CAR_Public/180801.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 153

                            Headlines

2 NORTH: Fischler Files ADA Class Suit in New York
605 WEST: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABAXIS INC: Kent Files Class Action Over Sale to Zoetis
ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Age Kola Files FDCPA  Suit in S.D. New York
AFFINITY GAMING: Russell Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

AGRI STATS: Realdine et al. Sue over Pork Price Fixing Conspiracy
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Notice of Appeal Filed in "Krakowski" Suit
AMPAK ELECTRICAL: T.G. Nickel Sues Over Subcontract Deal Breach
ANTERO RESOURCES: Mineral Rights Owners' Suit Partially Dismissed
ARSTRAT LLC: Abdul-Rahman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

BENTLEY SYSTEMS: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BG PERSONNEL: Ryan Suit Remanded Action to Florida State Court
CALIFORNIA WINE: Faces "Bachar" Class Action in Calif. Super. Ct.
CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CARE AMBULANCE: Sacks Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract

CARLYLE CATERING: Faces Sypert ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CBOE GLOBAL: Projection Capital Alleges VIX Price Manipulation
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Grigoryan Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Ross Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CHEZ VOUS OFF: Sypert Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CHUBBIES INC: Faces Martinez ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHURN LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COLONIAL PENN: Faces TCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Stern Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CREED BOUTIQUE: Olsen Class Action Asserts ADA Breach

CVS PHARMACY: Ferguson Files Suit Over False Ad
CVS PHARMACY: Sells Bogus Dietary Supplements
DAVEY TREE: Court Denies Arbitration in Tree Trimmers' Suit
DENONE LLC: Underpays Denny's Servers, Harrison Claims
DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, Howell Says

EL POLLO: Judge Grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action
ENERGY ENTERPRISES:  Naiman Sues for Invasion of Privacy
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Ali Alikhani Alleges Violation of FCRA
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: CBDF's Demolition to Proceed Amid Class Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

FACEBOOK INC: Cambridge Analytica Scandal Class Actions Pile Up
FACEBOOK INC: May Face Privacy Breach Class Action in Australia
FAMOUS DAVE'S: Broad Files Request for Judicial Intervention
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
FCOIN: Class Action Mulled Over Exchange Price Manipulation
FINANCIAL CREDIT: Gilman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Lamonaca Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin
FITCH RATINGS: Squire Patton Attempts to Add Fraud, Deceit Claims
FLEETMATICS: Trucking Cos. File Suit for Breach of Contract
FLINT, MI: Court Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Class Action
FLORIDA POWER: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal

FLUFF N' FOLD: $40K Settlement in "Romero" Suit Approved
FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Shareholder Files Class Action in Delaware
FRED MEYER: "Walker" Suit Brought Before 9th Cir.
GC SERVICES: Schnorrbusch Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GLENCORE PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit

GLENCORE PLC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action Lawsuit
GLENCORE PLC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GLOBAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, Lewis et al. Say
GOLD STANDARD: Johnson Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
GOLDEN GATE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Frank Says

GOOD TIMES: TanaCon Attendees Start Receiving Refunds
GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Activist Challenges Privacy Settlement
GREAT DIVIDE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Paramedics, Lopez Suit Says
GRINDR: Asian Man Mulls Racial Discrimination Class Action
GUS G. PAPPAS: Inguil Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law

HAMILTON BEACH: Pedro Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HOLLISTER CO: Duncan Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
ILG INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Lawsuit in Delaware
ISABELLA VISITING: Faces Hicks FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
J.A. SECURITY: "Sandoval" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

JOHN DOES: Dale Carey Alleges VIX Market Price Manipulations
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gambinos Blame Talc Products for Cancer
JONATHAN AGENCY: Vaccaro Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
JORGENSEN & SON: Faces "Felix" Suit in Joaquin, California
KASGO LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Seeks More Time to File Supreme Court Petition
KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Sharon Romero Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KLX INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Lawsuit on Boeing Merger
LADY JANE'S: Durr Class Action Asserts FLSA Violation
LAKE STREET LOFTS: Faces Class Action Over Rent Dispute

LOLA'S GOURMET: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
LTD FINANCIAL:  Faces Selwyn FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MACY'S INC: Personal Information Leaked, "Carroll" Suit Says
MANSIONS CATERING: Faces Sypert ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bid in "Crotzer" Suit Partly Granted

MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bids in "Dishman" Partly Granted
MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bids in "Mazza" Suit Partly Granted
MDL 2804: National Roofers' Suit Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Sept. 6 FLSA Class Certification Hearing
MERCK & CO: Richardson et al. Sue over Zostavax Vaccine

MERCK SHARP: Margiotti Files Suit Over Rotavirus Vaccine Monopoly
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces Civil Rights Class Action
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Binz" Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of "Coyne" FDCPA Suit Partly Affirmed
MONSANTO CO: Bumper Crop Farms Sues over Xtend Seed System

MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS:  Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MSK MANAGEMENT: Joseph Martin Files FLSA Suit in New Jersey
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Summ. Ruling in Strip Search Suit Affirmed
MUST CURE OBESITY: Adam Bugbee Sues for Invasion of Privacy
MV TRANSPORTATION: Miller Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

N SAMPOGNA: Perez Files Class Suit in C.D. California
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Must Comply with Oct. 6, 2015 Order
NEIGHBORHOOD RADIOLOGY: Picon Files ADA Class Action in New York
NEWPORT BEACH: Taylor Files Suit Over Illegal Time-Shaving
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: CMC in Securities Suit Continued to Oct. 25

PM HOTEL: "Colburn" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces Slade ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PSC Community: Mannapova Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
QUANTA SERVICES: Geffner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
REALREAL INC: Claims in Diamond Misrepresentation Suit Narrowed

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Pinyuk Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Youth Accountability Team
RIVIERA CATERERS: Sypert Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RNT HOSPITALITY: Carter Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
SKYLINE METRICS: "Levinton" Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

SONY COMPUTER: $1.25M Attys' Fees Awarded in PS3 "Other OS" Suit
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Warciak"
SWAN CLUB: Sypert Suit Asserts ADA Breach
TWIN AMERICA: Picon Files ADA Suit v. Tourist Bus Company
VECTREN CORP: Danigelis Files Suit Over Sale to Centerpoint

VF CORP: Faces Gamez Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif.
VIP COUNTRY CLUB: Sypert Suit Alleges ADA Violation
WATERSIDE PLAZA: Faces Fischler FLSA Suit in New York
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: "Rushing" Suit Moved to N.D. California
XCERRA CORPORATION: Faces "Shui" Securities Class Action in Mass.

[*] Expert Debunks Notion Australia is Class Action Haven
[*] Torys LLP Attorneys Discuss Class Actions, Summary Judgment

                            *********

2 NORTH: Fischler Files ADA Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2 North 6th Place
Property Owner LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 2 North 6th Place Property Owner LLC doing business
as: Level, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04140 (E.D. N.Y., July 19,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

2 North 6th Place Property Owner LLC provides real estate services.
The Company owns, operates, and develops real estate properties. 2
North 6th Place Property Owner serves customers in the State of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com

605 WEST: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 605 West 42nd Owner
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 605
West 42nd Owner LLC doing business as: Sky, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06520-VEC (S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

The class action was filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Defendant is the owner of 605 West 42nd Street -- a 935,043
square foot building in the Hell'S Kitchen neighborhood of
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ABAXIS INC: Kent Files Class Action Over Sale to Zoetis
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ABAXIS, INC., VERNON ALTMAN, RICHARD J. BASTIANI,
MICHAEL D. CASEY, HENK J. EVENHUIS, CLINTON H. SEVERSON, and
PRITHIPAL SINGH, Case No. 3:18-cv-03834 (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2018),
stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Abaxis will be
acquired by Zoetis, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Zeus
Merger Sub, Inc.

On May 15, 2018, Abaxis's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Zoetis.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Abaxis will
receive $83 in cash for each share of Abaxis they own.

On June 5, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, says the complaint.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

Abaxis is a California corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Union City, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Abaxis is a worldwide developer, manufacturer, and marketer of
portable blood analysis systems that are used in a broad range of
medical specialties in human or veterinary patient care to provide
clinicians with rapid blood constituent measurements.

Non-party Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the
Merger Agreement.  Non-party Merger Sub is a California
corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to
the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schumacher, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          155 Jackson Street, #1903
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 855-8995
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com


ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Age Kola Files FDCPA  Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Absolute Collections
Corporation. The case is styled as Age Kola, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Absolute
Collections Corporation and John Does l-25, Defendants, Absolute
Resolutions Investments, LLC, ADR Provider, Case No. 7:18-cv-06599
(S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Absolute Collections Corporation is a debt collection agency in San
Diego, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C.
   285 Passaic Street, Suite 7
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com



AFFINITY GAMING: Russell Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chasen M. Russell, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Affinity Gaming, a Nevada
Corporation, and HGI-St. Jo, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06072
(W.D. Mo., May 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages owed under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Russell worked as a table games dealer from February 2013 through
November 2015 at Defendants' casino, St. Jo Frontier Casino,
located at 777 Winners Circle, St. Joseph, Missouri 64505.
Plaintiff was jointly employed by both Defendants Affinity and HGI.
Defendants are alleged of time-clock rounding that results in the
failure to compensate their employees properly for all time worked,
including overtime hours. In addition, Defendants failed to
properly inform their tipped employees of the required tip credit
provisions, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Telephone: (816) 781-0002
      Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
      Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
             mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

AGRI STATS: Realdine et al. Sue over Pork Price Fixing Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH REALDINE, CHAD NODLAND AND DAN WATSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
AGRI STATS, INC., CLEMENS FOOD GROUP, LLC, HORMEL FOODS
CORPORATION, INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION, JBS USA FOOD COMPANY,
SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC,
AND TYSON FOODS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-02044-PAM-LIB (D. Minn., July 18, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief under Section 1 of Sherman Act, and for treble damages under
the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection
laws, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased pork indirectly from a defendant
or co-conspirator for personal use in the United States from at
least January 1, 2009 until the present.

The pork integrator-defendants are the leading suppliers of pork in
an industry with approximately $20 billion in annual commerce. The
pork industry is highly concentrated, with a small number of large
producers in the United States controlling supply. Defendants and
their co-conspirators collectively control over 80 percent of the
wholesale pork market. These defendants, Agri Stats, Inc., Clemens
Food Group, LLC (Clemens), Hormel Foods Corporation (Hormel),
Indiana Packers Corporation (Indiana Packers), JBS USA, Seaboard
Foods LLC (Seaboard), Smithfield Foods, Inc. (Smithfield), Triumph
Foods, LLC (Triumph), and Tyson Foods, Inc. (Tyson), entered into a
conspiracy from at least 2009 to the present to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of pork.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Indirect Purchaser
Classes:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496 0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Erin C. Burns, Esq.
          NAST LAW LLC
          1101 Market Place, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  eburns@nastlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Notice of Appeal Filed in "Krakowski" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Krakowski, Kevin Horner and M. Alicia Sikes filed an appeal
from a bankruptcy court decision in the case captioned JOHN
KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER and M. ALICIA SIKES, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, Adv. Proc. No. 13-01283-SHL
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The appeal was filed on July 9, 2018, before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
captioned as JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER and M. ALICIA SIKES,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06187-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2018).

As reported by Class Action Reporter, in the case, In re: Chapter
11 AMR CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors. JOHN
KRAKOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 11-15463 (SHL), Adv. No. 13-01283 (SHL) (S.D.
N.Y.), Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane (i) granted the Defendants'
motions for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs'
related motion to amend the Complaint.

The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment with respect to
the Plaintiffs' modified supplemental class action complaint filed
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated.
Plaintiffs Krakowski, Kevin Horner, and M. Alicia Sikes are former
Trans World Airlines ("TWA") pilots that are now employed by
American Airlines, Inc.  The Complaint alleges that the Allied
Pilots Association ("APA") -- the pilots' union at American --
breached its duty of fair representation to the Plaintiffs and that
American colluded in that breach.

As part of American's bankruptcy restructuring, the company sought
and received authority to reject its then-existing collective
bargaining agreement with APA ("Old CBA").  American subsequently
negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with APA ("New
CBA") that eliminated certain job protections that legacy TWA
pilots like the Plaintiffs had held under the Old CBA.  At the same
time, American and APA entered into a letter agreement that
contemplated an arbitration proceeding to create new job
protections for these legacy TWA pilots as an alternative to those
lost under the New CBA.

The Court has issued two prior decisions in the adversary
proceeding granting dismissal of many of the claims asserted by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' remaining
claims allege breaches of APA's duty of fair representation with
respect to the procedures used to conduct the arbitration, and
assert that American colluded in those breaches.

Judge Lane granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment,
and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint.  Judge
Lane finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to present an issue for
trial with respect to APA because, considering to all the evidence
in the Plaintiffs' favor, a reasonable juror could not find a
breach of APA's duty of fair representation.  The Plaintiffs have
also failed to present an issue for trial with respect to their
collusion claim against American given the failure of their breach
of fiduciary duty against APA and because there is not affirmative
action that would constitute collusion by American under applicable
law.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/LaJM5A from Leagle.com.

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. As of
December 31, 2017, it operated a fleet of 948 mainline aircraft.
The company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas. American Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of American Airlines
Group Inc. [BN]

John Krakowski, Kevin Horner & M. Alicia Sikes, individually, and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Allen P. Press -- press@archcitylawyers.com -- Jacobson Press &
Fields, P.C.

American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sloane Ackerman
-- sackerman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jennifer Baldocchi
-- jenniferbaldocchi@paulhastings.com -- Todd C. Duffield --
todd.duffield@ogletree.com -- Paul Hastings, Stephen Karotkin --
stephen.karotkin@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, David H.
Luce -- dluce@bbdlc.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C., Neal D. Mollen
-- nealmollen@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Mark
Robertson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Robert A. Siegel --
rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Allied Pilots Association, Defendant, represented by Darin M.
Dalmat -- dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C., Steven K.
Hoffman -- skhoffman@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman, P.C., Edgar N.
James -- ejames@jamhoff.com  -- James & Hoffman, P.C, Daniel M.
Rosenthal -- dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman, P.C.,
George O. Suggs, Schuchat, Cook & Werner & Joshua R. Taylor --
jrtaylor@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Garden City Group, Inc, Claims and Noticing Agent, represented by
Angela Ferrante -- angela.ferrante@choosegcg.com -- Garden City
Group, LLC & Jeffrey S. Stein, GCG, Inc.

AMPAK ELECTRICAL: T.G. Nickel Sues Over Subcontract Deal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC,
as Assignee and Subrogee of Trust Fund Beneficiary Fesk Special
Systems Incorporated, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
others entitled to share in the funds received by Ampak Electrical
Services, Inc. and its successor in interest and alter ego, Ampak
Data & Electrical Services, Inc., as Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Ampak
Electrical Services, Inc., Ampak Data & Electrical Services, Inc.,
John Esposito, Maria Cucuzza, Nick Romeo and John Doe No. 1-100,
Defendant, Case No. 2018CH06589, (Ill. Cir., May 22, 2018), demands
damages, a determination declaring Ampak Services and its successor
in interest and alter ego, Ampak Data, as trustees of the Ampak
Trust Funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law and adjudging
T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC as assignee and subrogree of the
rights of Fesk Special Systems Inc. and all other similarly
situated with claims or interests in the Ampak Trust Funds as
beneficiaries for the amount of their respective claims, interest
thereon, disposition of all monies and proceeds received by it in
connection with the project, or so much thereof as shall be
necessary to satisfy all the claims of the Trust Fund
Beneficiaries, books, records and papers which will identify other
potential Trust Fund Beneficiaries to assist the Court in
determining the extent and validity of the claims of such potential
trust beneficiaries, a determination that John Esposito is liable
to T.G. Nickel and Associates, LLC, and to any other Trust Fund
Beneficiaries for the diversion of the Ampak Trust Funds, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees and such other, further and different
relief under the New York Lien Law.

TG Nickel provides construction management services to private
owners throughout the New York City metropolitan area. It entered
into a written subcontract agreement with Ampak Services for the
performance of electrical work in connection with the improvement
of real property known as 27-19 44th Drive, Long Island City, New
York, Block 00268, Lot 8, and 44-12 and 44-16 Purvis Street, Long
Island City, New York, Block 00268, Lot 20.

According to the complaint, Ampak Services breached their
Subcontract Agreement by failing to complete the work, failing to
pay the subcontractors and suppliers the monies received from TG
Nickel for work on the Project, diverting Trust Fund monies for
non-Trust Fund purposes in violation of the New York Lien Law,
falsifying Ampak Services' Waivers and failing to be properly
licensed as an electrician by the City of New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur J. Semetis, Esq.
      Shannon P. Gallagher, Esq.
      ARTHUR J. SEMETIS P.C.
      286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 557-5055


ANTERO RESOURCES: Mineral Rights Owners' Suit Partially Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned FFREY T. BOND, Plaintiff, v. ANTERO RESOURCES
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-14 (S.D.
Ohio).

This putative class action was brought by mineral rights owners on
behalf of three subclasses of Plaintiffs who have entered into
leases with the Defendant for the production of oil and gas.
Relevant here, the Plaintiffs allege in Count Four of the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint that the Defendant breached the
leases by improperly deducting natural gas transportation charges
from their royalty payments.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss that portion of Count Four.

The Defendant contends that all of the identified leases and their
respective Market Enhancement clauses specifically and
unambiguously authorize the transportation charges the Plaintiffs
challenge because they resulted in an increase in the value of the
product.  The Plaintiffs counter that the market enhancement
clauses limit the Defendant's right to deduct transportation costs.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant improperly deducted
transportation charges from their royalty payments.

Subclass 1

The Market Enhancement clause for Subclass 1 distinguishes between
pre-production costs and post-production costs.

The Second Amended Complaint expressly provides that the increase
in price is derived from moving the natural gas to markets with
better prices. Thus, the Plaintiff's claim raises only the narrow
question of whether the cost deduction was allowable in the first
instance. Because the deduction at issue is permitted under the
plain language of the contract, the Partial Motion to Dismiss as it
applies to this claim is granted.

Subclasses 2 and 3

The Market Enhancement clause applicable to Subclasses 2 and 3 is
substantially the same in that it disallows the deduction from the
Plaintiffs' royalties particular costs, such as producing,
gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing,
processing, transporting, and marketing.  

Although the contract language for Subclasses 2 and 3 introduces a
third-party requirement not present in the language for Subclass 1,
it likewise allows the Defendant to deduct costs from the
Plaintiffs' royalties if those costs enhance the value of the
marketable gas. As pled, the Plaintiffs claim does not raise the
factual question of whether the transportation costs were indeed
incurred by a third party, but whether the cost deduction was
permitted.  The Partial Motion to Dismiss as it applies to this
claim is likewise granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 28, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7e964zp from
Leagle.com.

Jeffrey T Bond, Kerri Bond & Schmidt Family Enterprises, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Warner DeWitt Mendenhall --
warnermendenhall@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Warner Mendenhall,
Inc. & Larry D. Shenise.

Antero Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by William
Glover Porter, II -- wgporter@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Ilya Batikov -- ibatikov@vorys.com, Vorys, Sater, Seymour
and Pease LLP, Kara Marie Mundy -- kmmundy@vorys.com -- Vorys,
Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP & Peter A. Lusenhop --
palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ARSTRAT LLC: Abdul-Rahman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zainab Abdul-Rahman filed a class action against Arstrat, LLC
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is
styled as Zainab Abdul-Rahman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arstrat, LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04115 (E.D. N.Y., July 19,
2018).

Arstrat, LLC is a debt collection agency in Houston, TX.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BENTLEY SYSTEMS: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bentley Systems,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bentley Systems, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06606
(S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Bentley Systems, Incorporated, is an American-based software
development company that develops, manufactures, licenses, sells
and supports computer software and services for the design,
construction, and operation of infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BG PERSONNEL: Ryan Suit Remanded Action to Florida State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KRYSTLE RYAN, the Plaintiff, v. BG
PERSONNEL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02239-SDM-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order on July
26, 2018, granting a motion to remand the action to the Circuit
Court for Hillsborough County, a result compelled by the
defendant's argument and preferred by the plaintiff.  The clerk was
directed to terminate the pending motions and to close the district
court case.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter in May 2018, the Plaintiff
sought certification of these consumers class and subclass:

National Class:

   "all natural persons in the United States who (1) applied to
   work for Defendant; (2) were the subject of a consumer report
   that was procured by Defendant from a consumer reporting
   agency (3) to whom Defendant relied upon the disclosure and
   authorization forms procuring that report; (4) within five
   years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class
   List is prepared.

