CAR_Public/180802.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 154

                            Headlines

365 SEKI INC: Baggett Files FLSA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ABBVIE INC: Court Rejects Medical Mutual's Class Certification Bid
ACT FAST: Eric Young Files Appeal to 4th Cir.
ALCON LAB: America's Health Files Class Action in Illinois
ALL COUNTY: Klopp Appeals Ruling in CFPB Suit to 4th Circuit

ALTITUDE ENERGY: Mike Gierke Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kristian Zamber Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Tovia Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Class Suit
AMERICAN GENERAL: Can Compel to Produce Atty-Client Fee Deal Copies
ATLANTIC BAGELS: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

ATOMIC WINGS:  James Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
AV HOMES: Lawrence Zucker Seeks More Info on Taylor Morrison Merger
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Scott Rasmus Says
BAYVILLE AMUSEMENT: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Adventure Park

BETHANNA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Williams" Suit Says
BIMMY'S LLC: Faces Colocho FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRASSERIE CENTRAL: Sosa Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
CABLE TELEVISION: Hesseman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA

CARDINAL HEALTH: Jose Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in California
CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Murphy Sues Italian Resto for ADA Breach
CARVER BANCORP: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CDR RESTAURANTS: Ricker Sues over Overtime Pay & Tip Pooling
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Diane Mey Sues over Telemarketing Calls

CHILLICOTHE, MO: Funk et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class
CIPRO CASES: Hull's Objection to Barr Settlement Dismissed
CLIENT SERVICES: Nikki Van-Orman Sues over Debt Collection Practice
CLUB EXPLORIA: Mallard Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
COMPLYRIGHT INC: Bohannon Files Suit for Breach of Contract

COOK COUNTY, IL: Hacker Files Renewed Class Certification Bid
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Canela Suit
DARP INC: S. Norrid's Wage Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
EL PASO TAQUERIA: Tarax Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
EMPEREON MARKETING: Parnell-Dougharty et al. Seek Unpaid Wages

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with KKR
EZCORP INC: Court Wants Rooney Class Certification Bid Amended
FIRST COMMUNITY: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Lavigne"
FIRST NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lundquist" Suit
FORTUNOFF FINE: NY Retailer Faces ADA Class Action

FOUNDATION ENERGY: Keeton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
FOX ASSOCIATES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of "Childress" Suit Ruling
FRITO-LAY: Sept. 17 Deadline to File Bid for Prelim Settlement OK
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kevin Mahar Sues over Stock Direct Plan
GEO GROUP: Plaintiff Substitution in Migrant Detainees' Suit OK'd

GLENCORE PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
GOLDEN STATE: Howard Sues Over Employment Issues
GORDON FLESCH: Charles Cook Seeks to Certify Employees Class
GREEN CRUSH: Accused by Rosales Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
HANSEN & ADKINS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Luna" FCRA Suit

I MERCHANT DIRECT:  Livingstone  Sues Over Telemarketing Texts
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Bakhtiar Suit
INSTANTFIGURE: Aretha Crosson Files Suit in New York Under ADA
JASON & HARRY: Faces Ramirez FLSA Class Action in New York
JEROME'S FURNITURE: Morales et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California

JP MORGAN: Faces Holmes FCRA Suit in S.D. California
KAYSER-ROTH CORP: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KELLOGG COMPANY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Gardenburger Class
KINGSTON ACQUISITION: Rondout Suit Brought Before New York S.C.
KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Wells" Suit Challenges Illegal No Poach Accords

KUMON NORTH: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
L.I. ADVENTURELAND: Murphy Files Suit v. Amusement Park
LA BOOM DISCO: Court Denies Bid to DQ TCPA Plaintiff's Counsel
LENNOX COMPANIES: Lovett Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Frost Class Suit

LIFE INSURANCE: Court Okays Joyce Walker's Bid to Certify Class
LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hicks Says
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Juarez Says
MAST CAPITAL: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

