned an "underperform" rating to the Company's stock. Grandet
noted that National Beverage's business was driven "almost
entirely" by the success of its LaCroix sparkling water brand, the
growth trajectory of which was in fact slowing. That same day,
Maxim analyst Anthony Vendetti reiterated a "sell" recommendation
for National Beverage stock, noting that its "numerous weak brands
and opaque financial reporting" made its sale "highly
unlikely."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          DAVID W. HALL, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357 2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200 8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Defective Transmissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11523 (D. Mass., July 20, 2018), alleges that
Model Year 2013–2014 Nissan Altima vehicles contain defective
continuously variable automatic transmissions ("CVT") that cause
shuddering, hesitation, stalling, unusual noises, and ultimately,
premature transmission failure.

Ms. Costa contends that the CVTs pose a significant safety risk.
She asserts that when the shuddering occurs, momentum of the
Subject Vehicle is suddenly lost, the rate of speed drops or the
vehicle stalls, and the brake lights do not illuminate.  She adds
that the defect is especially dangerous because it manifests when
the driver presses the accelerator.

Nissan North America, Inc., is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.  The Company is
the North American subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co.  The Company
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, leased, and sold,
through its authorized dealers and distributors, the Subject
Vehicles in the United States to the Plaintiff and the other Class
members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com


NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Huu Nguyen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-05591-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

The appellate case is captioned as Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North
America, Inc., Case No. 18-16344, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed an appeal from a District Court ruling.  That appellate case
is captioned as Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No.
18-80050.

The Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh previously denied the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification of:

Class:

    "all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from
     an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped
     with a FS6R31A manual transmission"; and

CLRA Sub-Class:

    "all members of the Class who are "consumers" within the
     meaning of California Civil Code section 1761(d)."

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 20, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on September 18, 2018;

   -- Appellant Huu Nguyen's opening brief is due on October 29,
      2018;

   -- Appellee Nissan North America, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on November 29, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          John Ely Stobart, I, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  John.Stobart@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Marshall Baker, Esq.
          Michael J. Stortz, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7531
          E-mail: marshall.baker@dbr.com
                  mjstortz@dbr.com

               - and -

          Sherman Vance Wittie, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE REATH LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201-7367
          Telephone: (469) 357-2500
          E-mail: vance.wittie@dbr.com


ORLANDO, FL: Class Cert Denial in Red Light Camera Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD EASTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. CITY OF ORLANDO,
Appellee, Case No. 5D17-276 (Fla. App.), Judge Judge Kerry I.
Evander of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District,
affirmed the trial court's non-final order denying Easter's motion
to certify the class.

The case concerns an ordinance adopted by the City of Orlando that
authorized the use of cameras to record vehicles that failed to
properly stop at red lights.  In addition to authorizing civil
fines, the Ordinance authorized city-appointed hearing officers to
assess administrative charges against a vehicle owner in the amount
of the City's costs if the owner's appeal was denied.

In August 2009, Naveel Nasari filed a class action suit against the
City and the company administering the program, seeking: (1) a
declaration that the Ordinance was preempted by state law, (2) an
injunction from further enforcement, and (3) class damages for
various claims including unjust enrichment. Michael Udowychenko
subsequently replaced Nasari as the class representative.  The
trial court later entered a final order determining that the
Ordinance was invalid because it was preempted by state law and
otherwise conflicted with state statutes.  

The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in City of Orlando v.
Udowychenko.  In doing so, it certified conflict with City of
Aventura v. Masone, where the sister court upheld the validity of a
similar red-light camera ordinance.  In a footnote, the Court noted
that Udowychenko's motion to certify the class had been denied.

This was initially a class action suit.  Udowychenko's motion to
certify the class was denied.  The court noted that only
Udowychenko had filed an action to challenge the ordinance and that
others who paid the fine most likely would be barred by the
doctrine of voluntary payment.  However, the City did not list the
denial of city licenses or permits as a nonpayment penalty in the
notices of infraction, and it never imposed such penalties.
Because that denial was not challenged on appeal, we did not
address it further.

In April 2010, the City sent Easter a notice of infraction of the
Ordinance.  He filed a notice of appeal, arguing, in part, that the
Ordinance was unlawful.  After a hearing officer upheld the
infraction, Easter paid the fine.  Thereafter, Easter filed the
instant class action suit against the City.  In November 2012, the
parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending resolution
of the Udowychenko and Masone cases in the Florida Supreme Court.

The conflict between Udowychenko and Masone was resolved by the
Florida Supreme Court in Masone v. City of Aventura.  There, in a
5-2 decision, the court held that both cities' ordinances were
expressly preempted by state law.  After the resolution of
Udowychenko and Masone, and after engaging in discovery, Easter
filed his motion to certify class.

The trial court relied on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in
Keton to conclude that the voluntary payment defense would be
applicable in the instant case, stating, the Florida Supreme Court
has long held that the doctrine applies when a local government
imposes a fine later found preempted.

On appeal, Easter argues that it was error for the trial court to
rely on the application of the voluntary payment defense in denying
his motion for class certification.

Judge Evander agrees with the trial court that City of Miami v.
Keton is controlling in the instant case and, thus, it was proper
for the trial court to consider the application of the voluntary
payment defense in determining whether to grant Easter's motion to
certify the class.  The voluntary payment defense provides that
where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with
knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be
recovered.

Reviewing the trial court's decision to deny class certification
for an abuse of discretion, the Judge finds that the application of
the voluntary payment defense doctrine supports the trial court's
conclusion that Easter failed to prove the predominance element.
The trial court properly concluded that in determining whether the
City was required to pay refunds to potential claimants, individual
issues would predominate over common issues.  

The Judge will also affirm the trial court's conclusion that Easter
failed to establish the superiority element.  In some ways, there
is a certain cruelty to the Plaintiff's argument when he asserts
that the Court should ignore the voluntary payment doctrine,
certify the class with the attendant effect of raising hopes that
notified class members only to later announce to them that they
voluntarily paid their fines and are not equally entitled to
relief.

For these reasons, Judge Evander affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/iP51mR from Leagle.com.

David M. Kerner -- dkerner@shw-law.com -- and Jason E. Weisser --
jweisser@shw-law.com -- of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller &
Overbeck, P.A., and Andrew A. Harris -- geh@FLAppellateLaw.com --
of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Vincent Falcone III -- vfalcone@kbzwlaw.com -- David B. King --
DKing@kbzwlaw.com -- and Thomas A. Zehnder -- tzehnder@kbzwlaw.com
-- of King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellee.

Stephen F. Rosenthal -- srosenthal@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., Miami, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association.

POWER SWEEP: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Power Sweep, LLC and Keith Miller, Case No.
2:18-cv-00268 (E.D. Tex., July 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during the FLSA's
statutory period, during the past three years, and until he was
terminated on approximately September 21, 2017. In this capacity,
the Plaintiff's primary duty was to perform the work as a "Helper"
and to conduct parking lot sweeps outside at Defendants' job
sites.

The Defendant Power Sweep, LLC is a parking lot sweeping business
and does business throughout Texas. Defendant earns over
$500,000.00 per year in gross sales.

The Defendant Keith Miller holds himself out as the "Manager" of
Defendant Power Sweep, LLC in which capacity he has controlled the
day-to-day operations of Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Fax: (214) 346-5909

PRETE CONSTRUCTION: Inguil Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Inguil, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Prete Construction Co. Inc.,
and Michael Prete, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04097
(E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the York Labor Law.  According to the complaint,
the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite No. 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com


PROFESSIONAL DEBT: Marquez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL DEBT MEDIATION, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-22874-UU (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover
alleges that Defendant is engaged in unlawful scheme to collect
debts in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a communication
from Professional Debt Mediation, Inc. dated June 15, 2018, seeking
to collect a debt purportedly owed by Plaintiff.  The communication
says the debt purportedly owed by Plaintiff was $4,415.50.  At the
bottom of the Notice, Professional Debt Mediation states that the
communication "is an attempt to collect a debt, and any information
obtained will be used for that purpose." As a debt collector
attempting to collect a debt, Professional Debt Mediation is
required to comply with the requirements of the FDCPA, which
protects consumers by preventing false, deceptive or misleading
representations by debt collectors.  However, Professional Debt
Mediation violated the requirements of the FDCPA by failing to
comply with the initial notice requirements in 15 U.S.C. 1692(g).

Professional Debt is a collection agency located in Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595 6060
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781


RACK ROOM: Peralta Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CESAR PERALTA, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RACK ROOM
SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03738-JTM-JCW (E.D. La.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the case as a
class action.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/TBQBlG at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272 2956
          E-mail: jmk@beaumontcostales.com


RATHA REST:  Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Sooknanan" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AMANDA SOOKNANAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RATHA
REST INC., d/b/a PERISTA RESTAURANT, ARIS PATILIS, GEORGE SIKOLAS
and TOM PATILIS, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03218-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order
conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action and authorizing notice to be issued to all persons similarly
situated.

A copy of the Court Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/im0Jdq at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385 9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385 0800

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Demetrios Adamis, Esq.
          DEMETRIOS ADAMIS
          61-43 176th Street
          Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
          Telephone: (718) 687 7410


RAYMOND JAMES: Passport Account Customers' Suit Dismissal Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JYLL BRINK, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-14144 (11th
Cir.), Judge Jill Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing
Brink's putative class action complaint, and remanded for further
proceedings.

As an alternative to a traditional commission-based investment
account, RJA offered a "Passport Account" program that charged
customers an annual advisory fee based on the total value of
qualifying assets in the account instead of a commission based on
each individual trade.  In addition, Passport Account customers
were charged a flat fee per transaction.  In its written agreement
with each Passport Account customer, RJA described this flat fee as
a "Processing Fee" for "transaction execution and clearing
services" and stated that the Processing Fees were "not
commissions."

RJA published a schedule of the Processing Fees in the Passport
Agreement.  Before Oct. 1, 2013, RJA's Processing Fees ranged from
$30 to $50 per transaction, depending on the type of security.
Beginning Oct. 1, 2013, RJA reduced the Processing Fees to range
from $9.95 to $30.00. But the actual costs incurred in the
execution and clearing of the transactions were much lower than the
Processing Fees charged, allegedly no more than $5.00 per
transaction.  RJA kept as profit any amount above the actual costs
associated with transaction execution and clearing.

Brink filed the putative class action complaint alleging state law
claims for breach of contract and negligence.  She alleged that
because Passport Account customers had agreed only to pay for
"expenses incurred in facilitating the execution and clearing" of
their trades, RJA's undisclosed profit built into the Processing
Fees breached the Passport Agreement.  She also claimed that RJA
breached its duty of care owed to its customers, which she alleged
included a duty to charge customers a reasonable fee for its
services.

After class certification discovery, Brink moved for class
certification, and RJA moved for summary judgment.  While both of
those motions were still pending, RJA filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Brink's state law
claims were disguised claims for federal securities fraud.  Thus,
RJA claimed, Brink's putative class action was precluded under
SLUSA.  

The district court concluded that Brink's claims were precluded
because RJA's alleged conduct constituted a misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale
of a covered security, and granted RJA's motion to dismiss.  

Brink appeals.  She argues that the district court erred in
determining that her state law claims for negligence and breach of
contract against RJA were precluded under Title I of the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), which prohibits
class actions alleging state law causes of action based on conduct
that constitutes federal securities fraud.  Specifically, she
disputes that her complaint alleged that RJA made a
misrepresentation of a material fact in connection with the
purchase or sale of a covered security.

After careful review, Judge Pryor reverses the district court's
order, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her
opinion.  She finds that RJA's alleged undisclosed profit on the
Processing Fee for each transaction -- a fee for transaction
execution and clearing, known and agreed to in advance by Passport
Account customers -- objectively could not make a significant
difference to a reasonable investor's decision to purchase or sell
a covered security.  As the court in Feinman v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc. noted, if brokerage firms are slightly inflating the
cost of their transaction fees, the remedy is competition among the
firms in the labeling and pricing of their services, not resort to
the securities fraud provisions.

The conduct alleged in Brink's complaint is therefore not a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with
the purchase or sale of a covered security.  Because she concludes
that the alleged misrepresentation was not material, she does not
consider whether it was made "in connection with" the purchase or
sale of covered securities.  SLUSA does not preclude Brink's
putative class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dQzeGA from Leagle.com.