The Plaintiff in the alternative asked the Court to certify a
Florida sub-class comprised of the following class of consumers:

Florida Sub-Class:

   "all natural persons in the United States who (1) applied to
   work for Defendant; (2) were the subject of a consumer report
   that was procured by Defendant from a consumer reporting
   agency (3) to whom Defendant relied upon the disclosure and
   authorization forms before procuring that report; (4) within
   five years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date the
   Class List is prepared.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rs9yigng

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CALIFORNIA WINE: Faces "Bachar" Class Action in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Wine
Merchant Inc.  The case is styled as Joel Bachar and Melissa
Zimmerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. California Wine Merchant Inc. a California
Corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18568265 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 20, 2018).

The lawsuit is a Non Exempt Complaint, according to the case
docket.

California Wine Merchant Inc. is a wine bar & retail shop for
specialty California bottles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Neilson, Esq.
   Law Offices of Andrew Neilson
   109 Geary Street
   Fourth Floor, San Francisco
   CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 462-6200   
   Fax: (415) 982-5130



CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising under the Americans with
Disabilities Act has been filed against Capstone Associated
Services, LTD.  The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Capstone Associated Services, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06604 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

Capstone Associated Services, Ltd. provides captive insurance and
alternative risk planning services to middle market companies in
the United States and the Caribbean. The company's range of work
extends from an initial analysis and preparation of a feasibility
study to the maintenance of the insurers ongoing operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

CARE AMBULANCE: Sacks Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Sacks filed a class action lawsuit against Care Ambulance
Service, Inc. for breach of contract.  The case is styled as Jerry
Sacks, as the executor of the Estate of Sylvia S. Sacks,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Care Ambulance Service, Inc., a California corporation and DOES
1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01274 (C.D. Cal.,
July 23, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Recovery
Medicare.

Care Ambulance Service provides ambulance transport and 9-1-1
response services providing basic life support and critical care
for patients in Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange counties in
California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

CARLYLE CATERING: Faces Sypert ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlyle Catering of Long Island, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The
case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carlyle Catering of Long
Island, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06519 (S.D. N.Y., July
19, 2018).

Carlyle Catering of Long Island offers elegant venues, restaurants
and personalized catering options for weddings, corporate events
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal




CBOE GLOBAL: Projection Capital Alleges VIX Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECTION CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.,
CBOE HOLDINGS, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, CHICAGO BOARD
OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC., and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04901 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2018), seeks damages arising out
of Defendants' unlawful scheme to manipulate the price of financial
instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility
Index.

The VIX is widely known as the U.S. stock market's "fear gauge," in
that it seeks to measure the expected volatility of the S&P 500.
Defendants here include the CBOE Global Markets, Inc., CBOE Futures
Exchange, LLC, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
Defendants' scheme violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
          ESBROOK LAW LLC
          161 N. Clark, Floor 16
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 319 7680
          E-mail: christopher.esbrook@esbrooklaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Ave., 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 201 2845
          Facsimile: (212) 201 2858
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com


CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Grigoryan Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Grigoryan filed a class action lawsuit against Cemex
Construction Materials Pacific, LLC asserting labor law violations.
The case is styled as Karen Grigoryan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cemex Construction
Materials Pacific, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Cemex, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, Max Pina an individual and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06302
(C.D. Cal., July 20, 2018).

Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC is engaged in the
manufacturing and sale of ready mix concrete. The company was
incorporated in 2008 and is based in San Francisco, California.
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Ross Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
MARCELLOUS ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC.; CHEVRON
CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION; and
VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04379-MEJ (N.D. Cal., July 18, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and putative Class and
Collective members for all hours worked; failed to pay minimum wage
for all hours worked; failed to pay overtime and double time wages;
failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and putative Class members
to take meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by law and
pay premium compensation for missed breaks; failed to reimburse
business expenditures; failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and failed to timely pay wages upon the termination of
employment, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class and Collective are
current and former non-exempt, hourly Safety Attendants and Safety
Foremen, who worked for Defendants throughout the United States,
including but not limited to California. These employees provide
support for Defendants' operations, including but not limited to
safety supporting operations and protocols, and identifying,
mitigating, and reporting potential safety hazards at Defendants'
worksites.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes and Collective:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105


CHEZ VOUS OFF: Sypert Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chez Vous Off Premise
Caterers, Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chez Vous
Off Premise Caterers, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06520-VEC
(S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Chez Vous Off Premise Caterers, Inc. provides catering for events
of all sizes, party rentals, and event planning in the tri-state
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CHUBBIES INC: Faces Martinez ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chubbies, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Chubbies, Inc. doing business as: Chubbiesshorts.com, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04174 (E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Chubbies Inc., doing business as Chubbies, manufactures and sells
shorts for men in the United States and internationally. It serves
customers online. The company was founded in 2011 and is based in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CHURN LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act has been filed against Churn LLC. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Churn LLC doing business
as: Van Leeuwen Artisan Ice Cream, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04164 (E.D. N.Y., July 21, 2018).

Churn LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


COLONIAL PENN: Faces TCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Tynya Faye Russell, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00324 (S.D. Ala., July 20, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company is a Philadelphia-based life
insurance company, founded by philanthropist and AARP co-founder
Leonard Davis, owned by CNO Financial Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Earl P. Underwood , Jr., Esq.
   Underwood & Riemer, PC
   21 South Section Street
   Fairhope, AL 36532
   Tel: (251) 990-5558
   Fax: (251) 990-0626
   Email: epunderwood@gmail.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Stern Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Rochel Stern, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04122 (E.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. was formerly known as ER Solutions, Inc. and
changed the name to Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. in November,
2011.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREED BOUTIQUE: Olsen Class Action Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
An Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit has been
filed against Creed Boutique LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J.
Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Creed Boutique LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06569 (S.D. N.Y., July 20, 2018).

Creed is the world's only privately held luxury fragrance dynasty
since 1760.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

CVS PHARMACY: Ferguson Files Suit Over False Ad
-----------------------------------------------
Les Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01529 (S.D.
Calif., July 5, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the
Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices in the
marketing and sale of Algal-900 DHA in violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

Algal 900 DHA is a dietary supplement.  The Plaintiff Les Ferguson
is a resident of San Diego County, California.  During the Class
Period, Plaintiff purchased Algal-900 DHA for personal use from a
CVS retail location in San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is accusing the company of deceptively marketing the
dietary supplement as "clinically shown to improve memory," even
though the purported effects of the supplement are alleged to be
false.

The Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode
Island. CVS is a public company engaged in the retail sale of
prescription drugs, supplements, and general merchandise. It has
approximately 9,800 retail locations in the United States. CVS also
sells products online at www.cvs.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      550 West C St., Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101-3593
      Tel: (619) 238-1333
      Fax: (619) 238-5425

CVS PHARMACY: Sells Bogus Dietary Supplements
---------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that CVS
Pharmacy sells Algal-900 DHA dietary supplement with bogus claims
that it is "clinically shown to improve memory" and reduce errors
by "50 percent or more" in an "episodic memory test," consumers say
in a federal class action.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
550 West C. St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101-3593
Tel: (619) 238-1333
Fax: (619) 238-5425


DAVEY TREE: Court Denies Arbitration in Tree Trimmers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings in
the case captioned JOSE DIAZ HERMOSILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-00393-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendants are Ohio corporations that perform professional tree
services on public works projects in Santa Clara County. The
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Tree Trimmers.  The
Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action related to wage and hour
violations, including a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cause
of action.

The Defendants filed the motion to compel arbitration of all causes
of action except the PAGA cause of action and to stay proceedings
of the PAGA cause of action.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have not established that
the Plaintiffs agreed to the Arbitration Agreement. The Plaintiffs
also argue that the arbitration clause in the employment
application is unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

Generally, under California law, the essential elements for a
contract are (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent;
(3) a lawful object; and (4) sufficient cause or consideration.

Whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate in the instant case
turns on the second factor, whether the Plaintiffs consented to (1)
the arbitration clause in the employment application and (2) the
Arbitration Agreement.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants did not sign the
employment applications. The Plaintiffs cite no authority for the
proposition that both parties must sign an arbitration agreement
for it to be binding. To the contrary, mutual assent may be
manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct and acceptance
of contract terms may be implied through action or inaction.

In the arbitration context, while the Federal Arbitration Act
authorizes the court to enforce only written agreements to
arbitration, it does not require the written agreements to be
signed. Thus, a writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need
not be signed by both parties in order to be upheld as a binding
arbitration agreement.

Accordingly, the Court thus finds that the arbitration clause in
the employment applications created a valid agreement to
arbitrate.

Unlike the employment applications, the Plaintiffs did not sign the
Arbitration Agreement. Thus, the Court must assess whether the
Plaintiffs manifested consent in some other way. Mutual assent may
be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct.

Here, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs were provided a
copy of Davey's employee handbook and arbitration agreement during
orientation and again when the handbook was revised in December
2016. In support of this contention, the Defendants offer Barton's
declaration, in which Barton states that when he conducted new
employee orientation, he provided new employees copies of various
Company policies, including the employee handbook and arbitration
agreement. He also gave new employees a general overview of the
Company's policies and handbook. Swan's declaration makes largely
the same point: that new employees receive copies of the
Arbitration Agreement during orientation. The Defendants argue that
the Plaintiffs manifested their consent to the Arbitration
Agreement by submitting their employment applications, accepting
employment, accepting wages, and failing to opt out.

The Court finds that in the circumstances of this case, the
Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiffs consented to the
Arbitration Agreement. First, there is a factual dispute as to
whether the Defendants ever provided the Plaintiffs copies of the
Arbitration Agreement. The Defendants submit two declarations
stating that new employees are given the Arbitration Agreement as
part of new employee orientation. The Plaintiffs submit two
declarations saying the opposite.

The Defendants do not offer any type of documentation to support
their contention that The Plaintiffs actually received the
Arbitration Agreement, such as a signed or initialed acknowledgment
that the Plaintiffs received any particular policies or agreements
or any other kind of personnel record. Nor do the Defendants offer
testimony from any other employee who actually received the
Arbitration Agreement, which would support Defendants' assertion
that the Arbitration Agreement is routinely distributed at
orientation. As such, the evidence about whether the Plaintiffs
ever received the Arbitration Agreement is evenly balanced.

Similarly, the evidence about whether the Defendants mentioned the
Arbitration Agreement during new employee orientation is also
conflicting. Barton states that he gives new employees an overview
of company policies but does not expressly say that he discusses
the Arbitration Agreement.

The Plaintiffs state that neither Barton nor anyone else discussed
the Arbitration Agreement with them.  

Thus, the evidence about whether the Defendants ever gave the
Plaintiffs a physical copy of the Arbitration Agreement or
discussed the Arbitration Agreement with the Plaintiffs is evenly
split.

The Court stresses that its finding is specific to the facts of
this case. The Court does not broadly hold that employers must
explain the nuances of each contract to each employee, nor does the
Court hold that employers must translate each contract into each of
its employees' native languages. Nor does the Court suggest that
the Defendants had some special obligation to highlight the
Arbitration Agreement because it was an agreement to arbitrate, as
opposed to any other type of contract

Rather, the Court simply finds that the Defendants failed to
establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate in the
circumstances here, where the Defendants employ primarily
Spanish-speaking employees, provided an English-language
Arbitration Agreement to those Spanish-speaking employees, and did
nothing to alert the employees of the contractual nature of the
agreement, where there is a dispute as to whether the Plaintiffs
even received the Arbitration Agreement, and where the Plaintiffs
denied actual knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement. As such, the
Arbitration Agreement cannot be enforced against the Plaintiffs.
The motion to compel arbitration is therefore denied insofar as it
is based on the Arbitration Agreement.

Thus, the only valid agreement to arbitrate was the arbitration
clause contained in the employment application.

Whether the Employment Application Arbitration Clause is
Unconscionable

The FAA's savings clause allows courts to refuse to enforce
arbitration agreements 'upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract. The clause 'permits
agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by generally applicable
contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
Here, the Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration clause in the
employment applications is unconscionable.  

Under California law, a state court may refuse to enforce a
provision of a contract if it finds that the provision was
unconscionable at the time it was made.

Procedural Unconscionability

Unconscionability analysis begins with an inquiry into whether the
contract is one of adhesion.

The Court finds that the employment application is a contract of
adhesion. First, there was clearly a significant imbalance in
bargaining power between the Defendants and Plaintiffs. The Davey
Tree Expert Company is a publicly traded corporation that employs
more than 7,000 employees and generates hundreds of millions of
dollars in revenue each year while the Plaintiffs are manual
laborers. The arbitration clause was imposed and drafted by the
party of superior bargaining strength and relegated to the the
Plaintiffs only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject
it.

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs have established at
least some degree of procedural unconscionability.

Other Signs of Procedural Unconscionability: Language Barrier and
Limited Time to Review

Here, the Court finds that the employment application's use of an
English-language arbitration provision without any translation to
Spanish, particularly in an industry and in a location where a
large percentage of the workforce is likely to be primarily
Spanish-speaking, in circumstances where the applicant has limited
time to review the agreement or seek translation, contributes to
the procedural unconscionability of the arbitration clause.

Other Signs of Procedural Unconscionability: Surprise

The Plaintiffs in the instant case also make several arguments
related to surprise. For example, the Plaintiffs contend that there
was no way for Plaintiffs to suspect that, by merely applying for
the job, they would be waiving their right to a jury, waiving their
appellate rights, or agreeing to mandatory arbitration of their
individual claims. The Plaintiffs are correct that the arbitration
clause in the employment application, unlike many arbitration
agreements, does not explain what arbitration is and does not
explain that agreeing to arbitration involves giving up the
constitutional right to a jury trial. The arbitration clause
provides, in full: In addition, all claims related to my employment
will be resolved through arbitration pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act and under the rules of the American Arbitration
Association.

The Court concludes that there was a moderate level of procedural
unconscionability in the employment application arbitration clause.


Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an
agreement's actual terms and to assessments of whether they are
overly harsh or one-sided.

The Plaintiffs first argue that the job application imposes a
six-month statute of limitations for claims brought by an employee
against Davey but not for claims brought by Davey against the
employee.

Second, a six-month limitations period is significantly shorter
than the statutory limitations period for the types of wage and
hour claims asserted in the instant case, which is three or four
years. This term is substantively unconscionable for two reasons.
First, the term only limits the time in which employees may bring
claims against Defendants; it does not limit the time in which the
Defendants may bring claims against employees. The Ninth Circuit
and the California Court of Appeal have held that non-mutual
shortening of limitations periods is substantively unconscionable.


Accordingly, the Court finds that the arbitration clause in the
employment application is substantively unconscionable because it
contains a non-mutual shortening of the limitations period for
employees' claims to six months. The California Court of Appeal has
recognized that such a significant shortening of the limitations
period, especially "in the context of statutory wage and hour
claims, is substantively unconscionable because it restricts
employees' statutory rights.

Severability

Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at
least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part,
the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.

Here, the only substantively unconscionable aspect of the
employment application arbitration clause is the term that imposes
a six-month limitations period on employees' claims. This term can
be severed without affecting the remainder of the paragraph.
Moreover, the Court finds that the limitations period term is
collateral to the main purpose of the arbitration clause which is
to require arbitration of disputes. As a result, once the
limitations period term is removed, the employment application
arbitration term is substantively conscionable, and thus
enforceable.

The Court thus grants the motion to compel arbitration of the first
six claims of the complaint under the terms provided in the
arbitration clause of the employment application once the six-month
limitations period term is severed from the arbitration clause.

The Court grants the motion to compel arbitration of Claims 1-6
insofar as the motion to compel is based on the employment
application arbitration clause, once the six-month limitations
period term is excised. The Court denies the motion to compel
arbitration insofar as it is based on the Arbitration Agreement.
The Court grants the motion to stay the PAGA claim pending
arbitration of the other claims. The parties shall notify the Court
within seven days of the conclusion of the arbitration
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yarjcj8k from Leagle.com

Jose Diaz Hermosillo & Oscar Diaz Hermosillo, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel Alfredo Menendez , Law Office of Daniel A.
Menendez, Daniel Velton -- dvelton@vzfirm.com -- Velton Zegelman PC
& Kevin R. Allen -- kallen@vzfirm.com -- Velton Zegelman PC.

Davey Tree Surgery Company & The Davey Tree Expert Company,
Defendants, represented by Michael E. Brewer --
michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker & McKenzie LLP.

DENONE LLC: Underpays Denny's Servers, Harrison Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Harrison on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. DenOne,
LLC, an Ohio corporation; and Erick Martinez, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01638-DCN (N.D. Ohio, July 17, 2018), seeks to recover
all earned minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate a chain
of Denny's restaurants.  The Defendants have a policy or practice
of paying their employee servers sub-minimum hourly wages under the
tip-credit provisions of the FLSA. The Defendants violated the FLSA
by paying servers sub-minimum, tip-credit wages without informing
them of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, Arizona 85060
          Telephone AZ: (480) 382 5176
          Telephone OH: (216) 395 4226
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525 8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642 5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, Howell Says
------------------------------------------------
Caneisha Howell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Drybar Holdings LLC, and Does One
through Ten, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV331580 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 18, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to pay reporting time
pay in violation of the mandatory requirements of sections 204,
218.5, and 1198 of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was routinely denied
proper compensation for reporting time pay. On a frequent basis,
Plaintiff was scheduled for work, reported to work, and after less
than half of the scheduled day’s work, she was asked to return
home. The Plaintiff was not provided with reporting time for each
workday that she was dismissed though scheduled for work.

The Defendant is a California-based chain of salons that solely
provide hair styling service, also known as "blowouts." According
to Defendant's websites, Defendant operates 30 locations in
California. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's locations in Palo
Alto and San Jose. Plaintiff was paid hourly. At its locations,
Defendant employs non-exempt workers to perform various activities,
including without limitation, styling, cashiering, bartending, and
other general customer service activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (818) 650 8077
          Facsimile: (818) 301 5151
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com


EL POLLO: Judge Grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
July 3, 2018, Judge David O. Carter of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class in a securities fraud action against
Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") and certain of its officers and directors. Turocy, et
al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings Inc. et al., No. 8:15-cv-01343 (C.D.
Cal. July 3, 2018). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") by making false and misleading statements that
allegedly buried the impact of new menu changes on sales and
restaurant traffic and propped up the restaurant's stock price,
resulting in a 20 percent stock drop when the Company later
disclosed lower sales growth. Plaintiffs further allege that
certain individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange
Act through insider sales of over $129 million in the Company's
stock while in possession of non-public information concerning the
Company's sale trends. Shearman & Sterling previously wrote about
the Court's decision last summer denying defendants' motion to
dismiss. See Shearman & Sterling LLP, Central District of
California Denies Motion To Dismiss Putative Securities Class
Action Against El Pollo Loco Restaurant Chain, Finding Plaintiffs'
Allegations Purportedly Based On Confidential Witnesses Taken
Together Raised Strong Inference Of Scienter, Need-To-Know
Litigation Weekly, Aug. 15, 2017.

On December 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed their class certification
motion in which they sought to (i) certify the action as a class
action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), (ii) appoint certain plaintiffs as class
representatives, and (iii) appoint class counsel. Defendants
opposed the motion for class certification only as to the
appointment of certain proposed class representatives and as to
plaintiffs' claims of insider trading under Section 20A.
Accordingly, the Court granted at the outset plaintiffs' class
certification motion for the proposed class for the Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) claims.