MEDISCA INC.: Nashville Pharmacy Sues over Unsolicited Facsimiles
MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, "Lee" Suit Alleges
MONSANTO COMPANY: Migliaccio Appeals Order in "Rawa" Class Suit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Tucker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ONE KINGS: Hurst Sues over False Reference Prices

PENNSYLVANIA: Hawkins Files Suit v. SEPTA Over Delayed Payments
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Price Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Andrews"
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Rabin's Bid to Certify Class Denied
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Boyle"

QVC INC: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York
RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused by "Driesen" Suit of Violating FDCPA
RUBBERMAID INC: FreshWorks' Label is Misleading, Zearfoss Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Decision in Jones Suit to 3rd Cir.
SAN DIEGO CTY, CA: DC Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.

SHUBERT ORGANIZATION: James Murphy Files ADA Class Suit
SOFFT SHOE: Faces Slade ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPOTIFY USA: Saunders-Thomas Appeals Ruling in Ferrick Suit
SPOTIFY USA: Silverman Appeals Ferrick Suit Settlement Order
STEADYMED LTD: "Hoover" Securities Suit Challenges Sale to United

STERLING BANCORP: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in New York
STEWART CIROLO: Gomez Files ADA Class Action in Florida
STEWART INFORMATION: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Fidelity
STEWART INFORMATION: Lowinger Suit Challenges Sale to Fidelity
SYNERGY USA: Fitness Club Faces ADA Class Suit

TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Approval of Data Breach Suit Deal
THAI NUM: Escalante Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TJX COMPANIES: Cochran Appeals Decision in "Chester" Class Suit
TRANS UNION: Letren Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Manriquez" Suit

US BANK: Royal Park Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
US BANK: Thole Files Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in SC Case
VECTREN CORPORATION: Micheal Kent Challenges Sale to CenterPoint
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: D'Amore Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
VUZIX CORPORATION: McDonel Files Securities Class Suit Over SPO

WAKE COUNTY, NC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Smith" Suit
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Baker Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Decertify Meal Period Class
WALMART STORES: Swank Appeals Denial of Class Cert. to 3rd Cir.
WEBCOLLEX LLC: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conde Suit


                            *********

365 SEKI INC: Baggett Files FLSA Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Baggett has filed a class action lawsuit against 365 Seki,
Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is styled as
Shawn Baggett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 365 Seki, Inc., Seki, Inc., New Life Sushi,
Inc., Zhong Shen Shi a/k/a Seki Shi and Bi Hang Cheng, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06645 (S.D. N.Y., July 24, 2018).

Seki Co., Ltd. operates in the printing and paper distribution
industry. It offers general printing, packaging, publishing,
advertisement publicity, event planning and operation, digital
content planning and production, system development, and post
office advertising agency services, as well as Website planning,
production, and operation services. The company is also involved in
the sale of paperboards and cardboards. Seki Co., Ltd. was founded
in 1908 and is headquartered in Matsuyama, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear PRO SE.


ABBVIE INC: Court Rejects Medical Mutual's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, the Plaintiff, v.
ABBVIE INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-08857 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly entered an order:

   1. denying MMO's motion to exclude Dr. Giaquinta's
      testimony;

   2. granting in part and denying in part defendants'
      motion to exclude Mr. Wilkinson's testimony;

   3. terminating as moot Defendants' motion to exclude
      Dr. Rosenthal's testimony;

   4. terminating as moot MMO's motion to exclude Dr.
      Gaier's testimony;

   5. terminating as moot defendants' motion to exclude
      Dr. Harris's testimony; and

   6. denying MMO's motion for class certification.