Samuel Wayne Braver -- samuel.braver@bipc.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Mark A. Romance -- MRomance@richmangreer.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

G. Calvin Hayes -- calvin.hayes@bipc.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Manuel A. Garcia-Linares -- mlinares@richmangreer.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Hala A. Sandridge -- hala.sandridge@bipc.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Lyle E. Shapiro -- lyle@hslawfl.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joshua Lee Spoont -- jspoont@richmangreer.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric Mathew Sodhi -- esodhi@richmangreer.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Darren Craig Blum -- blum@stockattorneys.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Randall Charles Place -- randall_place@placeandhanley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sara Elizabeth Hanley -- sara_hanley@placeandhanley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

RIABLE LAW: Higgins Seeks to Certify 2 Arkansas Residents Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Rickey Don Higgins, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Riable Law Firm, Inc.
d/b/a Riable Law Firm Mark Justin Riable, the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00794-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying two classes:

Class 1:

   "all Arkansas residents, (ii) who were sent a letter in
   the form of Exhibit 1, attached to the Second Amended
   Class Action Complaint, from Defendants, (iii) which
   was not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office,
   (iv) in an attempt to collect a delinquent balance on a
   lease agreement, (v) between December 5, 2016 and
   December 4, 2017"; and

Class 2:

   "all Arkansas residents, (ii) who were sent a letter in
   the form of Exhibit 2, attached to the Second Amended
   Class Action Complaint, from Defendants, (iii) which
   was not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office,
   (iv) in an attempt to collect a delinquent balance on a
   lease agreement, (v) between December 5, 2016 and
   December 4, 2017."

The Plaintiff also moves that he be named as the class
representative of Class 1 and Class 2, and that his attorney, Corey
D. McGaha of Crowder McGaha, LLP, be appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/anpLM7 at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          CROWDER MCGAHA, LLP
          5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 205 4026
          Facsimile: (501) 367 8208
          E-mail: cmcgaha@crowdermcgaha.com
                  wcrowder@crowdermcgaha.com


RUBICON OILFIELD: "Medved" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Medved, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings,
LLC and Tercel Oilfield Products USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00973 (W.D. Pa., July 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rubicon is an oil and gas service provider operating throughout the
United States. It acquired Tercel, an oilfield products company in
May 2016. Tercel specializes in drilling and completions
technologies. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Frac Plug
Technician/Field Service Technician from approximately February
2018 until May 2018 in their Pennsylvania and Ohio facilities.
Medved was paid a salary regardless of the number of hours they
worked that day without any overtime pay for hours that they worked
in excess of forty hours in a workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
             adunlap@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

             - and -

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


SAADEH CORP: Pongnorsing Sues over Payment Packing
--------------------------------------------------
SUIWONNEE PONGNORSING individually; and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAADEH CORP., an active
California oration, dba ALAMEDA COUNTY AUCTION/AUTO WORLD; ADEL
SAADEH, an individual, and DMV LICENSEE, DOE INSURANCE COMPANY,
BANKOF STOCKTON, an active California Corporation; an DOES 1
through 500, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18913127 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 17, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales
and Finance Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased a $30,000 used
vehicle and walked away paying almost $45,000.  The Seller engaged
in payment packing and two of the "products" were not installed on
the vehicle.  The car dealer sold the vehicle with known,
undisclosed damage only a franchised Mercedes dealer could repair.
The Dealer was allegedly able to defraud Plaintiff by failing to
include "Plus Disclosures" in the advertisement and Payment Packing
by adding charges for Lojack Theft Deterrent System ($1,995.00 -
and failed to install nor register with Lojack); Etch Theft
Deterrent System (Charged $1,900.00 for a valueless product even at
$99.00, what most unscrupulous car dealers charge); Cilajet Paint &
Fabric Protection (for a charge of $1,995.00. Dealers refer to this
as "mop & glo" - another worthless product and failed to install it
and register it for coverage); Service Contract ($3,999.00); and,
GAP ($855) after representing these items to be free of charge.

Saadeh operates as an automobile dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, PLC
          553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite Al
          Foster City, CA 94404
          Telephone: (650) 341 0300
          E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK: Moran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Moran, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. San Diego Blood
Bank and Does 1-50, Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00025721, (Cal.
Super., May 23, 2018), seeks redress for meal and rest break
violations, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to
provide proper wage statements, reimbursement of business-related
expenses and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge including
waiting time penalties under the Unfair Business Practices statutes
of the California Business and Professions Code, the California
Labor Code and Welfare Commission Orders.

Defendants offer a wide range of blood banking services from blood
collection to autologous storage. San Diego Blood Bank employed
Moran as a Blood Collection Specialist from approximately July 2007
to the end of his employment in October 2017. He worked
approximately eight to twelve hours or more per day, five to six
days per week and forty hours or more per week, all without
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
      Jennifer R. Bagosy, Esq.
      Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
      Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
             Jennifer.Bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
             Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
             Ari.Basser@capstonelawyers.com


SILVER DOLLAR: Hill-Smith Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MYA HILL-SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SILVER DOLLAR CABARET, INC.; PLATINUM CABARET, LLC;
ANTHONY F. CATROPPA; and ANTHONY K. CATROPPA, Case No.
5:18-cv-05145-PKH (W.D. Ark., July 19, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the minimum wage and overtime requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

SDC is an Arkansas corporation.  SDC operates an adult
entertainment club located at 2125 North College Avenue, in
Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Platinum is an Arkansas corporation.  Platinum operates an adult
entertainment club located at 2366 North College Avenue, in
Fayetteville, Arkansas.  Anthony K. Catroppa is a principal,
director or officer of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com




SNYDER'S-LANCE: Vanderstelts Seeks Payment of Lost Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Vanderstelt and Vandy Vanderstelt, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated natural person(s), the Plaintiffs, v.
Snyder's-Lance, Inc., and S-L Distribution, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01963-AMQ (D. S.C., July 17, 2018), seeks to
recover lost wages, declaratory relief and all available relief
under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Snyder's is a snack product development and sales company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun C. Blake, Esq.
          Jenkins M. Mann, Esq.
          P. Wesley Jackson, Esq.
          ROGERS LEWIS JACKSON MANN &QUINN, LLC
          1901 Main Street, Suite 1200
          P.O. Box 11803
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 256 1268
          E-mail: sblake@rogerslewis.com
                  jmann@rogerslewis.com
                  wjackson@rogerslewis.com


SONY COMPUTER: Final Judgment Entered in PS3 "Other OS" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered final judgment in the
case, In re SONY PS3 "OTHER OS" LITIGATION, Case No.
10-CV-01811-YGR (N.D. Cal.), in accordance with her Final Approval
Order dated June 8, 2018, and the Settlement it incorporates.

The Final Judgment constitutes a judgment and a separate document
for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).  Only those
persons listed in Exhibit B to the Final Judgment have submitted
timely and valid requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class
and are therefore not bound by the Final Judgment and the
accompanying Final Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/tWlo3q from Leagle.com.

Anthony Ventura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Matthew Freeman --
afreeman@calvofisher.com -- Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth,
Jr. -- gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Litigation Law Group,
James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP,
Rebecca Coll -- rcoll@quadracoll.com -- Quadra & Coll, LLP, Arthur
Nash Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Douglas
Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, James Andrew Quadra --
jquadra@quadracoll.com -- Quadra & Coll, LLP, Kathleen Victoria
Fisher -- kfisher@calvofisher.com -- Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rosanne L.
Mah -- rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson &
William N. Hebert -- whebert@calvofisher.com -- Calvo Fisher &
Jacob LLP.

Jonathan Huber, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Matthew
Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Litigation Law
Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswplaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J.
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra
& Coll, LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca
Coll, Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson &
William N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

James Girardi, Plaintiff, represented by represented by Alexander
Matthew Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr.,
Litigation Law Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel
L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll,
LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca Coll,
Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson & William
N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

Derrick Alba & Jason Baker, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander
Matthew Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr.,
Litigation Law Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel
L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll,
LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca Coll,
Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson & William
N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Defendant, represented by
Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP,
Carter Winford Ott -- carter.ott@doj.ca.gov -- DLA Piper LLP US,
Cynthia A. Ricketts -- cricketts@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts &
Case LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Edward Collins --
jcollins@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LP, Michael Tedder
Scott, DLA PIPER LLP & Michele D. Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com --
Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP.

Jason Baker, Plaintiff in the Related Case, Interested Party,
represented by John R. Fabry, Fabry Law Firm, Rebecca Coll, Quadra
& Coll, LLP, Charles Stewart Bishop -- cbishop@cbslawllp.com --
Sinunu Bruni LLP, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll, LLP, Kathleen
Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP & William N. Hebert, Calvo
Fisher & Jacob LLP.

John Navarrete, Objector, represented by Joshua Reuben Furman --
jrf@furmanlawyers.com -- Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation.

Mr. Eric Michael Lindberg, Objector, represented by Sam Andrew
Miorelli -- sam.miorelli@gmail.com -- Law Office of Sam Miorelli,
P.A.

SONY COMPUTER: Settlement in PS3 "Other OS" Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re SONY PS3 "OTHER OS" LITIGATION, Case No.
10-CV-01811-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and
for Service Awards for the Plaintiffs; and the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge certified, for settlement purposes, which he previously
provisionally certified, the class of any and all persons in the
United States who purchased a Fat PS3 in the United States between
Nov. 1, 2006 and April 1, 2010 from an authorized retailer for
family, personal, and/or household use and who: (1) used the Other
OS functionality; (2) knew about the Other OS functionality; or (3)
contends or believes that he or she lost value or desired
functionality or was otherwise injured as a consequence of Firmware
Update 3.21 and/or the disablement of Other OS functionality in the
Fat PS3.

She awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees and litigation costs
in the total amount of $1,250,000 to be paid out of the Settlement
Fund, as set forth in the Court's Order Granting In Part
plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards, entered.  From this amount, as set forth in the
Court's separate Order of this date, the Class Counsel are ordered
to pay to Objector Susan Lindberg attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive award in the total amount of $22,836.

She also awarded service awards in the amount of $3,500 each, to
each of the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives, to compensate
them for their commitments and efforts on behalf of the Class in
the Action.  These service awards will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund.

The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as awarded by the
Court in the Final Approval Order.

In her Order Granting Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary
Approval, Judge Rogers directed the parties to appoint a Settlement
Administrator.  The Settlement Administrator will continue to
perform those duties and responsibilities that remain under the
Settlement and this Final Approval Order.  The Parties and
Settlement Administrator are directed to implement the Final
Approval Order and the Settlement in accordance with the terms and
provisions thereof, including the processing and payment of
Claims.

Te Clerk will enter Final Judgment, consistent with the Order,
forthwith.  

The Class Counsel will serve a copy of the Final Approval Order on
all named parties or their counsel and the Settlement Administrator
immediately upon receipt and the Settlement Administrator will post
a copy of the Final Approval Order on the Settlement Website
immediately upon receipt.

The parties will submit a final report and accounting within 45
days of the entry of the Final Approval Order.  The Judge set a
Compliance hearing regarding the filing of the final report and
accounting on the Court's 2:01 p.m. calendar on Aug. 3, 2018.  If
the parties timely file their report, he will vacate the compliance
hearing and no appearance will be required.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pmQuFa from Leagle.com.

Anthony Ventura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Matthew Freeman --
afreeman@calvofisher.com -- Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth,
Jr. -- gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Litigation Law Group,
James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP,
Rebecca Coll -- rcoll@quadracoll.com -- Quadra & Coll, LLP, Arthur
Nash Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Douglas
Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, James Andrew Quadra --
jquadra@quadracoll.com -- Quadra & Coll, LLP, Kathleen Victoria
Fisher -- kfisher@calvofisher.com -- Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rosanne L.
Mah -- rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson &
William N. Hebert -- whebert@calvofisher.com -- Calvo Fisher &
Jacob LLP.

Jonathan Huber, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Matthew
Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Litigation Law
Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswplaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J.
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra
& Coll, LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca
Coll, Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson &
William N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

James Girardi, Plaintiff, represented by represented by Alexander
Matthew Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr.,
Litigation Law Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel
L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll,
LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca Coll,
Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson & William
N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

Derrick Alba & Jason Baker, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander
Matthew Freeman, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr.,
Litigation Law Group, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Daniel
L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll,
LLP, Kathleen Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP, Rebecca Coll,
Quadra & Coll, LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson & William
N. Hebert, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Defendant, represented by
Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP,
Carter Winford Ott -- carter.ott@doj.ca.gov -- DLA Piper LLP US,
Cynthia A. Ricketts -- cricketts@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts &
Case LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Edward Collins --
jcollins@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LP, Michael Tedder
Scott, DLA PIPER LLP & Michele D. Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com --
Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP.

Jason Baker, Plaintiff in the Related Case, Interested Party,
represented by John R. Fabry, Fabry Law Firm, Rebecca Coll, Quadra
& Coll, LLP, Charles Stewart Bishop -- cbishop@cbslawllp.com --
Sinunu Bruni LLP, James Andrew Quadra, Quadra & Coll, LLP, Kathleen
Victoria Fisher, Calvo & Clark, LLP & William N. Hebert, Calvo
Fisher & Jacob LLP.