The Court then evaluated the class certification motion for the
Section 20A claim. Section 20A of the Exchange Act provides a
private right of action to any person who traded "securities of the
same class" "contemporaneously" with an insider trader, and the
claim must be predicated on a separate violation of the securities
laws and regulations. In opposing plaintiffs' motion, defendants
argued that plaintiffs could not meet the "numerosity" requirement
of Rule 23(a) because the Section 20A defendants allegedly sold
their stock directly to a global investment banking firm in a
private Rule 144A transaction. In particular, defendants argued
that plaintiffs could not have traded "contemporaneously" with
those defendants, as required under Section 20A, and therefore did
not suffer any economic injury because they were not parties to the
private transaction. The Court rejected defendants' argument,
holding that in the class certification context, "plaintiffs
asserting a Section 20A claim predicated on a Section 10(b)
violation, 'need [not] allege or show more than purchase(s) of a
security that is actively traded in an efficient market made
contemporaneous with a sale by an insider in possession of
material, non-public information.'" While observing that "there is
no law binding on this Court as to what constitutes
'contemporaneous' trading," the Court found that the
contemporaneous trading requirement is "temporal," -- which means
"existing, occurring or originating during the same time"
-- and further "is not restricted based on the manner in which a
defendant decides to structure its insider trades," including
private transactions. The Court further found that "there is no
binding authority suggesting that Congress, in enacting Section
20A, restricted the availability of Section 20A to those investors
who could have possibly traded with an insider." The Court then
noted that here, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged contemporaneous
trading for purposes of certifying a class by alleging that
proposed class representatives purchased the Company's common
stock, that the common stock was actively traded in an efficient
market, that the Section 20A defendants made their alleged insider
trades on the same day that putative class members made stock
purchases, and that those defendants possessed and failed to
disclose information about the cause of the Company's declining
sales trends. Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged the minimum of what is required to demonstrate
contemporaneous trading for the purposes of certifying a class, and
held that plaintiffs satisfied all of the Rule 23 elements as to
their Section 20A claim.

The Court then considered defendants' argument that two of the
proposed lead plaintiffs were atypical because they had unique
defenses that would become the focus of the litigation.
Specifically, defendants argued that these two individuals, based
on responses during their respective depositions, expressed a view
that the Company's stock price was still inflated following the
Company's corrective disclosure, and that they also made "unusual"
purchases of the Company's stock after the date of the corrective
disclosure. These facts, according to defendants, subjected those
two proposed lead plaintiffs to unique loss causation and
materiality defenses that would not be typical of putative class
members. But the Court agreed with plaintiffs' argument that those
individuals are typical of the class and that, as laypersons with
no expert knowledge concerning stock price inflation as it relates
to loss causation, plaintiffs will rely on experts during trial to
determine these issues. The Court also agreed that it was
unreasonable to expect those individuals to determine in the middle
of a deposition whether the stock was artificially inflated because
loss causation is often a highly contentious and complicated issue.
Additionally, the Court found that although post-disclosure
purchases may present typicality issues, the stock purchases at
issue were not unusual because one of these individuals purchased
additional shares to lower his average cost while the other
purchased shares hoping the stock would perform better after the
decline in price. As such, the Court found that these two proposed
lead plaintiffs met the typicality requirement under Rule 23(a) and
approved their appointment as class representatives.

Finally, the Court addressed defendants' argument that a third
proposed class representative would not be an adequate class
representative because he works 50-60 hours per week as a
practicing and teaching physician and medical researcher and stated
that he would need six months' lead time to attend litigation
proceedings in California. The Court found that working 50-60 hours
per week is not an unusual or disqualifying responsibility for a
lead plaintiff, and also found that this individual has already
demonstrated that he is available and engaged to "vigorously
litigate the action" through to the end. [GN]

ENERGY ENTERPRISES:  Naiman Sues for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA INC.; CANOPY ENERGY CALIFORNIA.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
3:18-cv-04439 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Energy Enterprises USA Inc. is a company engaged in the marketing
and selling of solar energy services.  Canopy Energy California is
a company engaged in the marketing and selling of solar energy
services.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Ali Alikhani Alleges Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ali Alikhani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05983-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal., July 9,
2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The
case was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer and referred to
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax
Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ann Wagner, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue Suite 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: elizabeth@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: CBDF's Demolition to Proceed Amid Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that
after more than four years, Escambia County's explosion-damaged
Central Booking and Detention Facility may finally be coming down.

The CBDF, a roughly 700-bed detention facility on West Leonard
Street, was condemned after natural gas explosion April 30, 2014.
The building has sat vacant ever since, its demolition stalled by
an ongoing class action lawsuit.

However, a judge approved Escambia County's motion to proceed with
the building's demolition last month, and the county is now
soliciting bids for a company to work do the work until July 23.

Leveling the building will help pave the way for the county to move
forward with a new, $132 million jail, stormwater structures and a
retention pond. The county was awarded a Federal Emergency
Management Administration grant to help fund the demolition of the
CBDF, and the county's motion to the court noted that FEMA funds
are often only available for limited periods of time.

Until recently, the demolition had been held up by a class action
suit involving roughly 670 inmates, jail employees and first
responders who were affected by the blast. Severe flooding April 29
and 30, 2014, caused the CBDF's basement to fill with stormwater.
Gas-powered dryers in the basement detached from their gas lines
and floated to the ceiling, and natural gas continued flowing into
the basement and eventually ignited.

The resulting blast killed two people, paralyzed another and caused
less serious injuries to approximately 180 others.

According to court filings, the court approved a $17.5 million
class action settlement agreement on Nov. 8, 2017, that is to be
divided among the affected parties and their families.

The agreement also provided for a 120-day discovery period to allow
parties a last chance to conduct tests and gather evidence at the
CBDF site.

That discovery period ended May 9, and overall recovery efforts are
moving forward.

On Aug. 10, 2017, the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners
voted to select Whitesell-Green/Caddell as the design-build entity
that will oversee building a new jail facility. It is expected to
be complete in 2020.

In regard to the lawsuit settlement, there is a fairness hearing
scheduled for Feb. 11, 2019, to determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

Kevin Robinson can be reached at krobinson4@pnj.com and
850-435-8527.
[GN]

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP has filed a class action on behalf of shareholders of
Express Scripts Holding Company ("Express Scripts") (NASDAQ: ESRX)
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Express Scripts by Cigna Corporation ("Cigna").  The
class action was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.

On March 8, 2018, Express Scripts and Cigna issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into a definitive
agreement pursuant to which Cigna and Express Scripts will be
combined under a new holding company, New Cigna, which will be
renamed "Cigna Corporation" immediately after the merger ("Proposed
Transaction"). Under the terms of the agreement, Express Scripts
shareholders will receive 0.2434 of a share of New Cigna common
stock and $48.75 in cash for each Express Scripts common share
held.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Express Scripts shareholders. The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud. The complaint further alleges that in an
attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the
defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading Registration
Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Express Scripts shareholders' ability to make an
informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty (60) days from today. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel
of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

         Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
         WeissLaw LLP
         Telephone: 888.593.4771
         Email: stockinfo@weisslawllp.com
                jrubin@weisslawllp.com [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Cambridge Analytica Scandal Class Actions Pile Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Asher Hamilton, writing for Business Insider, reports that
advocacy group Fair Vote is assembling a class action suit against
Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

Fair Vote has 84 claimants so far, but 1.1 million British citizens
were affected by the scandal and would potentially be eligible for
compensation, according to the group.

Fair Vote runs on public donations and its self-stated aim is to
tackle the issues of data misuse, voter manipulation and lack of
transparency in elections.

It began its class action in April, after news first broke that
millions of people's Facebook information had been handed to
political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, and potentially used to
influence their votes.

The group said the UK's privacy watchdog decision on July 11 to
fine Facebook the maximum penalty of GBP500,000 for breaching data
protection laws strengthened its claim.

For a company as large as Facebook, GBP500,000 is just a slap on
the wrist.

But, as the Fair Vote action shows, the penalty may just be the tip
of the iceberg.

Fair Vote's director, Kyle Taylor, told Business Insider that he
was worried that Facebook wouldn't face a sufficiently large
penalty. Since new European data protection laws, known as the
GDPR, came into force in May, companies face much bigger penalties
for mishandling data. The GBP500,000 fine from the ICO was the
maximum penalty prior to GDPR.

"My initial thinking was because the breach happened before GDPR
there was no way that there would be a significant enough
punishment for Facebook," Mr. Taylor said.

"For large companies like this it's really important I think that
the punishment fits the crime. And the best way that I think that
you can do that with a private company is for individuals who have
been negatively affected by that company to work together to make
sure that they understand that they can't abuse their users."

People are able to check whether their data was scraped and join
the class action via Fair Vote UK's website.

British law firm Leigh Day is also planning a class action suit
Data protection lawyer Sean Humber -- shumber@leighday.co.uk --
from British law firm Leigh Day said users whose data was harvested
have good claims for compensation against Facebook.

"The ICO's intention to fine Facebook the absolute maximum amount
possible confirms the seriousness of their failings," he said.
"Users had a right to expect Facebook to operate in a transparent
way and keep their information safe.

"This clearly did not happen and those affected are now entitled to
know exactly what happened to their information as well as
compensation for this misuse. Facebook could easily be facing a
bill running into the hundreds of millions of pounds."

Humber added that hundreds of millions of pounds might actually be
a conservative figure. "The level of compensation is likely to be
dependent on quite what then happened to that information," he
said.

He says that if the data was used for political purposes, for
example during the Brexit referendum, that would constitute a
particularly serious breach, and could mean individual claims could
possibly run into the thousands of pounds. With 1.1 million UK
citizens affected by the breach, this goes well beyond hundreds of
millions.

Mr. Humber said that further investigation is needed to ascertain
just what happened to the scraped data and where it is now. He said
it is "extremely likely" that Leigh Day will be launching its own
class action on behalf of those affected in due course.

Neither would be the first class action Facebook is fighting over
this issue. Lawyers in the US and UK launched a class action
lawsuit in April, alleging Facebook failed to protect user
information. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: May Face Privacy Breach Class Action in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rabe, writing for news.com.au, reports that Facebook could face
a class action over an alleged breach of Australian privacy laws in
the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The Australian Information Commission in April confirmed it was
investigating the social media empire after revelations more than
300,000 people could have had their personal data exposed to
Cambridge Analytica.

Litigation funding provider IMF Bentham on July 10 said it was
funding a separate representative complaint to the Australian
privacy watchdog.

The company -- which is listed on the Australian stock exchange
-- floated the possibility of a class action depending on the
commission's future findings.

"IMF will determine at a later stage if it will fund any class
action against the respondents arising from the alleged breaches of
the Australian privacy principles," the company said in a
statement.

It said people who received a message from Facebook stating their
information had been shared with Cambridge Analytica were eligible
to participate in the proposed class action.

They needed to have a personal account used in Australia between
2010 and 2015, IMF Bentham said.

Facebook has been contacted for comment. [GN]

FAMOUS DAVE'S: Broad Files Request for Judicial Intervention
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Stephanie Broad, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Famous
Dave's Ribs Inc., Defendant, Case No. 508082/2018, (N.Y. Sup.,
April 20, 2018), filed a request for judicial intervention on April
25, 2018, with a request for decision for order on motion on May
24, 2018.

Broad seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
other damages under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Defendant applied a tip credit without providing a
notification of the tipped minimum wage rate, tip credit provisions
or of their intent to apply a tip credit, says the complaint.

Famous Dave's operates a restaurant located at 1060 Corporate
Drive, Westbury, NY 11590. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375

Defendants are represented by:

     FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     666 Old Country Rd., Ste. 605
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 745-9000
     Fax: (516) 908-3930


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Farmland Partners Inc. (NYSE:FPI) securities
between May 9, 2017 and July 10, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until September 10, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:   (i) Farmland Partners
artificially increased its revenues by making loans to related
party tenants; (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Farmland Partners
Class Period revenues were overstated; and (iii) as a result,
Farmland Partners public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  

On July 11, 2018, Rota Fortunae published an online report alleging
that Farmland artificially increased revenues by making loans to
related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent
and that 30% of [Farmlands] 2017 earnings could be made-up.  The
report further stated that Farmland neglected to disclose that the
majority of its loans have been made to two members of the
management team.  On this news, the price of Farmland Partners
common stock fell $3.37, or 38.96%, to close at $5.28 on July 11,
2018, and the price of Farmland Partners Series B preferred stock
fell $6.08, or 24.75%, to close at $18.49 on July 11, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Farmland securities during
the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters please
contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telphone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Farmland Partners Inc. ("Farmland" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FPI) (NYSE:FPI.B) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, District
of Colorado, and docketed under index 18-cv-01771, is on behalf of
a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Farmland Partners securities between May 9, 2017,
through July 10, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Farmland securities from May
9, 2017, to July 10, 2018, you have until September 10, 2018, to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Farmland Partners is an internally managed real estate company that
owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and
makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. Farmland
purports to own or have under contract over 166,000 acres in 17
states.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Farmland Partners artificially
increased its revenues by making loans to related party tenants;
(ii) as a result of the foregoing, Farmland Partners' Class Period
revenues were overstated; and (iii) as a result, Farmland Partners'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 11, 2018, Rota Fortunae published an online report alleging
that Farmland artificially increased revenues "by making loans to
related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent"
and that "30% of [Farmland's] 2017 earnings could be made-up."  The
report further stated that Farmland "neglected to disclose that the
majority of its loans have been made to two members of the
management team."

On this news, the price of Farmland Partners common stock fell
$3.37, or 38.96%, to close at $5.28 on July 11, 2018, and the price
of Farmland Partners Series B preferred stock fell $6.08, or
24.75%, to close at $18.49 on July 11, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members.

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on July 11, 2018, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against Farmland Partners, Inc. (NYSE:FPI).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 9, 2017 through July 10, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Farmland
Partners, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than Monday, September 10,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please:

         Robin Hester,Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Farmland Partners Inc. ("Farmland"
or "Company") (NYSE:FPI) (NYSE:FPI.B) on behalf of investors that
acquired Farmland securities between May 9, 2017 and July 10, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking recovery of damages for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors have
until September 10, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Farmland Partners artificially
increased its revenues by making loans to related party tenants;
and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Farmland Partners' Class
Period revenues were overstated.

On July 11, 2018, Rota Fortunae published an online report alleging
that Farmland artificially increased revenues "by making loans to
related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent"
and that "30% of [Farmland's] 2017 earnings could be made-up." The
report further stated that Farmland "neglected to disclose that the
majority of its loans have been made to two members of the
management team." On this news, shares of Farmland fell from $8.65
on July 10, 2018 to $5.28 on July 11, 2018 (a decline of $3.37, or
approximately 39%).

If you acquired shares of Farmland during the Class Period and
would like more information about the lawsuit or about claims that
you may have, you may;

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: telrod@kmllp.com [GN]

FCOIN: Class Action Mulled Over Exchange Price Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anirudh VK, writing for AMBCRYPTO, reports that FCoin exchange has
been called out as a scam, with a building community on Reddit
claiming accusations of bot trading and price manipulation. This
comes after the exchange was accused of clogging the Ethereum [ETH]
network and driving up GAS prices.

The accusations come from user 'ltcisking' on Reddit, who claims to
have traded on the exchange and noticed suspicious activity. Clear
evidence of 'rampant levels of botting' was observed by the user on
the FCoin [FT]-USD Tether [USDT] trading pair.

The user stated that $6 billion in transactions conducted by bots
can be easily completed in 24 hours on just the aforementioned
pair, due to orders the size of anywhere from 5 to 20 being
conducted at a high speed.

ltcisking stated:

"Further, to ensure the ability to maintain as much FT as possible,
the price of FT is constantly manipulated by the bots. At its
current price, it is impossible to acquire enough FT to gain enough
daily rewards to offset risk."


The theory presented by the user is that this behavior is
intentional to take away supply from new entrants, which is then
combined with downward pressure to rattle holders and control the
price.

ltcisking went on to say that communication was made with the
exchange, the exchange staff and volunteers making 'no attempts to
deny accusations'. Reportedly, some of these individuals admitted
to botting issues and have said that the exchange has the potential
to be behind price manipulation.

The user ended the post by saying:

"In the US, the manipulation of asset prices and misleading
investors is considered fraud, and damaged parties are able to seek
compensatory damages through class action . . . As of now, I have
started looking for a legal team to work to file a suit against
FCoin. If you have ever traded fcoin, and have proof, please
contact me."

User ethswagholder on Reddit said:

"Such exchanges should simply be labelled as a scam and removed
from CMC, Livecoinwatch etc. CMC should really think about what
they are doing and the position of relevance they occupy. IMHO they
should at least apologize if not be tried for their role in the
bitconnect scam, BCC used to take a prime share advertising on CMC
and no doubt CMC made bank from bitconnect. Even forgetting that
they should be more responsible and exclude such scammy exchanges
and sites." [GN]

FINANCIAL CREDIT: Gilman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GILMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL CREDIT SERVICE, INC. d/b/a ARA
INC.; ASSET RECOVERY ASSOCIATES; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:18-cv-04699 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Financial Credit Service, Inc. d/b/a ARA Inc. is a corporation of
the State of Illinois, which has its principal place of business in
Villa Park, Illinois. The Company is engaged as a debt collection
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Lamonaca Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Vincent A. Lamonaca filed a class action lawsuit against
Firststates Financial Services, Corp. under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  

The case is styled as Vincent A. Lamonaca, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firststates Financial
Services, Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11829 (D. N.J., July
19, 2018).

Firststates Financial Services, Corp. offers medical billing
services in West Reading, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JAMES A. FRANCIS, Esq.
   FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
   LAND TITLE BUILDING 19TH FL.
   100 SOUTH BROAD STREET
   PHILADELPHIA,, PA 19110
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAland, reports that a new federal
class action complaint against Fiserv, Inc. was filed on July 10 in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Fiserv -- a leading
provider of technology solutions to the financial world
-- is alleged to have made calls to the class representative's cell
phone number without their consent. The Complaint–brought by
Tennessee resident Francis Woodrow– can be found here.

Although the Complaint alleges that the calls were made on behalf
of Nationwide Bank, N.A. -- presumably a Fiserv customer --
Plaintiff alleges that "Fiserv is directly liable for the calls to
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated class members because it
actively participated in every aspect of the autodialed and/or
pre-recorded calls." See Complaint. pars. 21, 23 and 28.

The class allegations are broad reaching: All persons in the United
States who received a prerecorded and/or automated call from
Fiserv, where Fiserv was attempting to contact someone other than
the Class Member.

Notably, the class action is brought by a number of well-known TCPA
class action attorneys, including Lieff Cabraser -- fresh off their
certification victory in Karpilovsky v. All Web Leads, Inc., No. 17
C 1307, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105259 (N.D. Ill. June 25,
2018)–and Alex Burke.

The debate over who is the "maker" of calls launched via technology
platforms has raged for years now in TCPAland. If Woodrow is any
indication, financial technology companies may prove to be the next
frontier in that ongoing battle.

Counsel for Fiserv, Inc. has not yet entered an appearance in the
case. [GN]

FITCH RATINGS: Squire Patton Attempts to Add Fraud, Deceit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that a Squire Patton Boggs
attorney traded barbs with a Fitch barrister during an
interlocutory hearing on the law firm's attempt to add Fraud and
Deceit charges to the class action filed against Fitch ratings
agency. The underlying action -- funded by International Litigation
Funding Partners -- alleges that Fitch gave false 'AAA' and 'AA'
ratings to certain debt instruments which led to massive investor
losses. [GN]

FLEETMATICS: Trucking Cos. File Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
A group of trucking companies has filed a class action lawsuit
against Fleetmatics, a Verizon Corporation, for breach of contract.
The case is styled as Highland Trucking LLC, Southern Armour
Freight Inc, KKs Trucking LLC, Jeb Express LLC and GAP Trucking
LLC, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Fleetmatics, a Verizon Corporation d/b/a
Verizon Connect Fleet USA LLC and Verizon Connect Fleet USA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01123-TMP (N.D. Ala., July 20, 2018).

Verizon provides one of the most popular fleet management systems
in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kimberly R Dodson, Esq.
   LAW OFFICES OF KIMBERLY R DODSON LLC
   25 County Road 262
   Hanceville, AL 35077
   Tel: (205) 252-2500
   Email: dodsonlaw@outlook.com

FLINT, MI: Court Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Owczarzak, writing for WNEM.COM, reports that thousands of
Flint residents are part of a class-action lawsuit against the
state seeking compensation in the ongoing water crisis.