John Navarrete, Objector, represented by Joshua Reuben Furman --
jrf@furmanlawyers.com -- Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation.

Mr. Eric Michael Lindberg, Objector, represented by Sam Andrew
Miorelli -- sam.miorelli@gmail.com -- Law Office of Sam Miorelli,
P.A.

SOUTHEAST TITLE: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Drinosky" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kristie Drinosky filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Kristie Drinosky v. Southeast Title of the
Suncoast, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00735-JSM-CPT, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Kristie Drinosky v. Southeast
Title of the Suncoast, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-13026, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before August 2, 2018, as to Appellant Kristie Drinosky;
      and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before August 16, 2018, as to Appellee James G. Smith.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTIE DRINOSKY, o/b/o herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jay Paul Lechner, Esq.
          Jason Michael Melton, Esq.
          William J. Sheslow, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          200 Central Avenue, Suite 400
          St Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 823-0000
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          Email: leachnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                 jason@thefllawfirm.com
                 will@theFLlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees SOUTHEAST TITLE OF THE SUNCOAST, INC., a
Florida profit company, and JAMES G. SMITH are represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
          1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 544-8900
          E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com



ST. JUDE MEDICAL: ASEA/AFSCME Hits Defibrillator Battery Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated third party payors,
Plaintiff, v. St. Jude Medical, LLC and Abbott Laboratories,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 02124, (D. Minn., July 24, 2018), seeks
actual, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit and such other and further relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty,
negligence and violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer
Fraud Act and the Alaska Consumer Protection Act.

St. Jude Medical, LLC and Abbott Laboratories are accused of the
manufacture, sale and distribution of defective Implantable Cardiac
Defibrillator (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Defibrillator (CRT-D) devices. Deposits of lithium within the
battery and create abnormal electrical connections that cause the
battery to short circuit, leading to rapid battery failure, says
the complaint.

ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust is a voluntary employee
benefit association providing healthcare benefits to participants
and their eligible family members. It purchased defective ICD
devices and CRT-D devices manufactured and sold by St. Jude
Medical, Inc., and recalled on or about October 10, 2016. ICD and
CRT-D devices provide pacing therapy to support slow heart rhythms,
and electrical shock or pacing therapy to treat fast heart rhythms.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-7300
     Email: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
            bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
            jbores@chestnutcambronne.com

            - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 214-7900
     Fax: (440) 953-9138
     Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
            akeller@dlcfirm.com
            aprom@dlcfirm.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200
     MPLS, MN 55401−2179
     Tel: (612) 339−6900
     Fax: (612) 339−0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            rapeterson@locklaw.com


STUMPS MARKET: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STUMPS MARKET,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 37-2D13-00035669-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super Ct.,
July 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least
minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at
least minimum wages for work that was required to be done
off-the-clock in violation of the California Labor Code. The
Plaintiff and class members were not paid at least minimum wages
for work done off-the-clock.

Stumps Market operates grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          Ariel Harman-Holmes, Esq.
          Capstone Law APC
          1875 Century Park East. Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (320) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ariel.Harman-Holmes@capstonelawyers.com


SUSAN B. ANTHONY: Wijesinha Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHEHAN WIJESINHA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22880-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2018),
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and
Class Members have no relationship with Defendant, and never
provided their telephone numbers to Defendant.  Nevertheless,
Defendant embarked on an unsolicited text message campaign, causing
Plaintiff and class members injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786.496.4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

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


T&R PAINTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Macias Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MACIAS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. T&R PAINTING & DRY WALL, a
California 19 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC714160 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 17, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wage and overtime wage under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for Defendants
from 1995-1999, then again from 2012 to February 2018. The
Plaintiff's primary job duties included foreman responsibility,
painting, and spraying. During his employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff typically worked six or seven days per week and worked
approximately 66-77 hours per week. Throughout his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was paid on a piece-rate basis, whereby he
was paid a pre-determined amount per job based on the construction
projects he completed, denoted on wage statements as "piecework."
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were compensated
exclusively on a piece-rate basis, and Defendants did not maintain
any record of the hours worked by Plaintiff or other non-exempt
employees who were compensated on a piece-rate basis.  During his
employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees who were compensated on a piece-rate
basis for so-called "nonproductive" time (i.e., hours that they
were working but were not actually performing piece-rate work).

T & R Painting operates as a drywall, plaster, and painting
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


TAH PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Otis Claims
--------------------------------------------------
JERRY OTIS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. TAH PIZZA, INC., BE HURD, INC., and
TIMOTHY HURD, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00111 (E.D. Tenn.,
July 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Defendants operate numerous Domino's
Pizza franchise stores.  Defendants employ delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers.  However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615 254 8801
          Facsimile: 615 255 5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresterhaynie.com


TAL EDUCATION: Extract Sues over False Reports, Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACK EXTRACT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TAL EDUCATION GROUP, ZHANG BANGXIN,
YUNFENG BAI, and LUO RONG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06440
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired TAL securities between April 26, 2018 and June
13, 2018, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, TAL provides educational services, and
offers comprehensive tutoring services to students covering core
academic subjects such as mathematics, English, Chinese, physics,
chemistry. Throughout the Class Period, the 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) TAL overstated its net income; (ii) TAL's net
income was in fact deteriorating; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, TAL's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On June 13, 2018, Carson Block
issued a report accusing TAL of issuing fraudulent profit figures
by overstating net income, net income margin and other essential
accounting metrics.

On this news, TAL's ADR price fell $4.54, or over 9.95%, to close
at $41.11 on June 13, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARGET CORPORATION: Dormani Appeals D. Minn. Decision to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ann Dormani, Mitchell W. Knoll, David Rigol and Dorothea
Simmons filed an appeal from the District Court's order dated June
15, 2018, and judgment dated June 18, 2018, in their lawsuit titled
Ann Dormani, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:17-cv-04049-JNE, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover actual damages in the amount of losses the Target
Corporation 401(k) Plan suffered, to be allocated to the Plan
Participants' individual accounts in proportion to the accounts'
losses.  The Plan is a defined contribution plan sponsored by
Target.

The Plaintiffs allege that in February 2013, at the beginning of
the Class Period, the Fund comprised more than $2 billion of the
approximate $4.19 billion in total assets held by the Plan, or
almost half of the Plan's net assets, and to compound the problems
alleged, the Plan acquired hundreds of millions of dollars of
Target Stock while those shares were artificially inflated.  The
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Ann Dormani, et al. v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-2543, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before August 28, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on September 7, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellants Ann Dormani, Mitchell W. Knoll, David
      Rigol and Dorothea Simmons is due on September 7, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ann Dormani, Mitchell W. Knoll, David Rigol
and Dorothea Simmons, on behalf of the Target Corporation 401(k)
Plan, themselves, and a class consisting of similarly situated
participants of the Plan, are represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          Six E. 45th Street, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-0000
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com

               - and -

          David Ernest Krause, Esq.
          DAVID E. KRAUSE LAW OFFICE
          2716 Colfax Avenue, S.
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 872-8446
          E-mail: dkrause@davidkrauselaw.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com

Defendants-Appellees Target Corporation, Scott Kennedy, Michael
Fiddelke, Plan Investment Committee, John Mulligan, Corey Haaland,
Jodee Kozlak, Beth Jacob and Gregg W. Steinhafel are represented
by:

          Jeffrey Justman, Esq.
          Steven L. Severson, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          E-mail: jeff.justman@faegrebd.com
                  sseverson@faegre.com



TESLA INC: Settlement in "Sheikh" Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEAN SHEIKH, et al., Plaintiffs. v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a
TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02193-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The Motion attaches and incorporates a Settlement Agreement and
Release that, together with the exhibits thereto, set forth the
terms and conditions for the settlement of claims, on a classwide
basis, against Tesla.

Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for purposes of settlement only, the Judge preliminarily approved
the the Settlement Class of all U.S. residents who purchased
Enhanced Autopilot in connection with their purchase or lease of a
Tesla Hardware 2 Model S or Model X vehicle delivered to them on or
before Sept. 30, 2017.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for settlement
purposes only, Plaintiffs Sheikh, John Kelner, Tom Milone, Daury
Lamarche and Michael Verdolin are appointed the Class
Representatives and Steve W. Berman, Thomas E. Loeser, and Robert
F. Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1918 Eighth Avenue,
Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 as the Class Counsel.

Jugde Freeman approved of KCC, LLC to perform the functions and
duties of the Settlement Administrator set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.  She approved the Notice Plan and the form, content, and
requirements of the Class Notice, and the Summary Notice.  The
Settlement Administrator will cause the Notice Plan to be executed
on or before July 23, 2018.  The Class Counsel, prior to the Final
Approval Hearing, will file with the Court a declaration executed
by the Settlement Administrator attesting to the timely completion
of the Notice Plan.

All costs of providing notice to the Settlement Class, notice to
appropriate federal and state officials as required by the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, and administering distributions from
the Settlement Fund will be separately paid by Tesla, as provided
by the Settlement Agreement.

A Settlement Class Member wishing to request exclusion from the
Settlement will mail the request in written form and postmarked no
later than Sept. 6, 2018, to the Settlement Administrator at the
address specified in the Class Notice.  The Settlement
Administrator will provide promptly, and no later than five
business days following the deadline for the Settlement Class
Members to opt-out, all Parties with copies of any exclusion
requests, and the Plaintiffs will file a list of all persons who
have validly opted out of the Settlement with the Court prior to
the Final Approval Hearing.

The Court will consider objections to the Settlement, to the award
of attorneys' fees and costs, or to the service awards to the Class
Representatives only if such objections and any supporting papers
are postmarked or filed on or before Sept. 6, 2018.

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) Final Approval Hearing is
scheduled to be held before the Court at 9:00 a.m. on Oct. 17,
2018.  On or before 14 days in advance of Sept. 6, 2018, the Class
Counsel will file any application for attorneys' fees and expenses
and service awards to the Class Representatives.  The Papers in
support of final approval of the settlement will be filed no later
than Oct. 5, 2018.  Either Party may, but need not, file a response
to any objection no later than 10 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Preliminary Approval
Order is available at https://is.gd/2p2R36 from Leagle.com.

Dean Sheikh, John Kelner & Tom Milone, Plaintiffs, represented by
Robert F. Lopez -- robf@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Daury Lamarche & Michael Verdolen, Plaintiffs, represented by Steve
W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Verdolin, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Tesla, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Lauren Lynn Wroblewski -- lwroblewski@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Penelope Athene Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sean Paul Gates -- spg@charislex.com --
Charis Lex P.C..

TEXAS: Settlement in "Cole" Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH COLE, individually, and JACKIE BRANNUM, RICHARD
KING, MICHAEL DENTON, FRED WALLACE, and MARVIN RAY YATES,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity, ROBERTO HERRERA, in his
official capacity, and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-1698 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith
P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, finally approved the parties Settlement.

The Plaintiffs in the class action are incarcerated in the Wallace
Pack Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ")
prison system.  They brought the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
rehabilitation Act to end TDCJ's policy and practice of exposing
them to extreme, unsafe heat.  They allege that the extreme heat
that they face each summer subjects them to a substantial risk of
serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and infringes on
the rights of disabled prisoners to reasonable accommodations.

After nearly four years of contentious litigation, the parties
reached agreement on a class settlement on Jan. 31, 2018, which
requires TDCJ to air-condition the housing units in which class
members reside.  The Class Counsel are responsible for monitoring
compliance with the agreement.  The settlement provides for the
Class Counsel to recover attorneys' fees for their compliance
monitoring.  The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, directed notice to the class, and held a final fairness
hearing.  

Based on the memorandum and documents in support of the proposed
settlement, the parties' arguments at the preliminary approval
hearing, the filed objections, the parties' and objectors'
arguments at the final fairness hearing, the remainder of the
record, and the relevant law, Judge Ellison finally approved the
proposed settlement.

He awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses of $4.5
million, as negotiated and agreed by the parties.  In the event
that the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$4.5 million have not been paid in full by Sept. 30, 2019, TDCJ
agrees the judgment will be entered against TDCJ in the amount of
$4.5 million plus interest at the rate of 5% from Jan. 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Final Order and
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/pc5wgO from Leagle.com.

Marvin Ray Yates, Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King & Fred
Wallace, Plaintiffs, represented by Wallis Anne Nader, Texas Civil
Rights Project, David Anthony James, Edwards Law, Jeremy L. Doyle
-- doyle@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- Reynolds Frizzell LLP, Michael C.
Singley, Edwards Law, Natalia Marissa Cornelio, Texas Civil Rights
Project, Nathan M. Smith -- nsmith@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- Reynolds
Frizzell LLP, Scott Charles Medlock, Edwards Law & Jeffrey S.
Edwards -- jeff@edwards-law.com -- The Edwards Law Firm.

Keith Cole, Plaintiff, represented by David Anthony James, Edwards
Law.

Lavar John Santee, Plaintiff, represented by David Anthony James,
Edwards Law, Jeffrey S. Edwards, The Edwards Law Firm, Jeremy L.
Doyle, Reynolds Frizzell LLP, Scott Charles Medlock, Edwards Law &
Wallis Anne Nader, Texas Civil Rights Project.

Michael Denton, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Edwards, The
Edwards Law Firm, Natalia Marissa Cornelio, Texas Civil Rights
Project & Wallis Anne Nader, Texas Civil Rights Project.

Israel Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Edwards, The
Edwards Law Firm.

Anthony Ray Banks, Plaintiff, pro se.

Charles L Williams, Plaintiff, pro se.

William Harrison Blackwell, Plaintiff, pro se.

David C Garrett, Plaintiff, pro se.

Albert Hunter, Plaintiff, pro se.

Bryan Collier, Roberto M Herrera & Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Defendants, represented by Briana Marie Webb, Office of
the Attorney General, Darren Lee McCarty, Office of the Attorney
General of Texas, Derek Josef Kammerloche , Office of the Attorney
General Law Enforcement Defense Div, John S. Langley, Attorney
General of Texas, Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Attorney General
Law Enforcement Defense Division & Matthew J. Greer, Texas Attorney
General.

Jeffrey R Adams, Defendant, pro se.

Richard Jaxson, Movant, pro se.

TITAN FIRE: Riveras File FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RIVERA and MARCO RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TITAN FIRE SPRINKLERS
INC. d/b/a TITAN FIRE SPRINKLERS, TITAN FIRE PROTECTION, INC., and
STEPHEN RACCOMANDATO, an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04084-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated laborers regularly worked over 40 hours a week for
Defendants. The Defendants, however, failed to pay them time and
one-half their regular rate for all hours worked because Defendants
either (1) only paid their employees at their regular,
non-prevailing wage rate or (2) did not pay their employees for all
of the hours they worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective:

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


TOTAL MERCHANT: "Collins" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DR. TIMOTHY COLLINS and SIDNEY NAIMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL MERCHANT SERVICES, INC., QUALITY MERCHANT
SERVICES, INC., MICHAEL ALIMENTO and BOBBY POWERS, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-03806-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order on August 14, 2018:

   1. certifying a class of;

      "all persons in the United States to whom: (a)
      Quality instituted one or more telephone calls; (b)
      for the purpose of promoting Total Merchant's goods
      or services; (c) to a recipient's cellular telephone
      number; (d) through the use of the SpitFire dialing
      system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e)
      between December 1, 2016 and February 12, 2018
      (inclusive)";

   2. appointing him to serve as the Class representative;

   3. appointing his counsel to serve as counsel for the
      proposed class; and

   4. directing Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan
      and form of notice within a reasonable

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://is.gd/9tcvs1 at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          FOUGNER LAW
          600 California Street, 11th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (434) 623 2843
          Facsimile: (206) 338 0783
          E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, Massachusetts 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221 1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830 0327
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, Massachusetts 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655 1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319 3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC
          1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234 2727
          E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com


TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Sporn Sues over Misleading Credit Scores
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SPORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-568168 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 17, 2018),
alleges that TUI is engaged in an advertising and marketing
campaign with the intent to directly induce consumers, including
Plaintiff and the Class members, to purchase the TUI Consumer
Credit Scores based on false and misleading claims.

The complaint contends that the Plaintiff and the Class members
were injured in fact and lost money as a result of the false and/or
misleading representations by TUI and/or the agents or
representatives acting on TUI's behalf.  Plaintiff and the Class
members received TUI Consumer Credit Scores that were generated
using a significantly different credit scoring system than the
credit scoring system used to generate the scores that lenders use
in making the vast majority of consumer lending and credit
decisions.[BN]

Counsel for Michael Sporn and the Proposed Class:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643 0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253 4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com


TRUST CAPITAL: Robert Bohlke Seeks Damages under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Bohlke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trust Capital Funding, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 2:18-cv-05786 (C.D. Calif., July 2, 2018), seeks damages and
other available or equitable remedies for the Defendants'
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Robert Bohlke is a resident of Canyon Country,
California.

The Defendant Trust Capital Funding, LLC is a loan company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Federman Balks at Disney Merger Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
MAX FEDERMAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., RUPERT
MURDOCH, LACHLAN K. MURDOCH, CHASE CAREY, SIR RODERICK I.
EDDINGTON, DELPHINE ARNAULT, JAMES W. BREYER, DAVID DEVOE, VIET
DINH, JAMES MURDOCH, JACQUES NASSER, ROBERT SILBERMAN and TIDJANE
THIAM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01061 (D. Del., July 17,
2018), seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed merger
transaction pursuant to which, after spinning off certain of its
businesses into a newly listed company, 21CF will be acquired by
the Walt Disney Company through TWDC Holdco 613 Corp., WDC Merger
Enterprises I, Inc. and WDC Merger Enterprises II, Inc.  The
Plaintiff contends that 21CF and the members of its Board of
Directors are in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 20, 2018, 21CF and Disney issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement
and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
stockholders of 21CF will receive $38 per share, with the election
to receive their consideration, on a value equalized basis, in the
form of cash or stock,3 subject to 50/50 proration and further
subject to adjustment for certain tax liabilities. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at $71.3 billion in cash and stock. Following
the completion of the Proposed Transaction, assuming the tax
adjustment amount is zero, 21CF stockholders will own 17-20% and
Disney stockholders will own 80-83% of the combined company.

On June 28, 2018, 21CF filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
21CF stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) 21CF's financial projections, including the financial
projections relied upon by 21CF's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC, in their financial analyses;
(ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by Goldman and
Centerview; and (iii) Goldman's potential conflicts of interest.
The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as 21CF stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully-informed voting or appraisal decision in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, 21CF's public
stockholders will be forced to make a voting or appraisal decision
on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to
them.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone.: (302) 778 4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                  dmurray@oelegal.com


UMI SUSHI: Gao Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
SHIQIANG GAO, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. UMI SUSHI, INC. d/b/a Umi Sushi; LING XIE
CORP. d/b/a Dai Hachi Sushi; DAI HACHI SUSHI CORPORATION d/b/a Dai
Hachi Sushi; LUO KUN ZHENG, SUMIATI ONG a/k/a Amy Ong, AI ZHEN
ZHENG, and LING XIE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06439
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, unreimbursed
out-of-pocket vehicle costs, prejudgment and post-judgement
interest, and attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

Umi Sushi serves traditional Japanese dishes, plus more exciting
and inventive ones.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


UNION OF CALIFORNIA: State Workers Sue to Recover Union Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in the aftermath of a landmark Supreme Court decision barring
employee unions from extracting mandatory fees from workers who do
not want to contribute, two government employees sued their union
to get back the money they were forced to pay.

It is one of the first cases of its kind to emerge in the wake of
Janus v. AFSCME, handed down by the nation's highest court June
27.

Lead plaintiffs Jeff Lyon and Karen Sandberg filed the class action
in Sacramento County Superior Court on July 10, saying they were
due restitution for the agency fees paid to the Union of California
State Workers over the course of their careers.

"Millions if not billions of dollars have been exacted from
nonmembers in California alone," the plaintiffs say in the
complaint.  "Through this action, plaintiffs and those similarly
situated seek to recover those fees that should never have been
taken from them in the first place."

Mr. Lyon worked for the California Department of General Services
from 2001 until 2014, paying as much as $40 a month in agency fees
to the union despite not being a member.

Ms. Sandberg worked for the state in various positions and for
various departments over the course of a long career in public
service from 1989 through 2015.

Ms. Sandberg did not belong to any union but paid as much as $90 a
month in agency fees to the state workers union.

"By this action, plaintiffs seek restitution of all involuntarily
paid agency fees from the defendant unions, with interest, for
themselves and for all others similarly situated," the pair says in
their complaint.

They are represented by Eric George of Browne George Ross in Los
Angeles.

The Janus decision was celebrated as a triumph of free speech by
the victors, who argued forcing nonmembers to pay dues is an
unconstitutional violation of their rights.

The court ultimately agreed 5-4, along ideological lines.

Leading up to and after the decision, labor advocates have
expressed worry that working Americans will be hurt and the clout
of unions will be diminished.

"In this case, a bare majority of the court, over the vigorous
dissent of four justices, has conceded to the dark web of
corporations and wealthy donors who wish to take away the freedoms
of working people," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said after the
decision was handed down.

The Union of California State Works, also known as SEIU 1000, did
not respond to requests for comment as of press time.

UNITED COLLECTION: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-01306-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Waldor entered an
order:

   1. granting final approval of class action settlement;
      and

   2. certifying Settlement Classes for purposes of the
      effectuating the settlement and directing parties to
      consummate the settlement according to the terms of
      the Settlement Agreement:

      Class One:

      "all natural persons with addresses in Hackensack,
      New Jersey to whom, from February 19, 2014 to
      February 19, 2015, Defendant or its letter vendor(s)
      sent one or more collection letter(s) on behalf of
      Citibank, N.A., which was not returned by the United
      States Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent
      in a windowed envelope such that Defendant's
      reference number associated with the debt
      and/or the barcode containing Defendant's reference
      number associated with the debt was visible from
      outside the envelope. Excluded from this Class is
      Hyun Soon Chung."

      Class Two:

      "all natural persons with addresses in the State of
      New Jersey to whom, from February 4, 2015 to
      February 20, 2016, Defendant or its letter vendor(s)
      sent one or more collection letter(s) on behalf of
      Citibank, N.A., which was not returned by the United
      States Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent
      in a windowed envelope such that the barcode
      containing Defendant's reference number associated
      with the debt was visible from outside the
      envelope."

      Class Three:

      "all natural persons with addresses in the State of
      New Jersey to whom, from March 22, 2015 to March 22,
      2016, Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or
      more collection letter(s) on behalf of LVNV Funding
      LLC, which was not returned by the United States
      Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent in a
      windowed envelope such that the barcode containing
      the Defendant's reference number associated with the
      debt was visible from outside the envelope."

The Court said, "For their efforts on behalf of the Settlement
Classes and to settle their individual claims, Defendant shall pay
$4,000 to Plaintiff Sungsoo Park, $2,500 to Plaintiff Tremaine K.
Watkins, $2,500 to Plaintiff Georgina Sandoval, and $2,500 to
Plaintiff Elizabeth E. Jun in the manner set forth in the
Settlement Agreement within 7 days of the date of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/OHvepJ at no charge.


UNITED STATES: Cass County Joins Class Action Over PILT Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gail DeBoer, writing for The Pilot-Independent, reports that  Cass
County will join a class action lawsuit to recover additional
Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds from the federal government.

PILT is paid on federal lands on which property taxes are not
collected, like the Chippewa National Forest. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Orders Father-Son Reunification
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the cases
captioned W.S.R. and C.D.A., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS
III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants,
Nos. 18 C 04265, 18 C 04291 (N.D. Ill.).

In two separate cases, minors W.S.R. and C.D.A. challenge the
placement decisions of the United States government after the boys
(who are not related to one another) were forcibly separated from
their fathers shortly after the father-son pairs crossed the United
States-Mexico border.

Both W.S.R. and C.D.A. filed motions for a temporary restraining
order, and after holding a hearing, the Court granted the motions
as to one type of relief, but converted the motions into a
preliminary-injunction motion with an expedited briefing schedule
as to the other types of relief sought by W.S.R. and C.D.A.

The first claim at issue is the Plaintiffs' request to be
immediately reunited with their fathers. This is a narrower claim
than the request that the reunification be effectuated by
simultaneously releasing their fathers. The Court notes that the
class-action order in Ms. L. II already requires that the
government reunite Plaintiffs with their fathers by July 26, which
is the thirty-day deadline for children age five and over.
Practically speaking, the government has stated that it intends to
comply with the class-action order and does not directly oppose
Plaintiffs' request for reunification it only contests the timeline
and the broader request for simultaneous release of the fathers.

The Plaintiffs allege that their continued separation from their
fathers violates their substantive due process right to familial
association.
In this case, the initial separation was triggered by the decision
to prosecute W.S.R.'s and C.D.A.'s fathers for re-entry
misdemeanors and to put the fathers in criminal detention; there
was no basis for the separation premised on parental unfitness or
danger to the children. The fathers' criminal detentions
necessitated the separation of W.S.R. and C.D.A. But the fathers
are now back in immigration custody, so the specific interest is a
child's right to reunify with his parent in immigration custody,
after the parent's criminal detention ends and absent parental
unfitness or danger to the child. That specifically and concretely
described right is supported by the long line of cases, cited
above, that established and continually reaffirm the fundamental
right of a child to remain in the custody of a fit parent.