Government attorneys are trying to pump the brakes on the lawsuit.

In federal court on July 11, lawyers for the state and the city of
Flint argued to have the lawsuit dismissed citing government
immunity.

"Recognition that government officials in the state of Michigan
poisoned the children and the people of Flint. They kept it secret
and then they got caught and lied about it," said
Michael Pitt, lead attorney in the class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Pitt said he is not surprised the city of Flint and the State
of Michigan are trying to get the cases dismissed.

"Today the same government officials want to be exonerated. They do
not want to be held accountable," Mr. Pitt said.

Defense attorneys for the city and the state were tight-lipped as
they entered the courtroom on July 11. During the hearing, they
argued the lawsuits are not valid, citing the state could not be
held responsible because they were unaware of what was going on.

Melissa Mays, Flint water crisis activist, is a plaintiff in the
lawsuits. She said she went to the hearing to hear how the city and
state justified their actions, or lack thereof.

"We keep hearing things that we're not poisoned. People saying it's
not as bad as you think. We had to be here to show that yes it is.
We are the ones living through it so we need to be the people that
are hurt," Ms. Mays said.

Mr. Pitt is hoping the lawsuits move forward and his clients get
what they are asking for -- acknowledgment and resources.

"We're looking at options that the people in Flint have to get the
state of Michigan to resume the responsibilities to provide people
with clean, safe water during the time the pipes are being
replaced," Mr. Pitt said.

Residents who are still reeling from the effects of the
lead-tainted water say they will continue the fight for justice.

"Them trying to dismiss our case is absurd," said Ariana Hawk,
Flint water activist.

Hawk's son was featured on the cover of Time Magazine back in
2016.

"The struggle has been so long. We have been poisoned. Our families
are hurt," Ms. Hawk said.

She went to federal court on July 11 to hear arguments by defense
attorneys involved in a dozen consolidated class action lawsuits.

Todd Russell Perkins, defense attorney for former Flint emergency
manager Darnell Earley, questions some of the arguments made by the
residents of Flint -- including those who say the crisis was
racially motivated.

"The plaintiffs are saying because the black citizens in Flint were
discriminated against, but you have a city that's 60/40
black/white. So there's some inconsistency there. So to say that
just black people were discriminated against, some would say that
everyone was discriminated against. But I'm not gonna go any
further," Mr. Perkins said.

The plaintiffs said state and city attorneys are just trying to do
whatever they can to pass the buck.

"On the other hand, lawyers have to be lawyers and they're going to
make all these silly motions that they make in order to get their
clients out from under the trouble that they're in," said Bill
Goodman, attorney representing the putative class in Flint.

As for Ms. Hawk, she wants someone held accountable.

"At the end of the day, someone needs to be held accountable for
what they did to these people," Ms. Hawk said. [GN]

FLORIDA POWER: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citrus County Chronicle reports that a federal appeals court on
July 11 backed Florida Power & Light and Duke Energy Florida in a
class-action lawsuit that sought to recover money paid by utility
customers under a controversial 2006 nuclear-power law.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a decision by a federal district judge to dismiss the
lawsuit, which alleged "unjust enrichment" and contended that the
law is unconstitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs sought to
recover $2 billion that they said the utilities had collected from
customers.

The law, approved by the Legislature and then-Gov. Jeb Bush, was
intended to spur development of more nuclear energy in Florida. But
it has been highly controversial, as it allowed utilities to
collect money for nuclear projects that might never be built.

FPL used a portion of the money it has collected to upgrade
already-existing nuclear plants. But, for example, Duke in 2013
shelved plans to build two reactors in Levy County after billing
customers for early stages of the project.

The lawsuit alleged that the law was unconstitutional under the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that it is "preempted"
under a federal law known as the Atomic Energy Act. The plaintiffs
contended that, under the Atomic Energy Act, Congress did not
intend for states to have a role in financing and promoting nuclear
projects.

But in rejecting the Atomic Energy Act argument, the Atlanta-based
appeals court pointed to a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a
California nuclear-power case. It said the Supreme Court concluded
"there was an economic (and non-safety) rationale for the
California law, and this was enough to save it from preemption."

"The (Florida law) is based on an economic rationale — whether
flawed or not — that utilities like Duke Energy Florida and
Florida Power & Light should be able to recoup from their customers
the costs associated with a project for the construction of a
nuclear power plant, and that they should not have to return the
funds received even if the project is not completed," said the July
11 14-page ruling, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by
judges Adalberto Jordan and John Steele. "Plaintiffs point to no
cases holding (nor authorities suggesting) that state laws
promoting investment in new nuclear plants, or shifting the costs
of nuclear plant construction, are preempted by the Atomic Energy
Act."

The Commerce Clause issue stemmed from a contention by the
plaintiffs that the 2006 law discriminated against interstate
commerce, at least in part because out-of-state wholesale energy
providers would not be able to compete.

But the appeals court said such legal issues, involving what is
known as the "dormant" Commerce Clause, are focused on out-of-state
people or entities being harmed by other states' actions.

"This is far from the case here," the ruling said. "Plaintiffs are
Florida electric utility customers. (The) utilities are Florida
companies. Utilities are not 'states' such that their actions could
give rise to (dormant Commerce Clause) claims from an out-of-state
person or entity. Plaintiffs' interests are well beyond the zone
the (dormant Commerce Clause) is meant to protect."

The lawsuit, which included one Duke customer and one FPL customer
as named plaintiffs, is part of years of legal and legislative
wrangling about the 2006 law. The Florida Supreme Court in 2013
rejected a challenge that was based on alleged violations of the
Florida Constitution. [GN]

FLUFF N' FOLD: $40K Settlement in "Romero" Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA ROMERO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLUFF N FOLD
LAUNDRY SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 9535
(HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
parties' joint application to approve their proposed Settlement
Agreement, dated Nov. 14, 2016.

This is an action brought by two Plaintiffs who worked at the
Defendants' laundromat.  The Plaintiffs commenced the action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay.
The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed keep certain
records and provide certain notices under the NYLL.

The Defendants sharply dispute the Plaintiffs' claims.  As an
initial matter, they argue that, at all times relevant to the
Olaintiffs' claims, they had an annual gross volume of sales less
than $500,000 and, therefore, were not employers within the meaning
of the FLSA.  In addition, the Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs were paid in compliance with the law.  The Defendants
also assert that the Plaintiffs never worked in excess of 45 hours
per week.  They claim that they maintained records that will
support these positions.  The Defendants further claim that they
would be unable to pay the amount the Plaintiffs seek given their
current financial situation.

This is the fourth time that the parties have sought judicial
approval of a proposed settlement.  Most recently, Judge Pitman
rejected the parties' revised proposed settlement agreement
submitted for approval on Nov. 14, 2017 because it contained an
impermissible general release.  Rather than resubmitting an
entirely new proposed settlement agreement, the parties submitted
an amendment to Proposed Agreement on May 17, 2018, modifying the
release.

Under the Proposed Agreement, as amended, the Defendants agree to
pay the Plaintiffs $40,000 in full and final satisfaction of the
Plaintiffs' claims.  Maria Romero will get $20,000 and Claudia
Gonzalez will get the remaining $20,000.

Judge Pitman finds that the Plaintiffs' total settlement represents
approximately 40.9% of their total alleged damages, including
liquidated damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest.  The
settlement will entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of
litigation.  The settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the
risk of litigation.  Having presided over both the settlement
conference and the telephonic conference during which counsel
ultimately reached the essential terms of settlement, the Judge
knows that the settlement is the product of arm's length bargaining
between experienced counsel who represented their clients
zealously.  There are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud.  Lastly, the parties have also executed the Proposed
Amendment, which modifies the release.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman approved
the settlement in the matter.  In light of the settlement, the
action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.  The Clerk is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed.

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

Maria Romero, individually, Maria Romero, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Claudia Gonzalez, individually & Claudia
Gonzalez, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Colin James Mulholland , Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C., Gerrald Ellis, Michael Faillace & Associates,
P.C., Raquel Amalia Gutierrez, Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
& Michael Antonio Faillace -- Faillace@employmentcompliance.com --
Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.

Fluff N Fold Laundry Services LLC, doing business as Fluff N Fold
Laundry Services & Min Lin, Defendants, represented by Jian Hang --
jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu --
kliu@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Shareholder Files Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
shareholders claim directors of Foundation Medicine filed a false
and misleading registration statement about its proposed sale to
Roche Pharmaceuticals, for $137 a share or $2.4 billion, in a
federal class action.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

OF COUNSEL:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com

FRED MEYER: "Walker" Suit Brought Before 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Fred Meyer, Inc. was brought
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on
July 20, 2018.  The case is styled as Daniel Walker, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fred
Meyer, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-35592.

The lawsuit arises under the Consumer Credit Act.

Fred Meyer, Inc., is a chain of hypermarket superstores founded in
1922 in Portland, Oregon, by Fred G. Meyer. It merged with Kroger
in 1999, though the stores are still branded Fred Meyer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
   WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
   3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
   Denver, CO 80210
   Tel: 720-213-0676

      - and -

   Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
   WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
   3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
   Denver, CO 80210
   Tel: 720-213-0675

The Defendant is represented by:

   J. Michael Porter, Esq.
   Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
   111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
   Portland, OR 97204-3699
   Tel: 503-224-5858


GC SERVICES: Schnorrbusch Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA SCHNORRBUSCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01848-L (N.D. Tex.,
July 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about August 1, 2017, GC sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter stating "YOU OWE: CONN APPLIANCES,
INC."  Language stating who the original creditor is never used in
the Letter. GC utilized the term "you owe" in an attempt to
circumvent the necessity of stating explicitly whom is the original
creditor of the alleged debt. The least sophisticated consumer is
left in the dark as to whether Conn Appliances, Inc. is the
original creditor, another third-party creditor, or even a creditor
at all. The term "you owe" in the letter is ambiguous at best, but
will likely mislead the least sophisticated consumer when
attempting to discover where this alleged debt originated. The
least sophisticated consumer is left confused as to who the current
creditor or original creditor is in this case.

GC Services provides accounts receivable and customer care
solutions to public and private sector organizations. It offers
first party receivable programs, including cure programs, early
stage collections, and pre charge-off collections; third party
receivables management programs, such as post charge-off
collections and skip tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 451 1314
          Facsimile: (314) 787 4323
          E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com


GLENCORE PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Glencore PLC ("Glencore" or
the "Company") (OTCMKTS:GLNCY), (OTCMKTS:GLNCF) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Glencore securities between September 30, 2016 through
July 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/glncy.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Glencore's conduct would subject it to heightened scrutiny by U.S.
and foreign government bodies resulting in investigations into the
company's compliance with money laundering and bribery laws, as
well as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) as a result,
defendants' statements about Glencore's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On July 3, 2018, Glencore disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the
U.S. Department of Justice seeking documents and other records
related to Glencore's compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act and U.S. money laundering statutes.  Glencore stated
that the subpoena relates to its operations in Nigeria, Venezuela,
and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Following news, Glencore's
American depositary receipt dropped.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/glncy If you suffered a loss in Glencore you have
until September 7, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein,Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz,Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]

GLENCORE PLC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Glencore Plc (Other OTC: GLCNF) have filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
September 30, 2016 and July 2, 2018. Glencore engages in the
production, refinement, processing, storage, transport and
marketing of metals and minerals, energy products, and agricultural
products worldwide.

The Complaint Alleges that Glencore Stock Decline is Related to
Bribery Law Violations

According to the complaint, Glencore represented that the company
"takes ethics and compliance very seriously" and is "committed to
complying with or exceeding the laws and external requirements"
applicable to its operations and products. On May 28, 2018,
Bloomberg reported that the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office was
preparing to investigate Glencore for bribery in connection with
Glencore's work with Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler and the leader
of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Then, on July 3, 2018,
Glencore disclosed that the U.S. Department of Justice issued its
subsidiary a subpoena to produce documents and other records in
connection with the company's compliance with U.S. money laundering
laws and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Since news of
Glencore's troubles began to come to light, Glencore's stock has
fallen nearly 22% to close at $4.20 per share on July 3, 2018, and
continues to fall.

Glencore Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and potential
remedies:

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com[GN]

GLENCORE PLC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 9
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Glencore plc (OTCMKTS: GLCNF,
GLNCY) from September 30, 2016 through July 2, 2018 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Glencore
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Glencore class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1373.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Glencore's conduct
would subject it to heightened scrutiny by U.S. and foreign
government bodies resulting in investigations into the company's
compliance with money laundering and bribery laws, as well as the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) as a result, defendants'
statements about Glencore's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
7, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1373.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653
or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]

GLOBAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, Lewis et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------
SHAKIRA LEWIS, DAVID NOEL, JOYCE BENNETT, MARLON YOUNG, DARREN
GUMBS, ROBERT SALMON, ERUM HAMEED, LISA FAUST, OSMAN SALAAM and
CLIVE NEWLAND, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons employed by Global Security Consulting Group Inc., Global
Security Associates, LLC and/or Global Elite Inc., the Plaintiffs,
v. GLOBAL SECURITY CONSULTING GROUP INC., GLOBAL SECURITY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, and GLOBAL ELITE GROUP INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 514695/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 18, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other
similarly-situated employees of Defendants at not less than the
applicable minimum wage rates for all work performed by them;
failed to pay Plaintiffs uniform maintenance pay for time expended
on, and expenses incurred in connection with, laundering of
uniforms that Defendants required and are requiring Plaintiffs to
wear and to maintain; failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour's pay at
the applicable minimum wage rates for each split shift worked for
Defendants; and failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour's pay at the
applicable minimum wage rates for each day worked for Defendants in
which the spread of hours exceeds 10 hours, pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

Global Security was founded in 2002. The company's line of business
includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Reif, Esq.
          Jessica E. Harris, Esq.
          GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP
          817 Broadway, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 7727
          E-mail: jreif@grmny.com
                  jharris@grmny.com


GOLD STANDARD: Johnson Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANEEN JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLD STANDARD BAKING, INC., and ELITE
LABOR SERVICES, LTD. d/b/a ELITE STAFFING, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2018CH09011 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 18, 2018),
seeks to curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, while many employers use conventional
methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch
clocks), GSB workers are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not
relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such
as Defendants' -- and financial institutions have incorporated
biometric applications into their workplace in the form of
biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such
ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones.
Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
GSB workers to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example,
if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive,
proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise
exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home
Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels &
Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data
breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper
use of this highly personal and private information.

Elite provides staffing services and temporary employment
opportunities for employers and employees alike, including GSB.
Defendant GSB is an organization engaged in the production and
distribution of various baked goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


GOLDEN GATE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Frank Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE FRANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC, dba TACO BELL, a
California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18913275 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 18, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
consistently required to work in excess of four hours (or major
fraction) without receiving lawful 10-minute rest periods.
Plaintiff and Class Members were also not provided with one hour
wages in lieu thereof. The Plaintiff and the other Class Members
were systematically denied their rest breaks due to the demands
placed upon them by Defendants. The Defendants' policies and
practices included Defendants' implementation of a work schedule
and workload requirements that denied and failed to authorize and
permit the Class all of their entitled rest periods.

Golden Gate Bell, LLC owns and operates Taco Bell franchisee
restaurants. The company is based in Pleasanton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


GOOD TIMES: TanaCon Attendees Start Receiving Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Goggin, writing for Inverse, reports that attendees of TanaCon,
the YouTube convention started by Tana Mongeau that descended into
Fyre Festival levels of chaos on June 22, are finally receiving
refunds for the canceled event, but some customers are still
talking about a potential class-action lawsuit.

Ashley Zoe Fox spent nearly $2,000 for her and her family to travel
from their home in Pennsylvania to Anaheim, California, to attend
TanaCon in conjunction with VidCon. "If we weren't doing TanaCon,
it was up in the air if we'd go to Vidcon. TanaCon sealed the deal
for us," she tells Inverse.

Sarah Bixby says she spent $1,180, draining her savings and some of
her parent's money, to exclusively attend TanaCon. "I grew up poor
and always dreamed of going to VidCon but the tickets are so
expensive so I never could afford it," Ms. Bixby tells Inverse.
Now, Bixby is facing surprise medical expenses and could use the
money that was spent on TanaCon to support her family: "My mom had
emergency surgery on her hip the Monday of TanaCon which has put a
toll on our family."

Ms. Fox, Ms. Bixby, and others are now considering a class-action
lawsuit to recover travel expenses and make up for physical and
emotional damages.

The Refunds
The refunds, which started being issued on July 9 by newcomer
ticketing company Veeps, are a glimmer of hope for customers, who
until now, have received no form of reimbursement for the scrapped
festival that sent some to the hospital.

The first report of a refund appeared on July 9 on Reddit from
Sarah Bixby who posted a screenshot on r/TanaCon.

On Twitter, Ashley Zoe Fox, @corisclnt and a handful of other users
posted screenshots of their refunds.

Originally, users were instructed to file refund claims with Good
Times Entertainment, LLC, the company run by Michael Weist, who
became the focus of the viral three-part Shane Dawson "documentary"
on the incident.


After submitting claims, users received instructions to file refund
requests over email with ticketing company Veeps, which is holding
money paid by ticket buyers. A message from Veeps delivered on July
4 says that users have 30 days (until August 3) to submit a claim,
which they say will be delivered in 90 days.

When a Refund's Not Enough
Despite news of the refund for those that have submitted claims,
multiple attendees of TanaCon tell Inverse that they would pursue a
lawsuit.

Ms. Fox says that on top of her travel expenses, her and her
husband experienced disturbing injuries as a result of TanaCon.

Ms. Fox, who used to be a paramedic, says her family got severe
sunburn, describing her husband's head as "as red as a beet." She
continued, "I was having signs of heat exhaustion that started
going towards heat stroke. I went from cold and clammy, sweating a
lot, and all the sudden I stopped sweating."

Luckily, Ms. Fox could recognize the unsafe condition she was in,
but she stressed the concern the incident caused for her, saying
"there were thousands of kids there that had no clue that they were
in that much danger."

Ms. Fox says she thinks that the damages merit a class action
lawsuit: "I believe that anyone that traveled with the express
reason to go to TanaCon should be refunded a large portion of their
travel expenses and there should be a class action lawsuit for
people who got injured."

Shortly after TanaCon, Tana shared with her 1.11 million followers
on Twitter that she was open to compensating people for travel, but
there have been no signs that that has actually occurred.

Ms. Bixby, of Boston, says that after Tana's tweet she tried
reaching out to the YouTuber about her travel expenses but has not
heard back. Now, her and Ana Marie Olson, who tells Inverse she is
in discussions with a law firm, are pursuing the possibility of a
class action suit. "I'm happy to finally be getting a refund but I
think there is more that should be done to make up for this which
is why I'm joining the lawsuit," Ms. Bixby says.

Despite a fair amount of interest in recovering more funds, there
are others who aren't interested in a lawsuit. Corina Escalante,
who posted a picture of her refund on Twitter, tells Inverse that
she doesn't feel owed anything despite the fact that she spent $789
on travel from Texas and lodging in California. "Even though the
weekend didn't work out quite as planned, I still had a decent time
in California and made the most of the weekend," she says.

With mixed interest, the future of TanaCon attendees is unclear.
With a refund being issued, significantly fewer individuals can
theoretically make claims against the convention, which alone, was
only host to about 5,000 people. But what may not be recovered in
monetary compensation may be delivered in the form of brand damage.
Despite the limited number of refunds that have been issued, the
TanaCon hashtag on Twitter continues to show multiple tweets per
hour from frustrated attendees who haven't received refunds, or are
looking for more compensation.

And even in her circle's own videos, it appears that Tana can't
escape the controversy. In a video by a friend, in which Tana made
a cameo, TanaCon inadvertently became the punchline. [GN]

GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Activist Challenges Privacy Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that the Supreme Court
should vacate Google's $8.5 million settlement of a privacy
class-action lawsuit on the grounds that the deal doesn't
compensate Google's users, class-action activist Ted Frank argued
in papers submitted on July 9.