Although Congress has broad authority to regulate immigration, even
in that context the Supreme Court approved of a regulation that
presumptively placed detained minors with their parents.  Against
all this, the government does not actually come right out and say
that there is no right to reunification on these facts. The
government says only that the protection of the parent-child
relationship is dependent on the "circumstances of a particular
case and the asserted right must be considered "in light of the
fact" that the fathers are in immigration custody but then offers
no explanation, just a bare conclusion, that the fathers'
immigration custody results in no valid substantive due process
claim.

That lack of argument, and the long-established recognition of a
child's right to remain in a fit parent's custody, leads the Court
to hold, at this preliminary stage, that the fundamental right to
reunify with a fit parent in immigration custody does exist and
does apply to W.S.R. and C.D.A.

Common sense would tell anyone that keeping these boys separated
from the only family they have in the United States in a facility
where they have limited access to talk to their fathers and where
very few people speak their language is causing irreparable harm,
for which no other form of relief, monetary or otherwise, would be
adequate. But there is more than common sense. In the record is
this plea of hopelessness from W.S.R., when he finally spoke to his
father on the phone: "Dad, I'm never going to see you again. W.S.R.
is crying a lot and desperate to get out of the center where he is
being held."

As intense as that harm is, nine-year-old C.D.A. is suffering
worse. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Michelle Cutler, interviewed
and evaluated C.D.A. Clinical Assessment. Dr. Cutler also reviewed
the records of Heartland Alliance, including daily monitoring logs,
counseling notes, incident reports, and psychiatric records. Based
on this thorough and detailed assessment, Dr. Cutler opines that
C.D.A. is suffering severe anxiety and depression due to this
separation. This deterioration of mental health is showing up in
both reported thoughts of self-harm and actual acts of self-harm,
as well as harming others. Those are just examples of C.D.A.'s
mental suffering; the Clinical Assessment is riddled with other
cries for help that demonstrate the trauma of the separation.

The government contends that reunifying the Plaintiffs with their
fathers on a faster track than the Ms. L. II order will impede its
efforts to timely comply with that class-action order.  The
Plaintiffs argue that this hardship is self-inflicted. That is
true: the government embarked on a zero-tolerance policy, bringing
misdemeanor charges and separating thousands of children from their
parents, without a plan for reunification after the short
time-served sentences. On these facts, there is no doubt that the
scales of justice weigh entirely in the Plaintiffs' favor.

What makes this a close call, however, is that the Court also must
consider the public interest, which includes the ramifications of
granting or denying the preliminary injunction on non-parties to
the litigation. It is true that the public interest is served by
requiring reunification. But there are around 3,000 other children
who have been separated from their parents, and picking out W.S.R.
and C.D.A. to leapfrog over others poses the risk that diverting
resources in order to effectuate the accelerated reunification for
W.S.R. and C.D.A. would delay the reunification of other children.

The outcome of the balancing of equities, and consideration of the
public interest, is this: absent any government filing alleging
parental unfitness or danger posed by the fathers, the government
must reunite C.D.A. with his father  and must reunite W.S.R. with
his father, both within 72 hours of the posting of this order on
the docket.

The governmental interest is expressed in the statutes governing
mandatory detention for those seeking asylum at the stages of the
process that the Plaintiffs' fathers find themselves in. (C.D.A.'s
father has received a negative finding after his credible-fear
interview and therefore is subject to mandatory detention has not
yet had his credible-fear interview, but he is also subject to
detention while awaiting his credible fear interview. So the
fathers may be released only if they are granted parole, which is a
decision in the sole discretion of the Attorney General and can
only be granted under narrowly prescribed circumstances, such as
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit or a
medical emergency or a legitimate law enforcement objective.

What's more, an alien who is subject to expedited removal and who
is seeking to establish a credible fear of persecution is not
eligible for release on bond. To accept the Plaintiffs' argument
that substantive due process requires release of the fathers would
amount to deeming the mandatory detention statutes unconstitutional
as applied. There is simply no case law support for recognizing
that right.

Accordingly, the Court grants the following relief: The government
must reunite C.D.A. with his father within 72 hours of the posting
of this order on the docket.172. The government must reunite W.S.R.
with his father within 72 hours of the posting of this order on the
docket.  The government must continue to comply with the order of
June 29, 2018.
Specifically, the Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys and all those who are in active concert or
participation with them are preliminarily enjoined from removing
from the United States either without W.S.R. or without C.D.A.  The
other preliminary relief requested by the Plaintiffs is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yddpvcwl from
Leagle.com.

C.D.A., a minor, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Michelle Rubenstein
-- amy.rubenstein@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, John R.
Wellschlager -- john.wellschlager@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP,
pro hac vice, Katrina A. Hausfeld -- katrina.hausfeld@dlapiper.com
-- DLA Piper LLP, Leeanne Sara Mancari --
leeanne.mancari@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
J. Farrell -- peter.farrell@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac
vice, Thomas P. Yardley -- TYardley@rsplaw.com -- Robbins, Salomon
& Patt, Ltd. & Amy Maldonado , Attorney at law.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States,
Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Thomas Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, Alex M. Azar, III, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Scott Lloyd, Director,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Ricardo Wong, Director, ICE Field
Office for Enforcement and Removal Operations in Chicago, IL &
Margaret Hartnett, Director, ICE Field Office for Enforcement and
Removal Operations in El Paso, TX, Defendants, represented by Craig
Arthur Oswald , United States Attorney's Office, Sarah Bernadette
Fabian , U.S. Department Of Justice Office of Immigration
Litigationm, District Court Section & Joshua Samuel Press , U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation -- District Court Section.

Heartland Human Care Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Justin Dale -- ddale@staubanderson.com -- Staub Anderson LLC
& Eric Daniel Anderson -- eanderson@staubanderson.com -- Staub
Anderson Green LLC.

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Refugee Program Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Castillo, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that she
dreamed for 16 years of bringing her children from El Salvador to
live with her near San Francisco.

Her youngest daughter and her grandson were set to arrive in
February 2017, thanks to a federal program that reunited Central
American children with their parents in the United States. But the
month came and went without their anticipated flight confirmation
from immigration authorities.

It wasn't until August that the mother, identified by her lawyers
as S.A., found out that the Trump administration had quietly ended
the program.

"When I realized that everything had come crashing down, I suffered
a lot," the 52-year-old said in a recent phone interview while on a
break from her job at a lice-removal company. "It still hurts not
having them here."

The demise of the program was just the latest rollback under
President Trump of an Obama-era humanitarian relief initiative. The
current administration has abruptly ended programs including the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and a case management
program meant to keep asylum-seeking families out of detention.

The so-called Central American Minors program was created in late
2014 in response to a surge of tens of thousands of unaccompanied
children fleeing violence in the region. The program was billed as
a safe alternative to a dangerous journey north through Mexico. It
allowed immigrants who were lawfully present in the U.S. to apply
for refugee status or humanitarian parole on behalf of their
children under age 21, as well as their own spouses and
grandchildren living in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras.

The program failed to stem the flow of unaccompanied children. But
it worked as a way to reunite some families.

Doris Meissner -- who led the Immigration and Naturalization
Service from 1993 to 2000 and now serves as director of the U.S.
immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute —
said that "the CAM program, as modest as it was, was always an
effort to create a safer way of coming to the United States for
people who actually had an eligibility to come."

"Cutting that off simply worsens what it is [the Trump
administration] say that they're trying to deter."

S.A. is one of six plaintiff families in a class-action lawsuit
filed earlier this month in California against the administration
over the termination of the refugee program.

The lawsuit alleges that the government secretly ended the program
days after Trump took office in January 2017 but didn't publicly
announce the decision until that August, violating their
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

Lawyers say U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did this
despite continuing to accept funds from applicants, including $400
for DNA tests, $100 or more for medical exams and $1,400 for each
child's plane ticket. In response to a Freedom of Information Act
request by the International Refugee Assistance Project, the
citizenship agency released emails showing that it had canceled
more than 2,000 CAM interviews scheduled beginning in January.

A spokeswoman said the agency could not comment on pending
litigation.

When the program ended, more than 2,700 young people had their
conditional approvals to relocate to the U.S. rescinded, according
to the complaint.

All had left the Northern Triangle, the area in Central America
made up of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The three countries
have some of the highest murder rates in the world due to rampant
corruption, drug trafficking and gang activity.

The complaint asks that the court reinstate those conditional
approvals and allow the beneficiaries the opportunity to travel to
the U.S.

Among the applicants to the program was S.A.'s daughter
--identified as J.A. in the complaint -- who had completed every
step of the process and was awaiting flight information from the
U.S. government when the administration blocked her travel.

S.A. has had temporary legal protection in the U.S. since 2001
under a program designed to help citizens of countries experiencing
armed conflict or other conditions that prevent them from returning
safely.

Her abusive husband left while she was pregnant with J.A., their
third child, during the country's civil war. She peddled household
goods door-to-door in a violence-wracked San Salvador neighborhood
to make ends meet.

Leaving her children in the care of her father and sister, S.A.
immigrated to the U.S. in search of work. Now she sends money twice
a month and talks to them almost every day.

J.A. was 20 and her son was a year old when S.A. applied to the CAM
program on their behalf in August 2015. Her other children, now
ages 25 and 27, were too old to qualify.

In February 2017 she sent money for their flight reservations —
bringing the total she paid to nearly $5,000 — and was told that
they'd be able to travel about two weeks after the payment was
received.

Six months later, S.A. called migration authorities in El Salvador
and learned her daughter and grandson would not be allowed to go to
the U.S.

Other plaintiffs include a teenage girl who was forced to drop out
of high school a few months short of her graduation because an
MS-13 gang member was trying to forcibly "date" her and she feared
she could be raped or killed; a teen boy beaten so badly after
refusing to join MS-13 that he required surgery and now uses a cane
to walk; and another teen boy whose uncle was shot and killed by
MS-13 outside the boy's home.

Under the program, applicants were screened in their home countries
for refugee resettlement.

Even if the applicant didn't meet the specific refugee eligibility
criteria, they were automatically considered for renewable parole
if the U.S. government determined that they were "at risk of
harm."

During the time that the program existed, more than 15,000 people
applied, according to the State Department. More than 2,100 were
resettled as refugees, the government said, meaning they could
apply for legal residency after one year. Another 1,500 were
allowed in the U.S. as parolees, permitted to remain only as long
as their work permits remain active.

One such case involves Andrea, a 22-year-old Salvadoran woman who
arrived two years ago as a parolee to reunite with her mother after
nearly two decades apart. Andrea's work permit expired last month,
leaving her and her 4-year-old son Mateo without legal protection.

Her mother, Maria, had been caught illegally crossing the border in
the Arizona desert in 1998. She spent a month in immigrant
detention but later became a beneficiary of Temporary Protected
Status.

Maria, who now lives in Orange County, said she didn't want her
daughter to risk making the same journey through Mexico and
entering the country illegally.

"I didn't want her to suffer how I suffered," she said.

Instead, Andrea was raised by her grandparents in San Salvador. She
had all but stopped leaving the house except to go to work as a
hair stylist after seeing two dead bodies at a nearby open-air
market.

"I'll never forget the faces of those people," she said. "I didn't
want my son to see that."

Andrea, who asked that The Times not reveal her last name out of
concern that she could be deported, now works full time cleaning a
hotel. In March, she got married and is preparing to file for legal
residency through her husband.

According to the complaint over the CAM program's ending, some
parents took out loans to pay for plane tickets, sometimes with
only days notice from migration authorities. Some paid hundreds of
dollars to safely transport their children from their hometowns to
attend numerous interviews in the capital cities of each country.

Parents waited nearly a year for flight reimbursements. The only
other costs reimbursed were DNA tests. Many spent extra money on
accommodations and new clothes for their children's arrival.

After the CAM program was terminated, the International
Organization for Migration told applicants who had been
conditionally approved for parole -- and all of whom had been
deemed ineligible for refugee resettlement -- that they could file
a request for review of the denial of refugee status within 90
days.

Linda Evarts, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance
Project who represents the plaintiffs, said most haven't heard
back.

A few months after finding out the CAM program had been terminated,
S.A. was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her only relatives in the
U.S. are nephews, most of them in other states, and she lamented
not having the support of her daughter during surgery and
chemotherapy.

Meanwhile, J.A. remains in her small hometown three hours from San
Salvador. She relies on the money her mother sends to survive.

"Her dream was to come here and give her son a better life," her
mother said. "All I can hope for is a miracle." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Ordered to Streamline Family Reunion Process
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge on July 10 ordered the Trump administration to
streamline its process of reuniting parents and children separated
at the U.S.-Mexico border, the same day federal officials said they
would comply with a court order to release families -- albeit with
GPS ankle monitors.