Mr. Frank, who founded the Center for Class Action Fairness, is
challenging the settlement's terms, which require the search
company to donate $5.3 million to six nonprofits -- Carnegie Mellon
University, World Privacy Forum, Chicago-Kent College of Law,
Stanford Law, Harvard's Berkman Center and the AARP Foundation. The
deal also calls for Google to pay more than $2.1 million to the
attorneys who brought the lawsuit, with the remainder of the
settlement fund going to court costs.

Mr. Frank contends in a new Supreme Court filing that this
structure is "a clear abuse" because some of the proposed
recipients had prior relationships with Google and lawyers
representing the plaintiffs.

"All the money went to class counsel and to favored nonprofit
organizations affiliated with class counsel and the defendant," he
argues. "It is not fair or reasonable . . . for class attorneys to
arrogate millions for themselves and nothing for their clients."

He notes that Google has independently given money to the Stanford
Center for Internet and Society, adding that its "scholars
regularly support Google's positions on a variety of policy issues,
including privacy litigation."

The settlement resolved a 2010 class-action complaint alleging that
Google violated users' privacy by including their search queries in
"referer headers" -- the information that's automatically
transmitted to sites users click on when they leave Google. Some
queries, like people's searches for their own names, can offer
clues to users' identities. (Google no longer transmits search
queries when people click on links in the results.)

A trial judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
Mr. Frank's attempt to challenge the settlement. Mr. Frank then
asked the Supreme Court to consider his arguments.

Google, Facebook and Netflix are among companies that have resolved
privacy class-actions by agreeing to donate money to nonprofits.
For instance, Google recently agreed to donate more than $3 million
to to six schools and nonprofits to settle a lawsuit alleging that
it violated Safari users' privacy by circumventing their
no-tracking settings. (Mr. Frank recently brought a separate
challenge to that settlement.)

Several years ago, Netflix agreed to pay $6.5 million to a total of
20 nonprofits in order to resolve allegations that it violated the
federal Video Privacy Protection Law by storing information about
consumers' rental histories for at least two years. And Facebook
agreed to settle a lawsuit stemming from its Beacon ad program --
which told people about their friends' e-commerce activity -- by
paying $6.5 million to fund a privacy organization.

Frank argues that companies shouldn't be able to settle
class-action lawsuits by making donations to charity, if it's
"feasible" to pay class members in cash.

He argues in his court papers that those types of settlements --
called "cy pres" -- only "create the illusion of relief" for class
members, while also potentially benefiting the companies that were
sued. "Even if class-action defendants like Google and Facebook
ultimately receive no direct benefit from cy pres awards, they
still are able to take credit for their charity," he writes. [GN]

GREAT DIVIDE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Paramedics, Lopez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN LOPEZ and JOY WOOLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GREAT DIVIDE AMBULANCE SERVICE,
TOWNSHIP OF DRUMMOND, TOWNSHIP OF CABLE, TOWNSHIP OF GRAND VIEW and
TOWNSHIP OF NAMAKAGON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-wmc (W.D. Wisc., June
27, 2018), alleges that GDAS violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs and other
paramedics and/or EMTs for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

Great Divide Ambulance Service is a joint venture of the Townships
of Drummond, Cable, Grand View, and Namakagon in Bayfield County,
Wisconsin.

GDAS is a joint venture between Defendants the Townships of
Drummond, Cable, Grand View, and Namakagon.  The Board of Directors
of GDAS is composed of members from the Town Boards of Drummond,
Cable, Grand View, and Namakagon.  The Board of Directors is
responsible for the operation of GDAS and for the performance of
duties required to operate and maintain the ambulance service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com


GRINDR: Asian Man Mulls Racial Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Gremore, writing for Queerty, reports that an Asian man says
he plans to sue Grindr for racial discrimination.

Sinakhone Keodara is the CEO and founder of the Asian Entertainment
Television company. He recently announced on social media that he's
organizing a class action lawsuit against the hookup app.

In the post, Mr. Keodara says that Grindr allows "white gay men to
write in their profiles 'no Asians', 'not interested in Asians': or
'I don't find Asians attractive'," which, he believes, leads to
people feeling "offended, humiliated, degraded and dehumanised" by
the app.

Mr. Keodara says he's looking for co-plaintiffs in all 50 states to
join his class action. He says anyone who wants to join must be a
paying customer on the app.

A 2015 study found that 15% of guys on the Grindr included sexual
racism like "Not attracted to Asians" on their profiles, with white
users being the worst offenders.

Meanwhile, a Facebook group called "Muscle Bears" was exposed for
openly discriminating against people of color with a statement that
read: "If you are Asian or African do not join the group because it
will be blocked from this group."

Grindr, which is owned by the Chinese gaming firm, Kunlun Tech Co.,
has not issued any comment on the proposed class action lawsuit.
[GN]

GUS G. PAPPAS: Inguil Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Inguil, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gus G. Pappas A/K/A Costas
Pappas and Nicolas T. Pappas, the Defendants, Case No. 711033/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 18, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages,
damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure
to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants' real estate investment and renovation business
belonging to Defendants. The Defendants purchase and renovate
residential properties throughout the State of New York. Plaintiff
is a former employee of the Defendants who performed construction
and renovation work on a property belonging to the Defendants
located at 13 Zwart Lane, Campbell Hall, NY 10916.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 8522


HAMILTON BEACH: Pedro Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Beach
Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No:
1:18-cv-04173 (E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company is an American designer,
marketer and distributor of home appliances and commercial
restaurant equipment marketed primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, including blenders, mixers, toasters, slow
cookers, clothes irons, and air purifiers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



HOLLISTER CO: Duncan Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hollister Co., Case No. 1:18-cv-06099 (S.D. N.Y., July
5, 2018), seeks a permanent injunction over the Defendant's
website, www.hollisterco.com, which is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the American
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff Eugene Duncan is a visually-impaired and legally
blind person who requires screen reading software to read website
content using his computer. The Plaintiff is a resident of Queens,
New York.

Defendant is a clothing retailer that operates Hollister stores as
well as the Hollister website, offering features which should allow
all consumers to access the goods and services which the Defendant
offers in connection with their physical locations.

The Defendant operates Hollister stores across the United States.
At least one of these stores is located in New York City, including
its store located at 668 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10019. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com

ILG INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
directors are selling the vacation-membership services firm ILG
Inc. too cheaply through an unfair process to Marriott Vacations
Worldwide, for $4.7 billion: $14.75 plus 0.165 shares of Marriott
stock for each ILG share, shareholders say in a federal class
action.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

OF COUNSEL:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com

ISABELLA VISITING: Faces Hicks FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isabella Visiting
Care, Inc.  The case is styled as Janet Hicks, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Isabella Visiting Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No: 1:18-cv-06603
(S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Isabella Visiting Care, Inc. offers Home health care services in
New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


J.A. SECURITY: "Sandoval" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Sandoval and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. J.A. Security Special Services LLC and Jorge Alorda,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22079, (S.D. Fla., May 24,
2018), to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.A. Security Special Services provides security services for
business, residential communities, construction sites and executive
body guard services. It employed Sandoval as a non-exempt security
employee from December 9, 2016 to December 17, 2017. In many weeks,
Sandoval worked more than 40 hours per week but was never properly
compensated for overtime hours worked. His wages were paid late and
in partial payments, adds the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOHN DOES: Dale Carey Alleges VIX Market Price Manipulations
------------------------------------------------------------
DALE CAREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. John Does, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04703
(N.D. Ill., July 9, 2018) alleges that the unnamed defendants have
colluded with each other to manipulate the prices of VIX-Linked
Instruments in violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, since its creation in 1993, the Cboe
Volatility Index ("VIX") has emerged as an important financial
indicator of market sentiment and volatility. Frequently referred
to as the "fear gauge," VIX purports to measure expected 30-day
market volatility based on the real-time pricing of S&P 500 Index
option contracts ("SPX Options") listed for trading on the Cboe
Options Exchange ("Cboe").

Given that investors cannot invest directly in VIX, interest in
financial instruments related to expected market volatility spawned
the creation of VIX-linked futures ("VIX Futures") in 2004 and
VIX-linked options ("VIX Options") in 2006. While VIX Options trade
on the Cboe, VIX Futures trade on the Cboe Futures Exchange
("CFE"). These are called the VIX-Linked Instruments.

Given that the VIX price is calculated based on the movement of
real-time bid/ask quotes for SPX Options, and in some instances the
actual prices of SPX Options, the pricing of VIX-Linked Instruments
is subject to market manipulation by investors targeting the SPX
Option market and the calculation of VIX.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Joshua A. Materese, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  sholbrook@ktmc.com
                  jmaterese@ktmc.com
                  zarbitman@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          Facsimile: (312) 577-0720


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gambinos Blame Talc Products for Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GAMBINO AND DENNIS GAMBINO, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV331557
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a
result of ovarian cancer caused by the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the
Defendants' talcum powder-based products.

The Defendants have been in the business of mining, extracting,
processing, treating, formulating, promoting, selling, and
distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder-based
products.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


JONATHAN AGENCY: Vaccaro Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE JONATHAN AGENCY AND INSURANCE
BROKERAGE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06206 (C.D. Cal., July 18,
2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant,
in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple calls
soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
ending in -3928 in or around January 2018.  Those calls constitute
solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as
the Defendant attempts to promote or sell its services. The
Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant
within a 12-month period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JORGENSEN & SON: Faces "Felix" Suit in Joaquin, California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jorgensen & Sons,
Inc. The case is captioned as Gabriel Felix, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jorgensen &
Sons, Inc., and Jorgensen Company, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2018-0008220 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., July 9,
2018).

Jorgensen & Sons, Inc. distributes and markets fire protection and
prevention equipment. Jorgensen & Sons, Inc. was founded in 1932
and is based in Fresno, California with additional offices in
Modesto, Bakersfield, Merced, and Visalia, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by David G. Spivak, Esq.

KASGO LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalena Ramirez and Gillermo Solorzano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KASGO,
LLC dba Pasta Roma, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC713956 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
18, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against
Plaintiffs in violation of applicable California laws, including,
without limitation, failing to provide meal and rest breaks,
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failing to provide
accurate wage statements.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vache A Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507 8252
          E-mail: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425 1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentcounsel.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Seeks More Time to File Supreme Court Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., filed an application for an
extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari of
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, dated
October 20, 2017, in the appellate case, Jennifer DAVIDSON, an
individual on behalf of herself, the general public and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK
CORPORATION; Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.; Kimberly-Clark Global
Sales, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-16173 (9th Cir.).
The application for an extension of time was filed on July 9, 2018
with the Supreme Court of the U.S. and captioned as KIMBERLY-CLARK
CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL
SALES, LLC, Applicants/Petitioners v. JENNIFER DAVIDSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondents.

As reported by Class Action Reporter, Jennifer Davidson paid extra
for wipes labeled as "flushable" because she believed that
flushable wipes would be better for the environment, and more
sanitary, than non-flushable wipes. Davidson alleges that the wipes
she purchased, which were manufactured and marketed by
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, were not, in fact, flushable. Davidson
seeks to recover the premium she paid for the allegedly flushable
wipes, as well as an order requiring Kimberly-Clark to stop
marketing their wipes as "flushable."

The Ninth Circuit said Davidson has plausibly alleged that
Kimberly-Clark engaged in false advertising. Davidson has also
plausibly alleged that she will suffer further harm in the absence
of an injunction.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court
and remand this case for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit held, "Under California's consumer protection
laws, a consumer who pays extra for a falsely labeled or advertised
product may recover the premium she paid for that product.
California law also permits that consumer to seek a court order
requiring the manufacturer of the product to halt its false
advertising. California has decided that its consumers have a
right, while shopping in a store selling consumer goods, to rely
upon the statements made on a product's packaging. Today, we hold
that California consumers who can seek in California state court an
order requiring the manufacturer of an allegedly falsely advertised
product to cease the false advertising may also seek such an order
in federal court. A consumer's inability to rely in the future upon
a representation made on a package, even if the consumer knew or
continued to believe the same representation was false in the past,
is an ongoing injury that may justify an order barring the false
advertising."

A copy of the October 2017 decision is available at
https://goo.gl/SmEyXk from Leagle.com.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
professional products worldwide. Kimberly-Clark Corporation was
founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

Matthew T. McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- (argued), Kristen
G. Simplicio -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A. Safier --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- and Adam J. Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr. -- CTRELA@SIDLEY.COM -- (argued), Sidley
Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Michelle Goodman --
mrgoodman@jonesday.com -- and Amy Lally -- alally@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California; Naomi Igra --
nigra@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California;
William R. Levi -- WLEVI@SIDLEY.COM -- Eamon P. Joyce --
EJOYCE@SIDLEY.COM -- and Kwaku A. Akowuah -- KAKOWUAH@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New
York, New York; Deanna M. Rice -- derice@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Janet Galeria and Warren Postman, U.S.
Chamber Litigation Center Inc., Washington, D.C.; Leland P. Frost
-- manufacturing@nam.org -- Quentin Riegel, and Linda E. Kelly,
Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action, Washington, D.C.; Karin
F.R. Moore, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.;
for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America, National Association of Manufacturers, and Grocery
Manufacturers Association.

The Applicants/Petitioners are represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
          Julian W. Poon, Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Samuel Eckman, Esq.
          Kathryn Cherry, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com


KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Sharon Romero Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON ROMERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A., LAWRENCE L. KLAYMAN, and STEVEN
D. TOSKES, Case No. 9:18-cv-80964-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2018),
seeks to recover monetary damages in the form of unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, to redress the alleged deprivation of rights secured to
the Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for an award of attorneys' and paralegal
fees and costs.

Klayman & Toskes is a law firm based in Boca Raton, in Palm Beach
County, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are residents of Palm
Beach County and are the founding partners of the Firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33405
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com


KLX INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Lawsuit on Boeing Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
directors are selling the parts and services firm KLX Inc. too
cheaply through an unfair process to Boeing, for $63 a share or
$3.25 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

OF COUNSEL:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com

LADY JANE'S: Durr Class Action Asserts FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA DURR, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, CHAD JOHNSON,
JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II and JOHN DOE III, Case No.
2:18-cv-12014-BAF-RSW (S.D. Ohio, June 27, 2018), challenges the
Defendants' alleged practices, including misclassifying stylists as
independent contractors, which violate the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC, is a Michigan
corporation doing business as "Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men"
throughout the United States and its territories.  Lady Jane's does
business at multiple locations in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout
the State.  Chad Johnson was the owner, operator, and principal
manager of Lady Jane's.  The Doe Defendants, whose correct names
are currently unknown, are other persons or entities, who were
employers of the Plaintiff.

Lady Jane's owns and operates retail shops throughout the United
States and its territories that sell haircuts and grooming products
for men.  Lady Jane's utilizes employees, whom it calls "stylists,"
to give the haircuts and sell the grooming products at the shops.
Lady Jane's supplies all products sold in the shops, through
vendors with which it has contractual relationships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973-9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


LAKE STREET LOFTS: Faces Class Action Over Rent Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Francis and Brandon Moore, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Lake Street Lofts, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2018-CH-06597 (Ill. Cir., May 23), seeks declaratory and ancillary
injunctive relief and corrective measures to lease premises; costs;
interest on the judgment; reasonable attorney's fees; and any other
relief for violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance Municipal Code.

Alyssa Francis and Brandon Moore rent a dwelling unit numbered 3B
at the building at 910 W. Lake St. in Chicago, Cook County.
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with any summary or separate
summary including the security deposit interest rate for 2018,
2017, and 2016 at any time in 2018, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE. P.A.
      225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 924-0278
      Fax: (312) 650-8241
      Email: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com

             - and -

      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 775-1015
      Fax: (312) 256-2055
      Email: mark@depositlaw.com


LOLA'S GOURMET: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Lola's Gourmet LLC is facing a class action lawsuit brought
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is captioned Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lola's Gourmet
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22929-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 19,
2018).

Lola's Gourmet LLC is a Spanish Restaurant in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


LTD FINANCIAL:  Faces Selwyn FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Yisroel Selwyn, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. LTD Financial
Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04120 (E.D. N.Y., July
19, 2018) was filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

LTD Financial Services, LP is a financial institution in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACY'S INC: Personal Information Leaked, "Carroll" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S INC., MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.,
and MACY'S SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01060-RDP (N.D. Ala., July 9, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for data breach in violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an online account
with Macys.com, accessible through a username and password.
Macys.com stored Plaintiff's personal information, including her
name, address, phone number, email address, birthday and credit
card number with expiration date. The Plaintiff has made multiple
online purchases from Macys.com using her Macys.com account,
including between April 26 and June 6.  On July 7, 2018, the
Defendants notified the Plaintiff that she was the victim of data
breach and that a third party had likely obtained the personal
information contained in Plaintiff's Macy's.com account.

Macy's, Inc., an omni-channel retail organization, operates stores,
Websites, and mobile applications. The company also operates as a
beauty products and spa retailer. The company was formerly known as
Federated Department Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Macy's,
Inc. in June 2007. Macy's, Inc. was founded in 1830 and is based in
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
          PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
          2226 1st Ave. S, Ste. 105
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 208-9588
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9598
          E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com


MANSIONS CATERING: Faces Sypert ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mansions Catering,
Inc.  The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mansions Catering,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06521 (S.D. N.Y., July 19,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mansions Catering, Inc is a restaurant serving in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bid in "Crotzer" Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IIN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. GEORGE CROTZER and SUSAN CROTZER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 1:14-CV-831-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 in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The action arises out of the marketing and sale of allegedly
defective roofing shingles.  The Cotzers are purchasers of Atlas
Shingles.  In 2010, the Defendant discontinued sales of the
Shingles.  The Plaintiffs allege 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 Sept. 11, 2013, a class action complaint, Knight v. Atlas
Roofing Corporation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama against the Defendant.  The plaintiffs
in that case alleged that the Shingles were defective, and sought
to represent all homeowners with homes containing the Shingles.
The Plaintiffs were putative members of the Knight class action.
On Dec. 19, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Knight action to the Court, along with all related
class actions pending in federal court, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On Feb. 25, 2014, Lloyd M. Denson and Peggy C. Denson filed this
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in
the state of Alabama, seeking to bring their suit as a class
action.  On March 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation also transferred the action to be consolidated with the
multidistrict litigation pending before the Court.

On Nov. 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs moved to intervene in the action
and replace the Densons as the named plaintiffs and the proposed
class representatives.  Subsequently, on Dec. 1, 2015, the
Plaintiffs' counsel discussed the scheduling of discovery responses
and an inspection of the Plaintiffs' home by email with the
Defendant's counsel.  Then, on Dec. 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs
responded to the Defendant's discovery requests.  On Dec. 21, 2015,
the Plaintiffs' counsel provided the Defendant's counsel with a
draft copy of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Then, on
Dec. 23, 2015, the Defendant's experts inspected the Plaintiffs'
home.  On Dec. 30, 2015, the Densons moved for class certification.
Additionally, on Dec. 30, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to intervene as named plaintiffs.  Finally, on Jan. 6, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, which named them as
the plaintiffs in place of the Densons.

In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence and negligent design, fraudulent
concealment, violation of Alabama's Extended Manufacturer's
Liability Doctrine, unjust enrichment, violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and a request for declaratory
relief.  On June 8, 2017, the Court denied class certification.  

The Defendant now moves for summary judgment as to each of the
Plaintiffs' claims: express warranty claim, claim for fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment claim,  claim under the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), request for declaratory
relief, and  request for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Judge Thrash finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that
they provided the Defendant with any opportunity to cure the
alleged defects or settle the dispute before litigation expenses
were incurred.  Instead, they involved themselves in an ongoing
breach of warranty action, which did not provide the Defendant with
these "statutorily guaranteed opportunities" to cure or settle.
Consequently, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to
this claim.

As the Alabama Supreme Court explained in Keck v. Dryvit Systems,
Inc., the Judge finds that it would be unreasonable to impose a
duty to disclose upon the Defendant in such a situation.  For this
reason, he finds that the Defendant did not owe a duty of
disclosure to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs' claim for
fraudulent concealment fails as a matter of law.

Next, the Judge finds that the Defendant has not been enriched by
the Plaintiffs because it does not hold the Plaintiffs' money.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment fails as
a matter of law.