Just four children have been reunited with their parents and 34
more are expected to be reunited by the end of the day, according
to court documents filed on July 10 and a status conference in a
federal courtroom in San Diego.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw focused on a group of 63 parents
from a list of 102 children under the age of five in federal
custody.  Last month, Judge Sabraw ordered all detained children
under five to be reunited with their families by July 9, but the
government said on July 9 it will miss the deadline.

According to the Trump administration, 51 children are eligible to
be reunited with parents currently in ICE custody.  However, only
34 adults cleared a criminal background and were verified to be
parents of the children via DNA testing.  Another 16 parents
cleared backgrounds checks but DNA tests haven't come back yet, and
one parent's criminal background check is pending.

Another 12 parents have been deported from the United States and
would likely not be reunited by the July 10 deadline, the Trump
administration said.

Judge Sabraw said 63 could be reunited later in the day if the
government made efforts to streamline their process. He included
parents who have been released into the United States and but face
additional screening under a policy adopted by the Department of
Health and Human Services.

"These are firm deadlines, not aspirational goals," Judge Sabraw
said in court as he made rulings from the bench on how to
streamline the process for those reunions.

Judge Sabraw ordered requiring DNA cheek swabs to determine
parentage only if documents are not available.  The federal
government said its process to reunify parents and children was
taking time due to the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act, a federal law passed in 2008 that requires
screening children to check if they are victims of human
trafficking.

But Judge Sabraw called the adherence to that policy in this unique
situation "backwards" and unnecessary because the children arrived
at the border with their parents, not as unaccompanied minors.

He said the government must offer good faith, reasonable
explanations when families cannot be reunited due to pending
backgrounds checks or criminal history.

Judge Sabraw ordered the government to produce a list of children
under the age of five who were separated from their families.
While the list contained the names of 102 children, Justice
Department attorney Sarah Fabian said on July 10 one of the
children may be a U.S. citizen and therefore not covered by Judge
Sabraw's order.

It was unclear how the child became detained by ICE agents.

Judge Sabraw said the government's next order of business is to
turn over the list of children over five being detained.  The
government now has two weeks to reunite them with their parents.

"That's going to be a significant undertaking," said Judge Sabraw.

He also told American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt to
notify the court if the government doesn't comply with his orders.

Another status conference was set to be held on July 13 to discuss
the group of children over the age of 5, which numbers about
2,900.

A Justice Department attorney also informed Judge Sabraw that a
federal judge's order on July 9 denying the Trump administration's
efforts to roll back limits on how long immigrant children can be
detained -- limits laid down in a 1997 deal known as the Flores
settlement -- means parents will now have to choose whether they
want to be in the class of detainees being overseen by Judge Sabraw
or if they want Flores settlement rules to apply to them.

When asked by Judge Sabraw if the ACLU had any objections,
Mr. Gelernt said, "This was our understanding."

Meanwhile, multiple news outlets reported on July 10 that parents
are being released from detention facilities with GPS ankle
monitors pending hearings in immigration court.

VAN RU: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed in Wood Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH WOOD, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VAN RU CREDIT
CORPORATION, COLONY BRANDS INC., and SILVER STAR BRANDS INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01056-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order certifying classes, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/M3Z7Jw at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


VERIZON COMMS: Underpays Wireline Workers, Graczyk et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY GRACZYK, DON DAVIS and JERRY RIDDLE, for themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and PS SPLICING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06465 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018), asserts that Defendants,
acting in a joint venture or as joint employers, violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage
Act and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Act by
misclassifying replacement wireline workers as independent
contractors and failing to pay them required overtime wages.

Specifically, rather than pay the required 1.5 overtime premium
rate for all time worked over 40 hours per week, Defendants
implemented a common scheme to pay Plaintiffs and the Class members
at their straight-time rate of pay for all their overtime work in
violation of the FLSA and state wage laws. The Defendant entities
are inter-related and commonly-controlled businesses that among
other things, construct, install and service cable television,
telephone, and internet services across the country, including in
the District of Columbia.

According to the complaint, Verizon Communications, Inc. is
responsible for a far reaching "fissured employment" scheme.  In
order to ensure services to its customers during a union strike,
Verizon engaged hundreds of replacement wireline workers --
including the Plaintiffs in this case -- to service copper and
fiber cabling used for cable television, telephone and internet.
Although Verizon required these workers to perform their work
according to Verizon's exacting policies and procedures, Verizon
disclaimed any legal relationship with these workers, tagging them
instead as "independent contractors" of subordinate entities,
including PS Splicing, LLC. But it is the economic reality of the
relationship -- not Verizon's self-serving labels -- that controls
whether Plaintiffs meet the definition of an "employee" under the
FLSA and comparable state wage and hour laws.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Andrew C. White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873 4836
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Cir. Affirms $10B "Clean Diesel" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement in the appeals cases captioned IN RE
VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, TORI
PARTL; MARCIA WEESE; RUDOLF SODAMIN; GREG R. SIEWERT and SCOTT
SIEWERT; RONALD CLARK FLESHMAN, JR.; DEREK R. JOHNSON,
Objectors-Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN, AG; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC.; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 16-17157, 16-17158, 16-17166, 16-17168,
16-17183, 16-17185 (9th Cir.).

Volkswagen duped half a million Americans into buying cars
advertised as clean diesel. They were anything but. As the lawsuits
piled up, the car manufacturer hammered out a ten-billion-dollar
settlement with a class of consumers, agreeing to fix or buy back
the affected vehicles and providing some additional money as well.

The proposed class settlement set aside ten billion dollars to fund
a suite of remedies for class members. A particular class member's
choices depended on whether she owned, leased, or had previously
owned, but sold, a vehicle with a defeat device:

   1. Owners. Owners had the option to (1) sell the car back to VW
at its pre-defeat device value (the buyback option) or (2) have the
car fixed, provided Volkswagen could develop an EPA-approved
emissions modification.  In addition, owners would receive owner
restitution. For owners who bought their cars before September 18,
2015 (eligible owners), that was a cash payment of at least $5,100,
but possibly more, depending on the value of the vehicle. Owners
who acquired their vehicles after that date (eligible new owners)
would receive half the eligible owner restitution described above a
cash payment of at least $2,550.

   2. Lessees. Lessees had the option to (1) terminate their leases
without penalty or (2) have the car fixed subject to development of
an approved modification. In addition, lessees would receive lessee
restitution, a cash payment of $1,529 plus 10% of the vehicle's
value.

   3. Sellers. Eligible sellers, those who sold their cars after
the defeat device scheme became public but before the filing of the
settlement with the court in June 2016 would receive seller
restitution equal to one-half of full owner restitution (a cash
payment of at least $2,550, but possibly more, depending on the
value of the vehicle).

One month after the proposed settlement was filed with it, the
district court granted preliminary approval and ordered extensive
notice to the class.

Fourteen appeals from the order approving settlement were
consolidated with one related appeal.

This settlement is highly unusual. Most class members' compensation
buybacks, fixes, or lease terminations plus some cash, is as much
as, perhaps more than, they could expect to receive in a successful
suit litigated to judgment. And not just some of them: the $10.033
billion set aside would fund the most expensive remedy option for
every single class member. Class members did not loiter in claiming
these benefits. By the time these appeals were briefed, Volkswagen
had paid out or committed to pay over $7 billion.

And according to the last report from the court-appointed
independent claims supervisor, by May 2018 Volkswagen had fixed or
removed from the road 85.8% of all affected vehicles; paid out $7.4
billion to over 350,000 class members; and paid out or committed
$8.1 billion to almost 450,000 class members. Terming the
settlement a "compromise" of claims, although true of most class
action settlements, is largely inapt here. The district court so
noted, stating that the class members generally "are made whole" by
the settlement.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court adequately
explained why the reversion here raises no specter of collusion.
First, as the district court noted, Volkswagen has every incentive
to "to buy back or fix as many Eligible Vehicles as possible."
Under the terms of the DOJ consent decree, if Volkswagen fails to
fix or remove from the road 85% of the affected vehicles, it will
be fined $85 million for each percentage point it comes up short.
Second, from a class member's perspective, the benefits available
are quite substantial, worth at least thousands of dollars, and in
some cases more, to each class member. Given the amounts at stake,
there is little chance class members will forego the benefits
because of the effort of lodging a claim. Indeed, the Court needn't
speculate as to participation. As of the date of the fairness
hearing, 336,000 class members (of 490,000 total) had already
registered to claim settlement benefits, and the numbers have only
grown.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
the reversion clause was a reasonable provision in this settlement,
given the incentives to the class to claim quite substantial
benefits, and was in no way a sign of collusion or unfairness.

To survive appellate review, the district court must show it has
explored comprehensively all factors, and must give a reasoned
response to all non-frivolous objections.

Class member Marcia Weese objected to the settlement on two grounds
relevant here. First, she maintained that different
claims-processing procedures for class members with liens on their
vehicles meant that Rule 23's predominance requirement was not met.
Second, and relatedly, she contended that the long-form notice to
the class did not adequately explain the effects of a class
member's vehicle lien on her eligibility for settlement benefits.

In any event, Weese's objections were frivolous, and so did not
demand a response from the district court. In three sentences, she
argues that additional claims-processing steps for class members
with liens create individualized questions of law or fact that
defeat predominance under Rule 23. But that objection is faulty on
its face. The settlement does not deny recovery to, or exclude from
class membership, vehicle owners with liens or loans.

It just provides that, because of technical issues raised by the
loan or lien as to the vehicle's title, those individuals who still
have the same legal claims, based on the same questions of law and
fact, as other class members must take additional steps to claim
their benefits under the settlement. The district court properly
concluded that class members including those with liens asserted
the same injury and invoked the same basic legal theories against
Volkswagen, thereby satisfying Rule 23(b)(3).

Challenges to the notice and timing of fees under Rule 23(h) are
typically framed and analyzed as challenges to the fee award, not
the settlement.  Several objectors contend that the district court
misapplied Rule 23 by setting the deadline for class members to
object to the settlement before the date by which class counsel had
to file a motion for fees.

The Court disagrees.

A court may award reasonable attorneys' fees in a certified class
action Class counsel seeking a fee award must make a motion for
fees under Rule 54, and notice of the motion must be directed to
class members in a reasonable manner.

In sum, approving a settlement before class counsel has filed a fee
motion does not violate Rule 23(h). What matters is that class
members have a chance to object to the fee motion when it is filed.


Here, the district court gave class members six weeks to object to
class counsel's completed fee motion, and several of them did so.
That period of time was more than enough for class members to
object to the motion. Because the scheduling orders did not violate
Rule 23(h), they provide no basis for upsetting the settlement.

Relatedly, two objectors argue that the district court erred by not
ensuring that notice of class counsel's fee motion was directed to
class members in a reasonable manner.

They do not reach this objection. No matter how construed, it is a
challenge to the fee award, not to the district court's order
approving the settlement. Unlike the Rule 23(h) argument regarding
the scheduling of class counsel's fee motion, the objectors draw no
link between the notice of class counsel's fee motion which
occurred after the settlement was approved and whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court therefore does not pass upon the objection.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in certifying the class, approving the settlement, or
denying Tori Partl's motion to opt out of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 9, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxtkxca from Leagle.com.

James Ben Feinman (argued), James B. Feinman & Associates,
Lynchburg, Virginia, for Movant-Appellant, Ronald Clark Fleshman,
Jr.

Sharon Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- (argued), William B.
Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- and Robert J. Giuffra Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New
York, for Defendants-Appellants.

N. Albert Bacharach Jr. , N. Albert Bacharach Jr. P.A., for
Objectors-Appellants Greg R. Siewert and Scott Siewert.

Bryan E. Brody , Brody & Cornwell, for Objector-Appellant Tori
Partl.

Brian Thomas Giles , Giles Lenox, for Objector-Appellant Derek R.
Johnson.

Stephen D. Field -- steve@field-law.com -- Stephen D. Field P.A.,
for Objector-Appellant Rudolf Sodamin.

Caroline V. Tucker - ctucker@tuckerpollard.com -- Tucker Pollard,
for Objector-Appellant Marcia Weese.

VOLKSWAGEN: $10-Bil. Diesel Class Action Settlement Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Buffa, writing for Jurist, reports that the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld on July 9 a $10 billion class
action settlement against Volkswagen for a 2015 emissions cheating
scandal.

Volkswagen has admitted [press release] to installing devices in
certain models of their diesel vehicles to have them defeat US
emissions tests. Anywhere from 10-40 times the legal amount of
diesel fumes were being released into the air under normal
operating conditions.

The action resulted in multiple class action lawsuits with nearly
500,000 people owning the affected vehicles.