Because the Plaintiffs did not file a claim under the ADTPA until
they filed their Second Amended Complaint, when they provided the
notice to the Defendant's counsel, they had not filed an action
under the ADTPA, as the statute specifies.  Therefore, since this
notice complies with the statute, the Defendant is not entitled to
summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claim under the ADTPA.

Since the action is essentially legal in nature, the Judge finds
that the Defendant is still entitled to a trial by jury.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim for a declaratory judgment does
not violate the Seventh Amendment.

Finally, he finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no viable
statutory or contractual basis for an award of attorneys' fees, and
the Court can discern no basis from the record for awarding
attorneys' fees other than the Plaintiffs' conclusory request in
the Second Amended Complaint.  Therefore, the Defendant is entitled
to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys'
fees.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Thrash granted in part and denied
in part 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/3XS7IJ from Leagle.com.

Diane Dishman, Rodney Dishman & Anthony Costanzo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes -- c@mcconnellsneed.com --
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin , Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson
King, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com --
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

Michael Mazza, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Calvert , Parker
Waichman, LLP, David R. Buchanan -- intake@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC, Jay P.
Dinan, Parker Waichman, LLP, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC,
Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon
Chadwick, Jr. -- lyon@drslawfirm.com -- David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com
-- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield
-- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC.

Linda Krehlik & Robert Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by David R.
Buchanan, Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum
Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William
Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David Randolph Smith & Associates, Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

George Crotzer & Susan Crotzer, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mosaic at Vinings Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP &
Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

Arlington Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Conor A.
McLaughlin -- Conor.McLaughlin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine,
Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Harlan Irby Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Henry
B. Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble, Carlyle,
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Hugh M. Claytor, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, James E. Weatherholtz -- james.weatherholtz@wbd-us.com --
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Joel G. Pieper --
joel.pieper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, John
Phillip Wiederhold, Weiderhold, Moses, Kummerien & Waronicki, P.A.,
Keith Ashford Clinard -- keith.clinard@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Kip T. Bollin --
Kip.Bollin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine, pro hac vice, Paul H.
Stephenson, III -- pstephenson@watkinseager.com --, Watkins & Eager
Photo , Watkins & Eager, 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.

MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bids in "Dishman" Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. DIANE DISHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant, MDL Docket No. 2495, No.
1:13-md-2495-TWT, Civil Action File. No. 1:13-CV-2195-TWT (N.D.
Ga.), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to the Plaintiffs Diane Dishman and Rodney Dishman; and
(ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff Anthony Costanzo.

This is a multi-district class action arising out of the marketing
and sale of allegedly defective roofing shingles.  The Plaintiffs
own homes containing Atlas Shingles.  In 2010, the Defendant
discontinued sales of the Shingles.  The Plaintiffs allege 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 July 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint.
After the Motion to Dismiss Stage, their remaining claims are for
Breach of Express Warranty (Count I), Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability (Count II), Fraudulent Concealment (Count VI), Bad
Faith Litigation Expenses (Count VII), and Declaratory Relief
(Count VIII).

The Defendant now moves for partial summary judgment as to each of
the Plaintiffs.  The Defendant first moves for partial summary
judgment as to Diane and Rodney Dishman.  It argues that the
Dishmans' claim for express warranty based on statements outside
the Atlas Limited Warranty fails, that their fraudulent concealment
claim fails due to the lack of the requisite relationship with the
Defendant, that they cannot recover for leak-related damages, and
that they lack standing to pursue claims for declaratory relief.

Judge Thrash finds that since the Defendant effectively disclaimed
warranties outside of the Atlas Limited Warranty, the Dishmans'
claim for breach of express warranty based upon marketing materials
fails.  He also finds that the evidence, construed in the light
most favorable to the Dishmans, has not established that the
Defendant owed the Dishmans a duty to disclose.  Therefore, their
fraudulent concealment claim fails as a matter of law.  He further
finds that even if the Dishmans can prove that the Shingles are
defective in general, they would need to provide evidence of
causation and damages to recover for leak-related injuries.  They
have failed to do so. Therefore, to the extent that the Dishmans
seek to recover for damages resulting from leaks in their roof,
these claims for damages fail as a matter of law.  Finally, since
the action is essentially legal in nature, the Defendant is still
entitled to a trial by jury.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim for
a declaratory judgment does not violate the Seventh Amendment.

As to Plaintiff Costanzo, the Defendant moves for partial summary
judgment arguing that: (1) Costanzo's tort claims fail due to the
economic loss rule; (2) the express warranty claims based on
outside statements fail as a matter of law; (3) Costanzo's warranty
claims are time barred; (4) Costanzo's negligence, strict
liability, and fraudulent concealment claims are time barred; (5)
Costanzo's fraudulent concealment claim fails; (6) any claims for
leaked-related damages fail as a matter of law; and (7) Costanzo
lacks standing to pursue claims for declaratory relief.

He finds that since Costanzo has not provided evidence establishing
a causal link between defects in the Shingles and an external
injury to his person or property, his claims for negligence and
strict liability are precluded by the economic loss rule.
Costanzo's claim for breach of express warranties outside of the
Atlas Limited Warranty also fails because Costanzo has failed
produce evidence that the Defendant ever made such a promise
concerning the longevity of the Shingles.  Since Costanzo has
failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud, the Judge finds it
unnecessary to address whether Costanzo's fraudulent concealment
claim is time barred.  Finally, he finds that for the same reasons
that the Dishmans' declaratory judgment claim can survive,
Costanzo's claim for a declaratory judgment can also proceed.

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

Diane Dishman, Rodney Dishman & Anthony Costanzo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes -- c@mcconnellsneed.com --
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin , Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson
King, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com --
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

Michael Mazza, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Calvert , Parker
Waichman, LLP, David R. Buchanan -- intake@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC, Jay P.
Dinan, Parker Waichman, LLP, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC,
Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon
Chadwick, Jr. -- lyon@drslawfirm.com -- David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com
-- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield
-- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC.

Linda Krehlik & Robert Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by David R.
Buchanan, Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum
Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William
Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David Randolph Smith & Associates, Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

George Crotzer & Susan Crotzer, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mosaic at Vinings Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP &
Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

Arlington Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Conor A.
McLaughlin -- Conor.McLaughlin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine,
Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Harlan Irby Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Henry
B. Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble, Carlyle,
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Hugh M. Claytor, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, James E. Weatherholtz -- james.weatherholtz@wbd-us.com --
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Joel G. Pieper --
joel.pieper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, John
Phillip Wiederhold, Weiderhold, Moses, Kummerien & Waronicki, P.A.,
Keith Ashford Clinard -- keith.clinard@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Kip T. Bollin --
Kip.Bollin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine, pro hac vice, Paul H.
Stephenson, III -- pstephenson@watkinseager.com --, Watkins & Eager
Photo , Watkins & Eager, 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.

MDL 2495: Summary Judgment Bids in "Mazza" Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MICHAEL MAZZA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:13-CV-4218-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, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
as to the Plaintiff Michael Mazza; (ii) granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the
Plaintiff Robert Johnson; and granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff Linda Krehlik.

The action arises out of the marketing and sale of allegedly
defective roofing shingles.  Plaintiffs Mazza, Johnson, and Krehlik
are the owners of homes containing Atlas Shingles.  In 2010, the
Defendant discontinued sales of the Shingles.  The Plaintiffs
allege 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, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
On Dec. 20, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the action to be consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation pending before the Court.

In their Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs originally
asserted claims for Breach of Express Warranty (Count I), Breach of
Implied Warranties (Count II), Negligence/Negligent Design (Count
III), Unjust Enrichment (Count IV), Fraudulent Concealment (Count
V), Strict Products Liability Design Defect, Manufacturing Defect,
Defect in Composition and Failure to Warn - Tennessee Products
Liability Act (TPLA) (Count VI), and Declaratory Judgment (Count
VII).

The Defendant now moves for summary judgment as to each of the
Plaintiffs.  It moves for summary judgment as to Mazza's warranty
claims, fraudulent concealment claim, request for attorneys' fees,
and request for declaratory judgment.

Judge Thrash finds that Mazza's claim for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability is the only warranty claim that can
survive summary judgment.  And, since Mazza failed to produce
evidence that defects in the Shingles caused roof leaks or wind
damage to his home, he will only be able to pursue damages for
granule loss, cracking, and blistering with regard to this claim.
Since Mazza has not shown that he suffered a cognizable injury
under Tennessee law, Mazza's fraudulent concealment claim fails as
a matter of law.  Because there is no statutory or contractual
basis for an award of attorneys' fees, Mazza's request for
attorneys' fees fails.  Finally, the Judge deems Mazza's request
for declaratory judgment claim to be abandoned.  Mazza concedes
that his claim for declaratory relief was justly pled in his role
as class representative, and is not applicable to the prosecution
of his individual claims.

Next, the Defendant moves for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff
Johnson.  It argues that Johnson's claims fail due to lack of
causation, that alleged wind damage is not covered by the Atlas
Limited Warranty, that Johnson's warranty claims fail due to lack
of reliance, that Johnson's request for attorneys' fees fails, and
that Johnson's request for declaratory relief fails.

The Judge finds that Johnson can seek damages for the diminution in
value of the Shingles due to the cracking.  He deems Johnson to
have abandoned any claims for breach of the Atlas Limited Warranty,
and finds it unnecessary to determine whether Johnson could have
alleged claims for wind damage under the Atlas Limited Warranty.
The Judge also could not find there has been a breach of express
warranty under Tennessee law.  In addition, Johnson's claim for
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
fails as a matter of law.  Because Johnson has failed to identify a
statutory or contractual basis for an award of attorneys' fees,
this request fails.  Finally, he deems Johnson's request for
declaratory judgment to be abandoned.  Johnson concedes that his
claim for declaratory relief was justly pled in his role as class
representative, and is not applicable to the prosecution of his
individual claims.

Lastly, the Defendant moves for partial summary judgment as to the
Plaintiff Krehlik.  Specifically, it argues that it is entitled to
summary judgment as to Krehlik's claims for: (1) wind damage under
the Atlas Limited Warranty; (2) warranties based upon advertising
or marketing materials; (3) the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) attorneys'
fees; and (6) declaratory judgment.

Judge Thrash finds that despite the fact that Krehlik attached the
Atlas Limited Warranty to the Amended Class Action Complaint, and
asserted a claim for breach of the Atlas Limited Warranty in the
Amended Class Action Complaint, she now denies that it applies in
her case.  The Judge consequently deems Krehlik to have abandoned
any claims for breach of the Atlas Limited Warranty.  In addition,
he finds that it would be irrational for a jury to conclude that
Krehlik read and relied upon these specific marketing messages
based upon this purported circumstantial evidence.  Therefore, the
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to these claims.  

Krehlik's argument that the Defendant "conveyed to the building
industry" that the Shingles were fit for a particular purpose is
unpersuasive because she cannot show that she relied upon this
"conveyed" purpose, or that the Defendant knew she relied upon it.
Therefore, the Judge finds that the Defendant is entitled to
summary judgment as to Krehlik's claim for breach of the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  Since Krehlik has
failed to offer evidence that a defect in the Shingles caused these
alleged external injuries to other parts of the roof, she can only
assert damage to the Shingles themselves - which is barred by the
economic loss rule.  Because Krehlik cannot establish a cognizable
injury, her fraudulent concealment claim fails as a matter of law.

Because she has failed to identify a statutory or contractual basis
for an award of attorneys' fees, Krehlik request fails.  Finally,
the Judge deems Krehlik's request for declaratory judgment to be
abandones.  Krehlik concedes concedes that her claim for
declaratory relief was justly pled in her role as class
representative, and is not applicable to the prosecution of her
individual claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/U4ReKo from Leagle.com.

Diane Dishman, Rodney Dishman & Anthony Costanzo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes -- c@mcconnellsneed.com --
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin , Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson
King, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com --
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

Michael Mazza, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Calvert , Parker
Waichman, LLP, David R. Buchanan -- intake@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC, Jay P.
Dinan, Parker Waichman, LLP, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC,
Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon
Chadwick, Jr. -- lyon@drslawfirm.com -- David Randolph Smith &
Associates, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com
-- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield
-- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC.

Linda Krehlik & Robert Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by David R.
Buchanan, Seeger Weiss, David Randolph Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, pro hac vice, Dominick R. Smith, David Randolph Smith
& Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group, LLC,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum
Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William
Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David Randolph Smith & Associates, Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC.

George Crotzer & Susan Crotzer, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mosaic at Vinings Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, LLP, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP &
Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

Arlington Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Harper T. Segui, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Conor A.
McLaughlin -- Conor.McLaughlin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine,
Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Harlan Irby Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Henry
B. Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble, Carlyle,
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Hugh M. Claytor, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, James E. Weatherholtz -- james.weatherholtz@wbd-us.com --
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Joel G. Pieper --
joel.pieper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, John
Phillip Wiederhold, Weiderhold, Moses, Kummerien & Waronicki, P.A.,
Keith Ashford Clinard -- keith.clinard@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Kip T. Bollin --
Kip.Bollin@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine, pro hac vice, Paul H.
Stephenson, III -- pstephenson@watkinseager.com --, Watkins & Eager
Photo , Watkins & Eager, 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.

MDL 2804: National Roofers' Suit Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
National Roofers Union & Employers Joint Health & Welfare Fund
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalon
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Noramco
Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now
known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.;
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis
PLS; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.;
Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as:
Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt
LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen
Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01949, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on July 18,
2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-45833-DAP to the proceeding.

The National Roofers case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in
re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or
potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in
15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action.

In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia
suggests that the MDL Court delay transferring West Virginia's case
until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its
motion to remand to state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an
Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action
(Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose
centralization of third partypayor actions. Western District of
Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and,
alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of
Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to
defer transfer of its action until document discovery is
completed.

Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carissa J. Dolan, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Egler, Esq.
          LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS
          655 West Broadway, Ste. 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058


MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Sept. 6 FLSA Class Certification Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bryon Dittman, an individual on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01851-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
has entered an order on the parties' Stipulation re Hearing and
Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of a
Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective.

The Judge ordered that (i) the Plaintiff's motion will be filed by
June 8, 2018; (ii) the Defendant's opposition will be filed by July
13, 2018; (iii) the Plaintiff's reply will be filed by Aug. 3,
2018; and (iv) the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion will be
noticed for Sept. 6, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4Htlww from Leagle.com.

Bryon Dittman, Plaintiff, represented by Kye Douglas Pawlenko --
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes, Pawlenko, LLP & Matthew Bryan
Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko LLP.

Medical Solution, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by David A.
Yudelson -- david.yudelson@koleyjessen.com -- Koley Jessen PC,
L.L.O., pro hac vice, Margaret C. Hershiser --
margaret.hershiser@koleyjessen.com -- Koley Jessen PC, L.L.O., pro
hac vice, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com --
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete & Kenneth Dawson Sulzer --
ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP.

MERCK & CO: Richardson et al. Sue over Zostavax Vaccine
-------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., a foreign
corporation; MERCK SHARPE & DOHME CORP., a foreign corporation; and
McKESSON CORP., a foreign corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
18-CA-5258 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18, 2018), seeks
to recover damages from personal injuries suffered as a result of
being inoculated with Zostavax (TM) vaccine.

According to the complaint, the Zostavax (TM) vaccine was and is
intended for the long-term prevention of herpes zoster (or
shingles) as manufactured, designed, licensed, processed,
assembled, marketed, promoted, packaged, labeled, distributed,
supplied, and/or sold by Defendants. The Plaintiffs were inoculated
with the Zostavax (TM) vaccine for the long-term prevention of
shingles. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with shingles after being
inoculated with the vaccine and suffered serious physical,
emotional, and economic damages as a result of her shingles and
associated injuries. [BN]

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen A. De Gisi, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA
          Telephone: (610) 941 4444
          Facsimile: (610) 941 9880
          E-mail. cdegisi@bernIlp.com


MERCK SHARP: Margiotti Files Suit Over Rotavirus Vaccine Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margiotti & Kroll Pediatrics, P.C., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No.
2:18-cv-03064-JCJ (E.D. Pa., July 23, 2018), challenges Merck's
alleged anticompetitive scheme to enhance and maintain its monopoly
power in the market for rotavirus vaccines sold in the United
States.

The Plaintiff, a private pediatric medical practice, purchased
rotavirus vaccine directly from Merck and brings this action to
recover the overcharges that resulted from Merck's illegal
monopolization scheme.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation is a company organized under the
laws of New Jersey, and headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New
Jersey.

Merck is one of the world's largest vaccines manufacturers and a
leading manufacturer of vaccines in the United States.  Merck is
the sole United States manufacturer in the markets for multiple
pediatric vaccines, including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and
Varicella, holding 100% of United States sales for those vaccines.
In addition, Merck dominates United States sales in the market for
human papilloma virus ("HPV") vaccine, with a market share of over
95%.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                  lverderame@edelson-law.com

               - and -

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


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces Civil Rights Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade County is facing a class action lawsuit for civil rights
violation. The case is styled as C.F.C., S.C.C., Wecount!, Inc.,
Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc., individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
and Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22956-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2018).

Miami-Dade County is a county located in the southeastern part of
the U.S. state of Florida. It is the southeasternmost county on the
U.S. mainland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Corey Daniel Berman, Esq.
   Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
   1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 577-3194
   Email: corey.berman@weil.com

      - and -

   Mark Ian Pinkert, Esq.
   Weil, Gotshal and Manges
   1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 577-3163

      - and -

   Nicole Jordan Comparato, Esq.
   Weil, Gotshal , Manges LLP
   1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (561) 809-8724
   Email: nicole.comparato@weil.com

      - and -

   Pravin Rajesh Patel, Esq.
   Weil, Gotshal & Manges
   1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 577-3112
   Fax: (305) 374-7159
   Email: pravin.patel@weil.com

      - and -

   Edward Soto, Esq.
   Weil Gotshal & Manges
   1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 577-3177
   Fax: 374-7159
   Email: edward.soto@weil.com

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Binz" Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BINZ, JASON BINZ AND CELESTE MARTINS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICRON
TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SK HYNIX, INC.
(F/K/A HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.), SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC. (F/K/A
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.), Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04090 (N.D., Cal., July 9, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants' conspiratorial conduct violated the Sherman Act and the
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws of
various states.

According to the complaint, the Defendants combined and contracted
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices at which the
Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") was sold in the United States
from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018. The Defendants'
conspiracy artificially inflated prices for DRAM throughout the
supply chain that were ultimately passed through to Plaintiffs and
the Class, causing them to pay more for DRAM Products than they
otherwise would have absent Defendants' conspiracy.

The Defendants made a near simultaneous decision in 2016 to
restrict growth in the supply of DRAM to stop the downward pressure
on prices and, indeed, to cause DRAM prices to skyrocket upward.
Beginning no later than early 2016, through statements to investors
and the industry, Micron called on Samsung and SK Hynix (the two
other DRAM manufacturers) to engage in supply discipline. For
example, on March 30, 2016, Micron was specifically asked whether
it would engage in supply cuts and Micron's CEO, Mark Durcan,
responded that Micron would "be foolish to be the first ones to
take capacity off." Micron's CFO, Ernie Maddock, further confirmed
that Micron would not unilaterally cut production: "it's a really
ill-advised move to be unilaterally cutting production." But, at
the same time, Micron reassured competitors that "our focus is not
on market share." Micron told its competitors that it would cease
trying to take market share from Samsung and Hynix. On April 28,
2016 Samsung responded to Micron's invitation to cut supply by
publicly announcing that its DRAM supply growth had turned
negative. After these communications, by June 1, 2016, DRAM prices
reversed course, started shooting upwards, and continued to do so
throughout the Class Period.

Micron Technology, Inc. provides semiconductor systems worldwide.
The company operates through four segments: Compute and Networking
Business Unit, Storage Business Unit, Mobile Business Unit, and
Embedded Business Unit. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  riop@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 519-8306
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail:  sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
                   mreuben@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of "Coyne" FDCPA Suit Partly Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Coyne, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Midland Funding LLC;
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants, Messerli & Kramer
P.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2826 (8th Cir.), Judge Morris
Sheppard Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing the
complaint only as to Coyne's claim against Messerli that it
violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f when it attempted to
collect, and represented he owed, compound interest on the debt in
violation of Minnesota law.

In 2016, Minnesota resident Coyne received three collection letters
about a credit-card debt in his name.  The law firm of Messerli &
Kramer P.A. sent him the first letter, asserting he owed an account
balance of $17,230 consisting of the principal balance of
$13,205.30 and interest of $3,871.39 at the rate of 6.00% plus
incurred costs of $153.60.  Another debt collector, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., sent him the other letters on behalf of the
debt's current owner, Midland Funding, LLC, but those parties and
letters are not before the Court in the appeal.

Coyne filed a putative class action against Midland Funding and the
two debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), claiming they used a false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means, and an unfair or unconscionable means, in
attempting to collect the credit-card debt when they told him,
among other things, that he owed interest on the debt's principal
balance.  In his amended complaint, Coyne alleges that the
principal balance included contractual interest.  He also alleges
that since the underlying credit-card agreement does not authorize
the charging of compound interest, the defendants falsely
represented the amount of the debt and impermissibly tried to
collect interest that they could not charge under Minnesota law.

When Midland Funding and the debt collectors moved the district
court to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a
claim, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the
action on the ground that Coyne failed to allege that any statement
in the collection letters "was not only false but materially so."


Coyne moved the district court for leave to file a motion to
reconsider, but the district court denied him leave since it had
determined that the representations in the letters regarding
interest were either not material or did not violate the FDCPA.
Coyne appeals from the judgment dismissing his complaint.

The only claim that Coyne seeks to resuscitate against Messerli is
that it violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f by attempting
to collect, and representing he owed, compound interest on the
debt.  The Court now has only one issue to review: Whether Coyne
stated a FDCPA claim when he alleged that since the debt's
principal balance included contractual interest and since
compounded interest upon interest was not expressly authorized by
the agreement creating the debt, the interest on the principal
balance that Messerli's letter tried to collect, and said that he
owed, was compound interest in violation of Minn. Stat. Section
334.01.

Coyne alleges he did not agree to pay compound interest on the
debt.  He further alleges that the debt's principal balance already
contained contractual interest.  The district court agreed that an
unpaid credit-card debt sold to another party would include the
interest and fees the credit-card company originally charged.
Neither party contests that ruling on appeal and so Judge Arnold
holds that Coyne has plausibly alleged that the principal balance
that Messerli's letter mentions contained contractual interest.

It is also plausible that the interest charged on the principal
balance included interest on the contractual interest: Messerli's
letter to Coyne was dated Feb. 26, 2016, and it asserted that he
owed interest of $3,871.39 at the rate of 6% on the principal
balance of $13,205.30.  This amount of interest is approximately
what would accrue on the principal balance under an annual rate of
6.00% simple interest from the date the credit-card company sold
the debt to the date of Messerli's letter.  So if the principal
balance has contractual interest in it, the interest sought in
Messerli's letter would include interest on that contractual
interest.  The Judge thus holds that Coyne has plausibly alleged
that Messerli tried to collect, and told him that he owed, an
amount and a type of interest that state law prohibited in the
circumstances.

The Judge now holds that a false representation of the amount of a
debt that overstates what is owed under state law materially
violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A) as well.  It is material not
only because the representation violates the plain language of that
subsection prohibiting the "false representation" of the "amount"
of "any debt," but also because an overstatement of the debt's
amount necessarily misleads the debtor about the amount he owes
under his agreement with the creditor.  So the district court erred
in holding that the allegation under review did not state a
plausible claim under Sections 1692e and 1692f.

Messerli argues nonetheless that it did not violate the FDCPA since
the amount of interest stated in its letter to Coyne was
contractually authorized.  That may prove to be true. But, the
Judge holds that at the pleading stage he must accept Coyne's
allegation that he did not agree to be charged compound interest
and so may not be charged it.  

Since the amended complaint and the documents it necessarily
embraces do not indicate the interest rates that apply to the debt,
Judge Arnold has no occasion to consider Messerli's argument that a
debt collector may try to collect compound interest without
materially violating the FDCPA so long as the total amount of
interest sought does not exceed the maximum amount permitted under
the debtor's contract.  

At oral argument, Messerli further asserted that the district court
had correctly noted that its letter to Coyne was not a collection
letter, but Messerli errs again: The district court did not make
that observation, and it was not even in a position at the pleading
stage to do so since that observation would have conflicted not
only with the allegations in the amended complaint, but also with
the declaration printed on the letter's face that it is from a debt
collector and is an attempt to collect a debt.

For these reasons, Judge Arnold reversed the judgment of the
district court only as to Coyne's claim against Messerli that it
violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f when it attempted to
collect, and represented he owed, compound interest on the debt in
violation of Minnesota law.  He remanded the case for further
proceedings on that claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WRpszv from Leagle.com.

Russell S. Ponessa -- rponessa@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-Not
Party.

Derrick Neal Weber -- dweber@messerlikramer.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Margaret Ann Santos -- asantos@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-Not
Party.

Anthony Patrick Chester -- tony@westcoastlitigation.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert L. Hyde, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

MONSANTO CO: Bumper Crop Farms Sues over Xtend Seed System
----------------------------------------------------------
BUMPER CROP FARMS, LLC, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, and
BASF CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01409 (S.D.
Ill., July 18, 2018), alleges that Plaintiffs have been victimized
by Monsanto's defective Xtend seed system, BASF's
dicamba-containing herbicides, and their purchasers' inevitable use
of dicamba, a drift-prone herbicide that has affected millions of
acres of farmland in the United States, causing widespread
destruction of crops.

The lawsuit claims the Defendants methodically engaged in a
coordinated, systematic plan to release their defective products
onto the market, thereby ensuring that non-DT crops would be
destroyed.  In 2015 and 2016, Monsanto willfully and negligently
launched its Xtend seeds, releasing Xtend cotton in 2015 and Xtend
soybeans in 2016, without an effective and safe herbicide for use
with Xtend crops. Monsanto did so even though it marketed its Xtend
products as a "crop system" -- Xtend seeds to be used in
conjunction with its or Defendant BASF's dicamba herbicides.
Monsanto knew farmers would purchase and use other dicamba
herbicides to spray on its Xtend crops and Defendants encouraged
farmers to do so, even though such spraying was not legal.  The
fact of damage to Bumper Crop Farms' crop yields is typical of the
damages sustained by other class members, the lawsuit claims.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Sudekum, Esq.
          MANDEL & MANDEL LLP
          1108 Olive Street, 5th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101

               - and -

          Beverly T. Randles, Esq.
          Billy R. Randles, Esq.
          Angela M. Splittgerber, Esq.
          RANDLES & SPLITTGERBER, LLP
          5823 N. Cypress Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64119
          Telephone: (816) 744 4779
          E-mail: bill@randleslaw.com
                  bev@randleslaw.com
                  angie@randleslaw.com

               - and -

          L. Benjamin Mook, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569 2629
          Facsimile: (816) 447 3939
          E-mail: ben@dgmlawyers.com


MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS:  Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc. and Mount
Sinai Health Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06565
(S.D. N.Y., July 20, 2018) arises under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Mount Sinai Hospital provides healthcare services in the United
States and internationally. The company offers services in the
areas of adolescent health, allergy and immunology, Alzheimer's
disease, ambulatory care, breast health, cancer-oncology, children,
dentistry, dermatology, diabetes, digestive
diseases-gastroenterology, emergency medicine, environmental
health, family and community medicine, genetics, geriatrics,
heart-cardiology, infectious diseases, infusion therapy, kidney
diseases, liver care, lung diseases and pulmonary medicine, medical
genetics, medicine, and metabolic and weight loss surgery
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MSK MANAGEMENT: Joseph Martin Files FLSA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
has been filed against MSK management, LLC.  The case is styled as
Joseph Martin and Benjamin Brislawn, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MSK management, LLC, Mohammed S
Khan also known as: Mike Khan, Boonton Pizza Corporation, Elizabeth
Pizza Corporation, Leonia Pizza, Inc., Jersey Pizza, Inc., Khan
Enterprises, Inc., Mount Penn Pizza, Inc., Penn Street Pizza, Inc.,
125 N. Lewis Road LLC, 461 Springfield Ave, LLC, 335 Valley Road,
Limited Liability Company, 1046 Clinton Avenue, LLC, 441-443 Mlk
Blvd., LLC, 115-125 Saint Georges Ave. LLC, 479 Pompton Ave. LLC,
SI Pizza, Inc., John Doe Corp. 1-10 and John Doe 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11874-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., July 20, 2018).

MSK management, LLC is a business management consultant in East
Orange, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ROBERT W. SMITH, Esq.
   SMITH EIBELER, LLC
   101 CRAWFORDS CORNER ROAD
   HOLMDEL, NJ 07733
   Tel: (732) 935-7246
   Email: rsmith@smitheibeler.com


MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Summ. Ruling in Strip Search Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, Individually, on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULTNOMAH
COUNTY; DAN STATON, both individually and in his official capacity
as Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-35267 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's (i) order denying Cunningham's motion for summary judgment;
and (ii) order granting Multnomah County Inverness Jail ("MCIJ")'s
motion for summary judgment.

MCIJ is a medium security facility operated by the Multnomah County
Sherriff's Office that houses between 700 and 900 inmates in a
225,000 square foot "open dormitory" configuration.  Sentenced
inmates are required to work within the facility, and may work as
part of the kitchen staff.

Since 2001, MCIJ has maintained an official policy to visually
strip search kitchen work crews inside an adjacent "boot room" at
the completion of their shift and prior to their return to the
general prison population. During this process, inmates were in the
presence of, and could see, other members of the group.  In 2011,
MCIJ installed privacy panels inside the "boot room" to prevent
searched inmates from viewing each other.

From September to October 2010, Cunningham was in custody at MCIJ
and was assigned to the kitchen staff.  In 2012, Cunningham filed a
class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated inmates
who were subjected to MCIJ's strip search policy, alleging
constitutional violations under state law and the Fourth and Eighth
amendments.  Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court denied Cunningham's motion for summary judgment
and granted MCIJ's motion.  Cunningham thereafter filed the timely
appeal.

The Appellate Court finds that the district court properly found
that MCIJ's strip search policy did not violate the Fourth
Amendment.  It explaints that prisons have a legitimate penological
interest in preventing the secretion of contraband by inmates
returning from work assignments.  The threat of harm MCIJ seeks to
prevent is one arising from the secretion of contraband obtained by
inmates through their exposure to the facility's kitchen.

Undoubtedly, strip searches are a considerable violation of one's
personal dignity.  However, even assuming that alternative measures
could achieve the same results without strip searches, MCIJ's
policy needs not involve the least intrusive means to be reasonable
under Bell.  

The scope of MCIJ's strip search policy was not unreasonable.  MCIJ
limited its search to a visual inspection of the kitchen crew.
Where a facility's visual strip search is restricted to a discrete
class of inmates, the Court has declined to find that the scope was
unreasonably broad.  Although the manner in which MCIJ conducted
its pre-privacy panel searches was troublesome, the facility's
unique administrative challenges justified its policy.  Further,
the searches were performed by same-gender deputies and avoided any
intrusive physical contact, such procedures have been held
reasonable.

The "boot room" used by MCIJ to conduct the strip search contained
one window that could be completely covered by an attached curtain.
The location of a search conducted within view of other inmates
will be reasonable so long as the inmates were afforded privacy
from the general prison population.

Because MCIJ's pre-privacy panel search policy was reasonable,
summary judgment in favor of MCIJ was appropriate.  Accordingly,
the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/2v7D40 from Leagle.com.

MUST CURE OBESITY: Adam Bugbee Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BUGBEE v. MUST CURE OBESITY, CO. and DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:18-cv-04460 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2018), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking relief from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mr. Bugbee accuses the Defendants of negligently sending
telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone, in violation
of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading his privacy.

MCOC is a corporation of the state of Florida, which is not
authorized to do business in Illinois, and whose principal place of
business is located in Montverde, Florida.  MCOC was engaged in the
marketing and sale of gastric bypass surgery throughout the United
States, including in Illinois, and other related services.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


MV TRANSPORTATION: Miller Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE MILLER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00538 (W.D.
Tex., June 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of
court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

MV Transportation, Inc., is a foreign corporation formed and
existing under the laws of the state of California and maintains
and operates its principal office in Dallas, Texas.

MVTI provides passenger transportation management, operations, and
related services to jurisdictional and private entities, non-profit
agencies, and community organizations worldwide.  The Company also
offers transport and logistics solutions and special event
transportation management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          WELMAKER LAW PLLC
          PO Box 150728
          Austin, TX 78715
          Telephone: (512) 799-2048
          Facsimile: (512) 253-2969
          E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com



N SAMPOGNA: Perez Files Class Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against N. Sampogna & Son
Corp. The case is styled as Carlos Perez, Jose Orellana and
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by N. Sampogna & So, Plaintiff v. N. Sampogna &
Son Corp., Nicholas Sampogna, Joseph Sampogna and any other
entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by N. SA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06246 (C.D. Cal., July 19, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other.

N. Sampogna & Son Corp. is a General contractor in New Cassel, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   VIRGINIA & AMBINDER,LLP
   40 BROAD STREET,7TH FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

   RABINOWITZ & GALINA
   94 WILLIS AVENUE
   MINEOLA, NY 11501
   Tel: (516) 739-8222



NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Must Comply with Oct. 6, 2015 Order
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAMCO SUPPLY CORP. on behalf of itself and all other
persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law
trusts of which NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC., is a trustee,
Plaintiff, v. NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC., J.T. MAGEN & COMPANY
INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ANTHONY J. NASTASI, and
"JOHN DOE ONE" through "JOHN DOE TEN," Defendants, Docket No.
651725/2015, Mot. Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Andrea Masley of
the Supreme Court, New York County, (i) struck the answer of the
Natasi Defendants; (ii) granted Kamco's motion to compel discovery
from J.T. Magen & Co. Inc. ("JTM"); and (iii) denied the cross
motion for summary judgment of JTM and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.


Kamco, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts pursuant to
the Court's Oct. 6, 2015 order, moves, pursuant to CPLR 3124 and
3126, for an order compelling Defendants Nastasi & Associates, Inc.
("N&A") and Anthony J. Nastasi to: (1) comply with the Court's
order, dated Oct. 6, 2015, by providing a list of all
subcontractors, suppliers, and other potential beneficiaries
pursuant to the Lien Law in connection with 20 projects with which
N&A was engaged; and (2) fully respond to Kamco's discovery
demands, and provide access to books or records as required under
Lien Law Seciton 75.  

Kamco also seeks, pursuant to CPLR 3124, an order compelling
Defendants JTM and N&A to provide all documents related to those
parties' transactions, agreements, and communications pertaining to
the 20 projects identified in the amended complaint.

Defendants JTM and Liberty cross move, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b),
for an order summarily dismissing the complaint as against them.

Kamco asserts that it provided acoustical tiles to N&A, a
subcontractor to a project at 150 East 42nd Street for which JTM
was the general contractor; N&A allegedly failed to pay Kamco
$939,301.88 for those materials, and Kamco filed a mechanic's lien
for that non-payment.  Under that prong of the amended complaint,
Kamco seeks to recover the $939,301.88 unpaid balance, plus
interest, from N&A and its principal, Nastasi (together, Nastasi
Defendants); Kamco also seeks to foreclose on the lien, which has
been substituted by a lien discharge bond purchased by JTM from
Liberty.

Kamco also asserts that it provided materials to N&A for 20
building construction projects with which N&A was involved since
November 1, 2015, and asserts Lien Law trust-diversion class action
claims against the Nastasi Defendants.  Kamco requests an
accounting of all Lien Law trust funds for each of the 20 projects,
including one or more projects for which JTM was the general
contractor, to identify the beneficiaries of the Lien Law funds and
ascertain the amounts paid and owed to N&A for each project.  Kamco
seeks to recover, on behalf of itself and the class, damages
sustained due to the Nastasi Defendants' alleged misappropriation
or diversion of such funds.

By order, dated Oct. 6, 2015, the Court granted on default Kamco's
motion, pursuant to Lien Law Section 77 and CPLR 902, 903, and 904,
to maintain the suit as a Lien Law trust-diversion class action
under Article 9 of the CPLR, and directed the Nastasi Defendants to
furnish a list of all subcontractors, suppliers, and other
potential beneficiaries under Lien Law Article 3-A for each of the
projects listed in the amended complaint.  The Nastasi Defendants
have failed to comply.

Judge Masley finds that Plaintiff Kamco have established that the
Nastasi Defendants have willfully failed to provide discovery as
directed in the Oct. 6, 2015 order of the Court and that they
failed to preserve records, books, and other information while on
notice of the litigation, the Oct. 6, 2015 order, and the
Plaintiff's related discovery demands.

She therefore granted Kamco's motion, and the answer of the Natasi
Defendants is stricken.  She also granted Kamco's motion to compel
discovery from JTM.

Kamco will file a supplemental discovery demand upon JTM within 20
days of the Order, and JTM will respond to that supplemental demand
and any previously-served discovery demands of Kamco and produce,
to the extent it has not already done so, all responsive,
non-privileged documents, and a privilege log compliant with
Commercial Division Rule 11 (b), in accordance with the Civil
Practice Law and Rules.

The Judge denied the cross motion for summary judgment of JTM and
Liberty.

The counsel will appear for a status conference in Room 242, 60
Centre Street, on Aug. 14, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/u9mJ15 from Leagle.com.

NEIGHBORHOOD RADIOLOGY: Picon Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelitza Picon filed a class action lawsuit against Neighborhood
Radiology Management Services, LLC under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neighborhood
Radiology Management Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06566 (S.D. N.Y., July 20, 2018).

Neighborhood Radiology Services provides medical imaging services
available in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, including
Manhattan, Queens and Nassau County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NEWPORT BEACH: Taylor Files Suit Over Illegal Time-Shaving
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Taylor, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Newport Beach Consulting LLC, Ascendant
Marketing Group, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2018-00025739 (Cal. Super. May 23, 2018), seeks redress
for Defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, 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.

Defendants are telemarketing companies that specialize in creating
leads for various types of companies, primarily those in the
mortgage and refinance industry. Taylor worked as a telemarketer,
calling "leads" to verify certain key pieces of data and
information and passing them to the clients. Defendants allegedly
"round down" Taylor's time records from the actual "clock-out" time
which results in a theft of approximately an additional 15 to 20
minutes' worth of wages each workday, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
      S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-Mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
              adam@dychterlaw.com


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: CMC in Securities Suit Continued to Oct. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE OCERA THERAPEUTICS, INC. Lead SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-06687-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, continued the Case Management
Conference ("CMC") from June 28, 2018 to Oct. 25, 2018.

The case was filed on Nov. 20, 2017, by Samuel P. Clarke, a
stockholder of Ocera, as a putative class action, captioned Samuel
P. Clarke v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06687.  On March 27, 2018, the Court consolidated the
Clarke Action with a related action, and appointed Plaintiffs as
the co-lead Plaintiffs for the putative class.

On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint,
which alleges violations of Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related regulations.  The
Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is June 11, 2018.
The Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint on
June 11, 2018.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the motion to dismiss will be
fully briefed on or before Aug. 27, 2018.  The initial CMC for the
Action was set for Feb. 22, 2018, and later continued to March 1,
2018, and again continued to June 28, 2018.

The Parties believe that because the PSLRA stays all discovery,
including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions
to dismiss in securities actions such as this one, it is
appropriate to defer the initial case management statement, initial
case management conference, and the completion of initial
disclosures until the Court has ruled on the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss.

Because the case will not be at issue until after the Defendants'
motion to dismiss is fully briefed and decided -- and even then
only if the pleading is sustained -- the Parties agreed and
respectfully submitted, and Judge Seeborg approved, that a
continuance of the initial CMC for at least 120 days would be
reasonable and propose a continuance from June 28, 2018 to Oct. 25,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4dDoXT from Leagle.com.

Samuel P. Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Jones -- mjones@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Christin
Joy Hill -- chill@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Eckard Weber, Linda Grais, Wendell Wierenga, Anne Vanlent, Steven
James, Nina Kjellson & Willard Dere, Defendants, represented by
Michael T. Jones, Goodwin Procter LLP.