The lawsuit questioned the certification of the class, the approval
of the settlement, and the denial of a class member's motion to opt
out. All three points were approved and the settlement stands. [GN]

VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Partially Dismissed Exploding Sun Roof Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Volkswagen exploding sunroof class-action lawsuit is hanging on
after the automaker filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff Rosaura Deras filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers
who purchased or leased in California any of the following vehicles
equipped with factory-installed sunroofs:

   * 2005-2017 Volkswagen Jetta
   * 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf
   * 2006-2015 Volkswagen GTI
   * 2009-2010 Volkswagen CC
   * 2007-2016 Volkswagen Eos
   * 2006-2009 Volkswagen Rabbit
   * 2012-2017 Volkswagen Passat
   * 2004-2006 Volkswagen Touareg
   * 2011-2017 Volkswagen Touareg
   * 2008 Volkswagen R32
   * 2009-2017 Volkswagen Tiguan

According to Ms. Deras, she leased a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta in June
2013 and purchased the vehicle on June 3, 2016, at the end of her
lease term.

She claims that in 2017 while driving on the freeway, a loud "BOOM"
like a gunshot went off in the car, followed by a hail of glass
falling on her head and the interior of the Volkswagen. She said
she saw a large hole in the center of her sunroof with the edges of
the glass pointing upward, indicating the glass wasn't broken from
outside the vehicle.


The plaintiff said VW has concealed defects in the sunroofs because
since Dec. 14, 2009, 57 "owners and lessees of Class Vehicles have
reported an incident of their sunroof shattering" to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

According to the plaintiff, VW further knew of the defect through
its internal tracking systems and because the automaker issued a
recall for its 2013--2015 Beetle.

The recall was issued "relating to the shattering of sunroofs," but
"it has done nothing regarding the far more predominant problem
relating to all regular and panoramic sunroof shattering that
affects potentially hundreds of thousands or more VW vehicles."

Volkswagen moved to dismiss the exploding sunroof class-action
lawsuit, starting with implied warranty claims on the grounds they
are barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

The plaintiff does not dispute that she did not file the lawsuit
within four years of the date on which she leased the vehicle.
However, she argues that her claim was timely because her June 2016
purchase re-started the statute of limitations clock. The judge
agreed.

Ms. Deras also claims she can bring an implied warranty claim
because Volkswagen sold her the vehicle, but VW argues the lawsuit
never mentions where she actually purchased the vehicle. However,
the judge ruled the assumption is the vehicle was purchased from
the same dealership that leased it.

However, according to the judge, VW won the argument about a claim
of unjust enrichment by arguing the new vehicle warranty precludes
the claim.

Concerning the claim that Volkswagen knew about the sunroof
problems because of internal monitoring and complaints made to
NHTSA, VW says the allegations are not enough to state a claim in
court, and the judge agreed.

Ms. Deras alleges NHTSA received 57 complaints of shattering
sunroofs between Dec. 14, 2009, and April 11, 2017, and that safety
regulators monitored the complaints. Of those complaints, 45 were
made before Ms. Deras purchased her vehicle on June 3, 2016.

But according to the judge, "the Ninth Circuit has held that
consumer complaints suffice to establish knowledge only where there
were an unusual number of complaints, such that the manufacturer
would be on notice of a specific problem."

The judge also found the plaintiff contends there are "potentially
hundreds of thousands or more of VW vehicles with defective
sunroofs, so 57 complaints out of hundreds of thousands of vehicles
aren't an unusual number of complaints."

"These complaints therefore do not show VW's knowledge of the
alleged defect," said Judge Jon S. Tigar.

As for the allegation that Volkswagen knew about the alleged
shattering sunroofs because of a previous recall related to
sunroofs, the judge ruled Ms.  Deras has cited no authority, and
the judge is aware of none, holding that prior recalls of similar
products is enough to establish knowledge of a defect.

Therefore, the judge dismissed claims of violations of California's
unfair competition law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
fraud by omission, but with leave to amend the claims.

Overall, the judge dismissed all the claims against Volkswagen
except claims related to implied warranties. [GN]

WALKERHEALTHCAREIT: Bey Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DEBRA BEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WALKERHEALTHCAREIT, LLC, WALKERSEARCHGROUP, LLC, ENCORE
HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, TIFFANY WALKER and GREGORY WALKER, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01167-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class Fair Labor
Standards Act Collective Class defined as:

   "all individuals who currently work, or have worked,
   for the Defendants as an ATE or any other similarly-
   titled, hourly-paid position within the State of Ohio
   at any time from December 13, 2013 through and
   including the present and until the final resolution
   of the case."

In addition, the Plaintiff asks that the Court order judicial
notice to the FLSA Collective Class. As part of this Motion, the
Plaintiff moves the Court to order Defendants to produce in
electronic format a list of putative class members including
information necessary to send the Notice; to order a 90-day period
for responding to the Notice; to authorize Plaintiff to distribute
the Notice via First Class U.S. Mail and electronic mail; and to
send a reminder postcard on or about 30 days before the end of the
notice period.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/1HlDjW at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          James Papakirk, Esq.
          FLAGEL & PAPAKIRK, LLC
          Summit Woods III
          50 E Business Way
          Cincinnati, OH 45241
          Telephone: (513) 984 8111
          E-mail: jpapakirk@fp-legal.com


WILLIS & BROCK: Estes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTY ESTES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. WILLIS & BROCK FOODS, INC. and JESSIE WILLIS,
individually, Case No. 6:18-cv-00197-GFVT (E.D. Ky., July 20,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Willis & Brock Foods, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation.  Jessie
Willis is an owner, officer and director of the Corporate
Defendant.

The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  matthew@foresterhaynie.com




WILSON PIZZA: Fisher Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN FISHER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. WILSON PIZZA CK INC. and SCOTT WILSON, Case No.
3:18-cv-00479-CRS (W.D. Ky., July 19, 2018), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Revised Statutes to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers.

Wilson Pizza CK Incorporated is a Kentucky Corporation.  Scott
Wilson is an owner, officer and director of the Corporate
Defendant.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  matthew@foresterhaynie.com



[*] AICD Calls on Gov't to Address Class Action Insurance Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that directors are urging the federal government to rein in
insurance cover for companies following an Australian Law Reform
Commission report which warns about "peculiar" disclosure laws and
an explosion in class actions.

The Australian Financial Review revealed on July 9 that insurers
are refusing to cover big banks and other financial services
companies hit by legal action related to the Hayne royal
commission.

The directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance sector, which covers
directors, executives and employees, has lifted premiums by an
average of 70 per cent and up to 400 per cent over the past six
months as class actions have increased more than 10-fold over the
past decade.

The corporate insurance sector has begun to insert "royal
commission exclusions" into the class-action defence policies with
around 20 open class actions in play including AMP, which is
staring down the barrel of five actions over its fee scandal. The
CBA is fighting off two class actions relating to its potential
lack of disclosure about the AUSTRAC investigation.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors said on July 9 it is
urging the federal government to take action following the ALRC
report.

"The AICD backs the ALRC's recommendation for the federal
government to review continuous disclosure obligations and
misleading and deceptive conduct laws, including how they are
impacting the insurance market for class actions," AICD general
manager of advocacy Louise Petschler said.

"The continued availability of appropriate D&O insurance is
essential to a well-functioning corporate governance framework."

ASX top-50 chairmen including Lindsay Maxsted, Graham Bradley and
Kevin McCann have raised concerns about rising insurance premiums
but believe greater regulation of class actions and litigation
funders would help tackle the issue.

"Very few end up benefiting the class they are supposed to benefit
and very few get to court," Westpac chairman Mr Maxsted said.

"There is a real risk Australia will follow the path of the US in
becoming overly litigious," chairman of EnergyAustralia, GrainCorp
and HSBC Bank, Mr Bradley said. "I think a review would be a good
idea, but it should look at some constraint on the fees which class
action lawyers and advisers can siphon off."

Former Macquarie Bank, Origin Energy and Healthscope chairman Kevin
McCann said there "needs to be licensing, consumer protections for
members of class actions and regulation of fees and rules to deal
with the multiplicity of proceedings".

Disclosure 'peculiar'
The ASX has said it is open to a review of continuous disclosure
laws and Andrew Porter, president of the G100 -- which represents
major company CFOs -- also warns that insurance premiums are
"skyrocketing" for boards in response to more class actions.

"Insurance fees will continue to skyrocket as class actions grow
and settle out of court," Mr Porter said. "We welcome the idea of a
review as a first step.

"Every listed company in Australia is now seeing a dramatic
increase in D&O liability cover. We have been told by our insurers
that it is a direct result of class actions, so there is a cost to
shareholders as well as on the company's and directors' time." [GN]

[*] Corporations Call for Loosening of Robocall Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------
AJ Dellinger, writing for Gizmodo, reports that the robocall
problem is as bad as it has ever been, but if big corporations have
their way, it just might get worse. The Washington Post reported
that top businesses from the financial services and retail
industry, among others, are lobbying the Trump administration to
make it easier to send calls and texts en masse.

Per the Post, companies like Capital One, student loan servicer
Navient, Sirius XM, and a number of business interest groups have
all been on the front-line of the fight, pushing to make sure any
crackdown designed to cut back on spam calls won't hurt their own
automated systems.

Not that you need to be told -- your phone is probably ringing with
a bot on the other line right now -- but robocalls have become the
scourge of every cellphone owner. YouMail's RoboCall Index
estimates that 4.1 billion robocalls were placed to people in the
US in June—an average of 12.7 calls received per person. That's
the worst month on record, and the fourth month in a row when a new
record high has been set.

While some of those come from scammers who abuse automated systems
-- people like Adrian Abramovich, who the FCC fined $120 million
for placing 96 million unsolicited calls in just three months
offering fake travel deals -- most robocalls come from legitimate
businesses. According to the Post, about three-quarters of the more
than four billion robocalls placed in June were telemarketing calls
and alerts from companies that consumers have a relationship with.

The fact is, companies do use robocalls as a way to contact
consumers and sometimes they're actually useful. Automated calls
alerting a person that their prescription is available to pick up,
for example, seems like a valid use of the technology -- as long as
the customer actually consented to the call and the services aren't
abused.

That has businesses pushing to make sure whatever action is taken
to address robocalls won't hurt them. Per the Post, the US Chamber
of Commerce has pushed back against the idea of adding any federal
rules that would heavily restrict how businesses can communicate
with customers.

Problem is, businesses are just as guilty of abusing automated
systems as anyone. Navient, one of the leaders in lobbying for
loosening restrictions on robocalls, has regularly been accused of
harassing consumers with automated calls. Navient has been hit with
multiple lawsuits over robocalls, and last year consumer groups
asked the Federal Communications Commission to look into the
company's practices.

The student loan servicer isn't alone in getting hit with legal
complaints for harassing behavior. Hyundai was subject to a class
action lawsuit over robocalls. Companies including Cash Fund, Time
Warner, Charter, Dish Network, and loads of other companies.

It's unlikely that those abusive practices will suddenly decrease
if agencies like the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission decided
not to take any additional action to fight back against robocalls.
Margot Saunders, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law
Center, told WaPo:

"We are at serious risk of seeing the existing robo-call problem,
which is already serious, get far, far worse," said Margot
Saunders, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
"If the industry is permitted to send unlimited texts and make
unlimited [robo-calls], without the ability of the consumer to say
stop, who knows what horrible things will happen?"

The last time the FCC tried to implement rules aimed at cutting
back on robocalls, they got challenged in court by a trade
association of debt collectors and shot down. It's back to the
drawing board, but with businesses whispering in the ear of an
agency already happy to do the bidding of big corporations, expect
that your phone won't stop ringing any time soon. [GN]

[*] Increase in Securities Class Actions Hits Businesses, Society
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New proprietary data disclosed by Chubb shows a dramatic increase
in the cost of insurance claims for merger-objection litigation in
recent years.  Between 2012 and 2016, the average cost of settled
merger-objection claims grew 63% to $4.5 million in 2016 from $2.8
million in 2012.  The average for the four-year period was $3.6
million.  The portion of total claims payments going to
shareholders -- 39% -- was far less than the 61% that flowed to
plaintiffs and defense attorneys for fees and expenses. For
dismissed merger-objection claims, the average total cost increased
162% to $2.3 million in 2016 from $880,000 in 2012. The average
total direct cost was approximately $912,000 for the period.

The data from Chubb, which is the global leader in financial lines
including directors and officers (D&O) insurance, was revealed in a
recent panel discussion featuring four distinguished litigators
during the company's annual Preferred Securities Panel Counsel
Conference, which was held June 11-12.  The panel, entitled From
Nuisance to Menace: The Rising Tide of Securities Class Action
Litigation, was moderated by Chubb's Scott Meyer, Division
President, North America Financial Lines. A replay of the event is
available here.