William Paulus, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

PM HOTEL: "Colburn" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Gaynell C. Colburn, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pollin/Miller Hospitality Strategies, Inc. dba PM Hotel
Group, Case No. 1:18-cv-02033 (D. Md., July 5, 2018), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief establishing that the Defendant
has engaged in violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and requiring the Defendant to comply with the ADA by providing
individuals with disabilities accessible transportation services
that are equivalent to the transportation services provided to
non-disabled guests.

The Plaintiff Gaynell C. Colburn is a resident of Baltimore City,
Maryland. The Plaintiff is a wheelchair user who is limited in the
major life activity of walking.

The Defendant Defendant Pollin/Miller Hospitality Strategies, Inc.
is a Virginia corporation headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Defendant operates its hotel management operations under the name
PM Hotel Group. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. David Hoskins, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC
      16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 662-6500
      E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com

          - and -

      Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq.
      HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
      16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 777-5396
      E-mail: kat@lawhyland.com

          - and -

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
      KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces Slade ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Slade has filed a class action lawsuit against Premier
Nutrition Corp. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Premier Nutrition Corporation doing business as:
PowerBar, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06605 (S.D. N.Y., July 23,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Premier Nutrition Corporation, a nutrition company, manufactures
and sells beverage products, bars and shakes.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

PSC Community: Mannapova Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.S.C. Community
Services Inc.  The case is styled as Lyudmila Mannapova,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. P.S.C. Community Services Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04146 (E.D. N.Y., July 20, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

P.S.C. Community Services Inc. is a Home health care service in New
York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



QUANTA SERVICES: Geffner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Geffner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quanta Services, Inc., Phoenix Power Group, Inc., Earl
C. Austin, Jr., Case No. 1:18-cv-06108 (S.D. N.Y., July 5, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, Evan Geffner, was an employee of Defendants, working
under their direct supervision. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants for approximately two years as a w-2 employee, from 2015
to 2017.

The Defendants reside in New York County, State of New York and
within the Judicial District for the Southern District of New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq.
      DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
      1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 587-0760


REALREAL INC: Claims in Diamond Misrepresentation Suit Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABY BASMADJIAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE REALREAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 17-06910 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff brings claims under
California law for intentionally misrepresenting the weight of
gemstones in jewelry sold online.  The Defendant owns and operates
www.therealreal.com, an online consignment store where individuals
can buy and sell luxury consignment items such as jewelry.  The
Defendant's website guarantees that its products are 100% the real
thing.  It also advertises its team of authentication experts,
horologists and gemologists.  Sellers send their jewelry to
defendant, whose experts authenticate and price the items, and then
defendant makes the item available to buyers on its website.

In August 2017, Basmadjian bought a ring for $982.62 from the
Defendant's website based in part on the representation that the
ring contained 2.10 carats of diamonds. At the time of the
purchase, the Plaintiff had no way to verify whether the diamond
weight listed on the description was accurate.

After receiving the ring, the Plaintiff had a gemologist measure
it.  The gemologist found that the ring contained approximately 1.2
carats of diamonds.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant overstated the weight of the ring's diamonds by 0.9
carats, which exceeds the permissible range of deviation under
Section 23.17(c) of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Plaintiff alleges that defendant intentionally overstated the
weight of the diamonds.  The Plaintiff further alleges that the
Defendant systematically inflated the total weights of small
uncertified gemstones in jewelry sold on its website.

The Plaintiff alleges that the price of jewelry is dependent, in
part, on the weight of the gemstones it contains.  Thus, because
the Defendant had a practice of intentionally overstating the
weight of gemstones, it inflated the price of its jewelry and
overcharged consumers.  The Plaintiff therefore claims that she
should recover the difference between the price she paid versus
what the jewelry should have sold for at the correct gemstone
weight,

The amended complaint in this diversity action brings the following
claims under California law: (1) fraud, (2) negligent
misrepresentation; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; (5) violation of California's
False Advertising Law; and (6) violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedy Act.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the amended complaint for (1)
failure to plead a claim under California law; (2) failure to plead
an ascertainable loss; and (3) lack of standing as to the class
claims.

Judge Alsup explains that the state's court of appeals requires
that a plaintiff give pre-suit notice, and has expressly rejected
notice letters that are sent contemporaneous with the complaint as
contrary to the purpose of the notice requirement.  Given that the
Plaintiff has not pled that she gave defendant pre-suit notice, her
claim for breach of express warranty is dismissed.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that
defendant intentionally misrepresented the weight of gemstones in
its jewelry as part of a practice to mislead consumers.  The
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims sounding in
fraud are therefore denied.

The Plaintiff's unfair competition and false advertising claims are
derivative of her other state law claims.  The Defendant has not
raised specific challenges to these claims.  Rather, it generally
challenged all of the Plaintiff's claims sounding in fraud for
failure to plead with particularity that the Defendant
misrepresented the weights of gemstones in a false or misleading
way.  Because this order already addressed those arguments and held
that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts giving rise to
plausible claims, these individual claims survive for now.
Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
these claims.

The Plaintiff's original complaint brought a CLRA claim seeking
injunctive relief.  She now brings CLRA claims seeking monetary
damages in her amended complaint.  While 30 days have passed since
she filed her original complaint, the Plaintiff's opposition brief
concedes that she failed to demand how the Defendant should correct
its alleged violations of the CLRA, and thus failed to properly
comply with CLRA's notice requirement.  Accordingly, the Judge
dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's CLRA claims.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that she
suffered a loss.  Because the Plaintiff has alleged she received
less than what she bargained for, she has sufficiently pled an
ascertainable loss.

Finally, the Judge holds that the difference among class members is
more appropriately addressed at the class certification stage.
Accordingly, he denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's class claims pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/q4V8NN from Leagle.com.

Gaby Basmadjian, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Altman, Excolo
Law, PLLC.

RealReal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carol Lynn Thompson --
CTHOMPSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Amy P. Lally --
ALALLY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Angela Carla Makabali --
AMAKABALI@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Pinyuk Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC. The case is styled as Nataliya Pinyuk,
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04121 (E.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Receivables Performance Management, LLC provides financial and
accounts receivables management services. The Company offers
outsourcing, telemarketing, pre-collection, and in bound and out
bound services. Receivables Performance Management serves
healthcare, commercial, retail, and financial industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Youth Accountability Team
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Riverside County, Calif., and its Probation Department
unconstitutionally discriminate against children of color through
an "astonishingly punitive and ineffective law enforcement program"
called the Youth Accountability Team, "treating them like
criminals" for "normal, childish behavior" such as being "defiant"
or "easily persuaded by peers," the ACLU claims in a federal class
action.

The case is SIGMA BETA XI, INC.; ANDREW M., by and through his next
friend DENISE M.; JACOB T., by and through his next friend HEATHER
T., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; J.F.,
by and through her next friend CINDY MCCONNELL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE; MARK HAKE, Chief of the Riverside County Probation
Department, in his official capacity; BRYCE HULSTROM, Chief Deputy
of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official
capacity, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:18-cv-01399 (C.D. Calif.).

RIVIERA CATERERS: Sypert Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Caterers Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is styled as Kathleen
Sypert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Riviera Caterers Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06522 (S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

Riviera Caterers Inc. is a catering company that specializes in
creative catering for exclusive venues and off-premises catering
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

RNT HOSPITALITY: Carter Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE CARTER, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. RNT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a ASTORIA HOTEL
WEST f/k/a INNKEEPER DANVILLE WEST, ZAHID CHOUDHRY, and GHULAM
LATIF, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00044-JLK (W.D. Va., July
18, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by forcing their employees to work a substantial
amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due,
thus depriving them of rightful compensation for their work that
Defendants are legally obligated to pay.

According to the complaint, Monique Carter worked for Defendants as
a front desk clerk at their Astoria Hotel West location and was
damaged by this illegal policy or practice in that she was denied
the compensation she is due under the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings
this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
current (or former) hourly-paid Hotel Staff, including front desk
clerks and maintenance workers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Thomas, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC
          500 Court Square, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 951 7242
          Facsimile: (434) 951 7244
          E-mail: dthomas@michiehamlett.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN
          HECKAMAN PLLC
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425 7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425 7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


SKYLINE METRICS: "Levinton" Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN LEVINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Skyline Metrics, LLC d/b/a Oncedriven.com, a Virginia
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-22969-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
July 23, 2018), is brought to secure redress for the Defendant's
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Skyline Metrics, LLC, doing business as Oncedriven.com, is a
Virginia corporation whose principal office is located in Roanoke,
Virginia.  The Defendant is a business engaged in the marketing and
selling of automobiles of others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com




SONY COMPUTER: $1.25M Attys' Fees Awarded in PS3 "Other OS" 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.), (i) granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Incentive Awards.

In conjunction with their separate Renewed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Plaintiffs have filed
their Renewed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards, seeking an award of $1,250,000 for attorneys'
fees and costs, and granting incentive rewards in the aggregate
amount of $17,500 (or $3,500 for each named Plaintiff) in the
action.

The Court, by separate Order, has granted the Renewed Motion for
Final Approval, finding that the proposed class action settlement
reached by the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate.  It now
considers herein the appropriate amount of fees, costs, and
incentive awards in light of the outcome for the class.

In addition, Objector Eric Michael Lindberg (by his mother, Susan
Lindberg) has filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Award, seeking an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $75,000, expenses in the amount of $1,360.15; and an incentive
award for Lindberg.  Objector Lindberg contends that the Court's
decision denying the prior motion for final approval of the class
settlement adopted key arguments raised in the objection, which
ultimately resulted in the new, more favorable settlement agreement
submitted with the renewed motions for approval.

Judge Rogers, having carefully reviewed the papers submitted in
support and in opposition to the motions, the parties' oral
arguments, and the record in the action, granted in part each of
the motions.  She finds that the Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards is reasonable and fair.
Objector Lindberg is entitled to some amount of fees commensurate
with the material benefit to the class arising from the objection.


Based upon the foregoing, (1) the Defendant will pay the Class
Counsel a total of $1,250,000 total as reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs; (2) Plaintiffs Derrick Alba, Jason Baker, James Girardi,
Jonathan Huber, and Anthony Ventura are awarded $3,500 each from
the settlement fund; and (3) the Class Counsel will pay to Objector
Lindberg a total of $22,836 for his attorneys' fees, costs, and an
incentive award.  The Order terminates Docket Nos. 346 and 348.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/YtdrW7 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.

SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Warciak"
------------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 24, 2018, in
the case captioned Matthew Warciak, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Subway Restaurants,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-1593 pending
before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Warciak alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act for spam text messages
promoting a Subway sandwich. Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled
to dismiss the said case on April 7, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Joshua Perlstadt, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: rperlstadt@edelson.com


SWAN CLUB: Sypert Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------
Kathleen Sypert filed a class action lawsuit captioned Kathleen
Sypert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Swan Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06518
(S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018), pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Swan Club, Inc. offers wedding venue services in Glenwood
Landing, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TWIN AMERICA: Picon Files ADA Suit v. Tourist Bus Company
---------------------------------------------------------
Twin America, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza
Picon and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Twin America, LLC d/b/a Gray Line New York, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06565 (S.D. N.Y., July 20, 2018).

Gray Line New York offers a large selection of NYC bus tours and
New York sightseeing activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

VECTREN CORP: Danigelis Files Suit Over Sale to Centerpoint
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Danigelis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Vectren Corporation, Carl L. Chapman, Derrick Burks,
James H. Degraffenreidt, Jr., John D. Engelbrecht, Anton H. George,
Robert G. Jones, Patrick K. Mullen, R. Daniel Sadlier, Michael L.
Smith, Teresa J. Tanner, and Jean Wojtowicz, Case No. 3:18-cv-00114
(S.D. Ind., July 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Vectren by CenterPoint Energy,
Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that on June 18, 2018, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff owns Vectren common stock.

The Defendant Vectren is an Indiana Corporation with its principle
executive offices located at One Vectren Square, 211 N.W. Riverside
Drive, Evansville, Indiana 47708. Vectren is an energy holding
company of wholly owned subsidiary, Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc.,
which serves as the intermediate holding company for three public
utilities: Indiana Gas Company, Inc., Southern Indiana Gas and
Electric Company, and Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.
Vectren's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol
"VVC."

The Individual Defendants are members of Vectren's board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

          - and -

      Jason A. Shartzer, Esq.
      SHARTZER LAW FIRM, LLC
      156 E. Market Street
      10th Floor, Suite 1000
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 969-7600
      Fax: (317) 969-7650
      E-mail: jshartzer@shartzerlaw.com

VF CORP: Faces Gamez Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting civil rights violation has been
filed against VF Corporation. The case is styled as David Gamez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VF Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06246 (C.D.
Cal., July 19, 2018).

VF Corporation is an American worldwide apparel and footwear
company founded in 1899 and headquartered in Greensboro, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


VIP COUNTRY CLUB: Sypert Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VIP Country Club, LLC
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is
styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIP Country Club, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06516 (S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2018).

VIP Country Club is a wedding & event venue in Westchester, NY,
located on the Long Island Sound waterfront.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


WATERSIDE PLAZA: Faces Fischler FLSA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
has been filed against Waterside Plaza LLC.  The case is styled as
Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waterside Plaza LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06573 (S.D. N.Y., July 21, 2018).

Waterside Plaza is a residential and business complex located on
the East River in the Kips Bay section of Manhattan, New York City.
It was formerly a Mitchell-Lama Housing Program-funded rental
project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: "Rushing" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Rushing, Individually & on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC., doing business as: Williams-Sonoma doing
business as: Williams-Sonoma Home doing business as: Pottery Barn a
Delaware corporation; Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., a California
corporation; Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc., a California
Corporation; John and Jane Does, 1-30, the Defendants, The Pond
Lady, LLC, the Movant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00420, was
removed/transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kentucky Eastern , to the U.S. District Court for the on
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 18, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-04368-JCS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph C.
Spero.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., is an American publicly traded consumer
retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings.[BN]

Attorneys for William Rushing, Individually & on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated:

          Amber Eck, Esq.
          Audra Petrolle, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK - SAN DIEGO
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342 8000

               - and -

          Rose Law Group, PC - AZ
          7144 E. Stetson Drive, Suite 300
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 505 3936

               - and -

          George Richard Baker, Esq.
          BAKER LAW PC
          625 E. Main Street
          Ste. 102B, No. 104
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (970) 439 5905
          E-mail: Prichard@bakerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Honecker, Esq.
          Rose Law Group, pc
          7144 East Stetson Drive, Suite 300
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 505 3936
          Facsimile: (480) 505 3925
          E-mail: khonecker@roselawgroup.com

Attorneys for WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC.; Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc.; and
Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc.:

          Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
          Eric J. DiIulio, Esq.
          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Robert A. Guite, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP - LA
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228 3700
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Tanya Yarbrough Bowman, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC - LOUISVILLE
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 3200
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589 5400
          Facsimile: (502) 581 1087
          E-mail: tbowman@fbtlaw.com

Attorneys for The Pond Lady, LLC:

          Scott T. Rickman, Esq.
          MORGAN & POTTINGER, P.S.C. - LEXINGTON
          175 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 226 5282
          Facsimile: (859) 255 2038
          E-mail: str@m-p.net


XCERRA CORPORATION: Faces "Shui" Securities Class Action in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xinkang Shui, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XCERRA CORPORATION, ROGER W. BLETHEN, DAVID G. TACELLI,
MARK S. AIN, ROGER J. MAGGS, JORGE TITINGER, and BRUCE R. WRIGHT,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11529-ADB (D. Mass., July 23, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the acquisition of Xcerra by Cohu, Inc.

On May 7, 2018, Cohu, Xavier Acquisition Corporation, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Cohu ("Merger Sub"), and Xcerra entered into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into Xcerra, with Xcerra continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cohu.

Xcerra is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal executive
offices and global headquarters located in Norwood, Massachusetts.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Xcerra.

The Company is a global provider of test and handling capital
equipment, interface products, test fixtures and related services
to the semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          Facsimile: (888) 628-6746
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


[*] Expert Debunks Notion Australia is Class Action Haven
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a leading academic has debunked the notion that Australia is a
class action haven and warned against a push to restrict multiple
claims in the courts.

Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University says that after the
United States, at least four countries are more worthy claimants to
the title of the most likely place for a class action than
Australia.

He says Australia has averaged 21.4 class actions a year since
1992, but is only just returning to 1998-2002 levels.

Professor Morabito noted Israel, with a population of more than 8
million people, had 5867 class actions from 2007-2015. Poland, plus
the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, were also far more
litigious and he suspected there were "several more" jurisdictions
also ahead of Australia.

"But the four examples set out above are sufficient to debunk the
myth that Australia is -- outside of the US -- the place to be if
you act for class members and the place to avoid if you do not wish
to be on the receiving end of one or more class actions," said
Professor Morabito.

His report, An Evidence-Based Approach to Class Action Reform in
Australia, was compiled with data from leading class-action lawyers
and is the latest in a series that started 10 years ago.

Professor Morabito said even the 2014-2018 figures -- a 44 per cent
rise on the previous four years in federal litigation --"cannot
rationally be viewed as excessive" in light of the overseas
regimes.

He noted that reports by the Australian Law Reform Commission and
the Victorian Law Reform Commission had taken different stances on
the issue of multiple class actions. While the ALRC says there
should be legislation so the Federal Court could decide which
claims progressed, Victoria was against any mandated changes.

Support for 'consolidation hearing'
Professor Morabito said competing class actions running
simultaneously in two or more courts was "unsatisfactory". However,
he said the ALRC view would impose "one-size-fits-all approach"
that Federal Court judges had so far rejected. It would also limit
access to justice and prompt a race to file the first claim.

"The starting point for this deadline is likely to be, in many
cases, the filing of poorly-drafted pleadings by solicitors who are
keen to be the first firm to file their pleadings," he said.

He added that he preferred a Victorian proposal for a cross-vesting
judicial panel to adjudicate on multiple actions involving the same
subject matter.

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Jason Betts said he strongly
supported the ALRC recommendation of a "consolidation hearing".

"Yes, such a reform is radical -- and would significantly limit the
right to sue -- but is a step necessary to reduce the inefficiency
and prejudice that competing class actions can introduce," he
said.

Mr Betts is acting for AMP, which is facing five class actions
arising out of the Hayne royal commission. Four have been filed in
the Federal Court and one in the NSW Supreme Court, which refused
an application to transfer all cases to the Federal Court.

The 44 per cent increase in federal class actions over the past
four years, he said, was "made more significant by the fact that
these cases take two-and-a-half years to resolve, can inflict
mortal damage on reputations, costs millions of dollars to defend,
drive up Australian insurance premiums and fuel an entrepreneurial
funding market in Australia which is ahead of the rest of the
world". [GN]

[*] Torys LLP Attorneys Discuss Class Actions, Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torys LLP senior associate Sarah Whitmore and associates Ryan Lax
-- rlax@torys.com -- and Jonathon Silver -- jsilver@torys.com --
have contributed to LexisNexis' Class Action Defence Quarterly,
speaking about class actions and summary judgment.

In their article, Sarah, Ryan and Jonathon analyze class action
summary judgment decisions, highlighting features that have worked
and those that have faltered, as well as "discussing the
implications of embracing innovative and hybrid procedures to
resolves class actions."

The trio examined class action judgments released since Hyrniak v.
Maudlin, as well as a few before it, looking for patterns in case
law. Their findings indicated there were specific contexts, which
either contributed to the granting or dismissal of summary
judgments for class actions.

Most often those contexts in which summary judgments were granted
contained "an undisputed factual record or are contingent on a
legal question that is not based on complex findings of fact or
credibility." On the other hand, those contexts in which they were
dismissed often had "multiple competing versions of evidence."

An excerpt from their conclusions is below.

As summary judgment becomes more common in class actions, counsel
should assess the issues raised and determine whether they resemble
those cases that have been found to be amenable to summary
judgment.

However, Hyniak does not merely call for the increased use of the
summary judgement procedure; the Supreme Court called for a
"culture shift." The decision was a call to the bar and bench to
recognize new models of adjudication as fair and just: "[s]ummary
judgement motions provide one such opportunity" for this culture
shift.

Class actions provide the perfect context for innovation. Class
actions are case managed by a judge that can "make any order [he or
she] considers appropriate respecting the conduct of a class
proceeding to ensure its fair and expeditious determination." [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 ***