"In the world of securities litigation, it seems like common sense
and practicality are no longer prevalent when you take into
consideration the combined proliferation of class action and
merger-objection lawsuits and their associated costs," said
Mr. Meyer. "This proliferation is not only impacting businesses but
is also manifesting as a total tax on society. In the current
environment, businesses are not necessarily better managed,
shareholders are not necessarily safer, and the economy as a whole
is not necessarily less exposed."

"Eighty-five percent of public company merger transactions were
challenged" with a merger-objection lawsuit, noted panelist Bruce
Vanyo -- bruce@kattenlaw.com -- the head of the Securities
Litigation and Enforcement Practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
"We are being too polite about this.  These lawsuits are an
abomination.  They really are.  It's like highway robbery.  The
only thing missing is the mask and the gun.  It is embarrassing
that our legal system tolerates it."

"Part of the problem here is there are no consequences to the
plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' attorneys for filing these frivolous
lawsuits," said Gerard G. Pecht --
gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Global Head of Dispute
Resolution and Litigation at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.  "There
is rarely an instance where there is any sort of a sanction or
penalty imposed.  So you can just generate the lawsuits with a
computer, whether they are meritorious or not, and see what
happens."

Panelist Barry Kaplan -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- partner and head of
the Northwest Litigation Group in the Seattle office of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, talked about the generational shift in
the plaintiffs' bar.  "We have new entrants now who are bidding for
some role in the plaintiffs' securities bar," he said. "Some are
focused on mergers and some are focused on less well-grounded stock
drop suits.  There are some smaller players who are into filing
second-tier cases and making a push to become the most prolific
filers."

Daniel J. Tyukody -- tyukodyd@gtlaw.com -- Co-Chair of the
Securities Class Action Practice at Greenberg Traurig LLP,
commented on one potential solution. "The biggest effect would be
if you had a loser-pay provision, which would certainly eliminate a
huge number of these cases," he said. "The real problem we have
right now is the number of marginal cases, and we don't have a good
filtering mechanism to get rid of them.  We all know there are
situations where bad stuff happened, and we've got to deal with it.
But the biggest cost and tax on the economy is the plethora of very
weak cases that still cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more
to get rid of."

Among the topics covered in the wide-ranging discussion included
the recent Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund Supreme
Court decision; whether the U.S. should adopt a loser-pay model;
how data breaches impact the D&O litigation landscape; and reforms
that could stem the rising tide of litigation.

                           About Chubb

Chubb -- http://www.chubb.com-- is the world's largest publicly
traded property and casualty insurance company. With operations in
54 countries and territories, Chubb provides commercial and
personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and
supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance to a
diverse group of clients.  Parent company Chubb Limited is listed
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CB) and is a component of the
S&P 500 index. Chubb maintains executive offices in Zurich, New
York, London and other locations, and employs approximately 31,000
people worldwide. [GN]

[*] Jackson Lewis PC Attorneys Discuss Data Breach Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Esq. -- Joseph.Lazzarotti@jacksonlewis.com --
Jason C. Gavejian, Esq. -- Jason.Gavejian@jacksonlewis.com -- and
Maya Atrakchi, Esq. -- Maya.Atrakchi@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson
Lewis PC, in an article for Lexology, report that a key issue for
any business facing class action litigation in response to a data
breach is whether the plaintiffs, particularly consumers, will have
standing to sue. Standing to sue in a data breach class action
suit, largely turns on whether plaintiffs establish that they have
suffered an "injury-in-fact" resulting from the data breach.
Plaintiffs in data breach class actions are often not able to
demonstrate that they have suffered financial or other actual
damages resulting from a breach of their personal information.
Instead, plaintiffs will allege that a heightened "risk of future
harm" such as identity theft or fraudulent charges is enough to
establish an "injury-in-fact".

Federal circuits court over the past few years have struggled with
the question whether plaintiffs in a data breach class action can
establish standing if they only allege a heightened "risk of future
harm". For example, the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th circuits have
generally found standing, while the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th
circuits have generally found no standing where a plaintiff only
alleges a heightened "risk of future harm". This circuit court
split is in large part to due to lack of clarity following the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins which held that
even if a statute has been violated, plaintiffs must demonstrate
that an "injury-in-fact" has occurred that is both concrete and
particularized, but which failed to clarify whether a "risk of
future harm" qualifies as such an injury.

California Senate Tackles Issue of Standing in Data Breach Class
Action Suits

While businesses await the U.S. Supreme Court to address this
issue, it looks like the California legislature may take matters
into its own hands. Senator Bill Dodd (D.) recently introduced a
bill, S.B. 1121 Personal Information (an amendment to the
California Customer Records Act) that would allow consumers to sue
a business in response to a data breach without any showing of harm
at all. The California Senate recently passed the bill in a vote of
22-13, after accepting an amendment from the Assembly to create a
safe harbor for businesses that protect consumer's personal data.
The bill now moves to the California Assembly that must vote on the
bill by August 31st. If the bill passes the Assembly, Governor
Jerry Brown will have 30 days to sign or veto the bill.

Key Aspects of the S.B. 1121 Personal Information Include:

   -- Each consumer could recover damages in an amount of not less
than $200 and not greater than $1,000 per incident or for actual
damages, whichever sum is greater.
   -- Defines "breach" as "unauthorized access, use, modification,
or disclosure of personal information."
   -- Consumers would have up to 4 years to sue for violation of
the California Customer Records Act if their personal information
was breached.
   -- The current California Customer Records narrowly defines
"customer" as an individual who provides personal information to a
business for the purpose of purchasing or leasing a product or
obtaining a service from the business. This bill would instead make
those provisions applicable to consumers and consumer records, and
define "consumer" for purposes of those provisions broadly to
include any natural person.
   -- A safe harbor for businesses that have implemented and
maintained reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate
to the nature of the information.
Response to Senator Dodd's Bill

S.B. 1121 Personal Information if passed would substantially lower
(if not eliminate) the standing threshold in data breach consumer
class action lawsuits. While consumer groups including the Consumer
Attorneys of California, the California Public Interest Research
Group, and others have come out in support, business organizations
are, strongly opposed to the bill. Opposition includes a coalition
of over 70 groups (and growing) including the

Senator Dodd in his introduction of S.B. 1121 stressed the
importance of providing consumers a measure to sue following a data
breach of their personal information, however Senator Dodd has said
he is open to amendments of the bill to prevent "a mecca for
lawsuits when no harm has been done".

Takeaway

S.B. 1121 Personal Information is only one example of a wider trend
in both the state and federal legislatures attempting to provide
greater protection to consumer's personal information, in response
to both large-scale breaches, and the E.U.'s General Data
Protection Regulation. Recent amendments strengthening state data
breach notification laws (e.g. Louisiana, Colorado, Arizona, South
Dakota and Alabama) and federal legislative proposals such as the
Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017 or the Data Security and
Breach Notification Act (see our blog post Senate Bill Introduced
to Protect Personally Identifiable Information) are further
indications of this growing trend. [GN]

[*] Most of Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh's Rulings Pro-Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daren Fonda, writing for Barron's, reports that in picking Brett
Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court,
President Donald Trump chose a well-respected conservative jurist
who's likely to be quite friendly to business interests and
financial firms.

Kavanaugh's record suggests he isn't a fan of major bureaucratic
rule-making. And he's unlikely to make it easier for class-action
lawyers to file suits against big companies.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, Kavanaugh dissented in a major securities fraud case now
before the Supreme Court. In Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the D.C. appeals court ruled in favor of allowing a
broader interpretation, in some instances, of a rule that prohibits
misleading or false statements made by a financial representative
(in this case, a broker who sent an email with false information
about a clean energy company). Kavanaugh argued for a tighter
standard, saying he would "vacate the SEC's conclusions as to both
sanctions and liability."

Conservatives on the Supreme Court likely share Kavanaugh's views,
says Thomas Gorman, a partner at law firm Dorsey and Whitney (which
wasn't involved in the Lorenzo case). The case involves two prior
decisions by the court, making it likely the justices will reject
the SEC's position and potentially scale back its ability to
enforce its primary antifraud rule. "With Kavanaugh on the court,
it seems almost a lock that Lorenzo will get reversed," Gorman
says.

The SEC has long sought to expand the scope of liability in fraud
enforcement actions because it could ease the burden of proof. The
Supreme Court has pushed back, however. Moreover, upholding the
D.C. court's ruling would expand the scope of liability in
securities class-action suits and broaden the range of targets to
encompass more companie -- something the SEC also supports. But
that's also unlikely to fly with conservative judges.

"If you expand the definition of liability, you can add more people
or companies as defendants," Gorman says. "It's a marquee case for
the SEC and class-action attorneys. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it
could make a huge difference for class-action suits and for the
SEC."

The financial-services industry should be pleased with Kavanaugh,
too. The industry recently won a big victory when a federal appeals
court threw out the so-called fiduciary rule -- a set of
regulations on financial advice issued by the Department of Labor
under President Barack Obama. The rules would have required
financial firms or advisors giving advice on retirement accounts to
put clients' interests ahead of their own. The Trump administration
never supported the rule, killing a potential appeal to the Supreme
Court. The SEC is now working on a rule that would cover advice to
investors more broadly, not just for retirement accounts.

Kavanaugh wasn't involved in that case, but he has indicated
opposition to agency rule-making that would have sweeping industry
influence, without clear orders from Congress. "For an agency to
issue a major rule, Congress must clearly authorize the agency to
do so," he wrote in an unrelated case, according to an editorial in
The Wall Street Journal. "If a statute only ambiguously supplies
authority for the major rule, the rule is unlawful."

Lack of deference to regulatory agencies is a key selling point for
conservatives, says Gorman. Trump's last Supreme Court pick, Neil
Gorsuch, opposed deference to regulatory agencies, and Kavanaugh
appears cut from the same mold.

Several other cases already on the docket for the 2018-19 term
could impact business interests, including cases involving
arbitration agreements, employment discrimination, and intellectual
property.

Perhaps the biggest case, though, is Apple v. Pepper -- an
antitrust case that could have broad impact in Silicon Valley and
beyond.

Apple (AAPL) was sued in 2011 by iPhone users claiming the company
abused its monopoly power to inflate prices on its App Store. Apple
charges developers a 30% commission for apps sold through its
store, and its iOS operating system prevents consumers from
downloading apps outside Apple's store—two practices at issue in
the suit.

Apple says the plaintiffs don't have a right to sue under U.S.
antitrust law, partly because third-party developers set app
prices, simply giving Apple a cut as the distributor. The Trump
administration, which hasn't always been friendly to Silicon
Valley, supported a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case
and likely supports Apple's views, says Adam Feldman, a legal
scholar and author of the blog site empiricalscotus.com.  

As it stands, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with
consumers. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, Apple could owe
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and may have to open its
App Store or make other changes to its iOS operating system and
relationships with software developers. A ruling against Apple
could expose other tech companies that sell third-party products to
more class-action suits, including Amazon.com (AMZN), Facebook
(FB), and Alphabet (GOOGL).  

But don't hold your breath for a major anti-Apple ruling. The court
is more likely to rule narrowly, says Feldman, continuing its
"incrementalist" approach and kicking the broader antitrust issues
back to the lower courts. That said, Apple's likelihood of
prevailing would get a boost with Kavanaugh on the court, given
that he has taken a "pro-business stance" in many cases on the D.C.
Circuit, says Feldman.

Of course, the ideological lines aren't as clear-cut on business
issues as they are on social matters (though they do tend to
overlap). Justice Kennedy was unpredictable. He wrote the recent
5-4 opinion that paved the way for states to collect sales taxes
from online retailers even if they don't have a physical presence
in the state, joining a liberal (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) in
the majority. He also joined liberals in upholding a key provision
of the Affordable Care Act in 2015, in a 6-3 ruling. But he sided
with conservatives in an earlier dissent on the individual
health-insurance mandate (an Obamacare provision requiring all
individuals to buy insurance).  

Kavanaugh, who clerked for Kennedy, is a "predictable
conservative," says Eric Citron, a Supreme Court attorney in
Bethesda, Md., who clerked for Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and
Elena Kagan. "In a lot of Kavanaugh's decisions regarding big
businesses, he ruled in favor of employers."

Citron adds that the court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has
shown an interest in taking more swings at major regulatory and
business issues, "dealing with broad strokes of business
interests." Taking a higher proportion of such cases indicates the
court wants to make an impact on business and financial regulation.


Feldman expects Kavanaugh to enhance the pro-business momentum that
has been building on the court for years. "We've seen lots of
movement by the conservative majority in that direction," he says.
"It would be shocking if we see anything else from Kavanaugh." [GN]


                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***