ACT FAST: Eric Young Files Appeal to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eric Young filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Eric Young v. Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-09788, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia at Beckley.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eric Young
brought this purported class action against Defendants Act Fast
Delivery of West Virginia, Inc.; Act Fast Delivery, Inc.; Home Care
Pharmacy, LLC, doing business as a variety of entities including
but not limited to Omnicare of Nitro and/or Omnicare of Nitro, West
Virginia; Compass Health Services, LLC doing business as a variety
of entities including but not limited to Omnicare of Morgantown
and/or Omnicare of Morgantown, West Virginia; Omnicare, Inc.; and
other John Doe Defendants.  The Plaintiff seeks to bring a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Young v. Act Fast Delivery
of West Virginia, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1687, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
          Thomas Ryan Goodwin, Esq.
          James A. Kirby, III, Esq.
          Richard D. Owen, Esq.
          Lucas Russell White, Esq.
          Susan C. Wittemeier, Esq.
          GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
          300 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-7000
          E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com
                  trg@goodwingoodwin.com
                  jak@goodwingoodwin.com
                  rdo@goodwingoodwin.com
                  lucas@goodwingoodwin.com
                  scw@goodwingoodwin.com

Defendants-Appellees HOME CARE PHARMACY, LLC, d/b/a Omnicare of
Nitro, d/b/a Omnicare of Nitro, West Virginia, d/b/a a variety of
entities including but not limited to; COMPASS HEALTH SERVICES,
LLC, d/b/a Omnicare of Morgantown, d/b/a Omnicare of Morgantown,
West Virginia, d/b/a a variety of entities including but not
limited to; and OMNICARE, INC., and other, are represented by:

          Mariah Haller McGrogan, Esq.
          Marla N. Presley, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          1001 Liberty Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 232-0404
          E-mail: Mariah.McGrogan@jacksonlewis.com
                  Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          David K. Montgomery, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          201 East Fifth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 898-0050
          E-mail: David.Montgomery@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Joseph Moore Price, Esq.
          David Steven Russo, Esq.
          W. Bradley Sorrells, Esq.
          ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC
          400 5th 3rd Center
          700 Virginia Street, East
          P. O. Box 1791
          Charleston, WV 25326-1791
          Telephone: (304) 344-5800
          E-mail: jmp@ramlaw.com
                  dsr@ramlaw.com
                  wbs@ramlaw.com

ALCON LAB: America's Health Files Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alcon Laboratories
Incorporated. The case is styled as America's Health and Resource
Center Limited and Affiliated Health Group Limited named as
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representatives of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Alcon
Laboratories Incorporated, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and
Unknown Parties named as John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05084 (N.D. Ill., July 25, 2018).

The docket of the case states Failure to Enforce Compliance as the
cause of filing, and Other Statutory Actions as the nature of
suit.

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. markets and distributes eye care products.
The company offers ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, surgical equipment,
and contact lenses. Its products include ophthalmic solutions and
suspensions, eye drops, otic suspensions, contact lens solutions,
and eye vitamins. The company also offers contact lenses and
surgical devices for cataract, glaucoma, vitreoretinal, and
refractive treatment. The company was incorporated in 1947 and is
based in Fort Worth, Texas. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Alcon, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
   Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
   134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (314) 497-6352
   Email: danieljaycohen209@gmail.com

      - and -

   Molly Stemper Gantman, Esq.
   Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC
   134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Status: (312) 658-5555
   Email: molly@classlawyers.com

      - and -

   Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
   Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
   134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Email: phil@classlawyers.com


ALL COUNTY: Klopp Appeals Ruling in CFPB Suit to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Gary Klopp filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al. v. Gary
Klopp, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01235-RDB, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

The nature of suit is stated as "1430 Banks and Banking."

The appellate case is captioned as Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, et al. v. Gary Klopp, et al., Case No. 18-1694, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

Plaintiff-Appellee CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU is
represented by:

          Benjamin Zachary Konop, Esq.
          CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
          1700 G Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20552
          Telephone: (202) 435-7265
          Facsimile: (202) 435-7722
          E-mail: benjamin.konop@cfpb.gov

Plaintiff-Appellee CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION, Office of the
Attorney General of Maryland, is represented by:

          Lucy Adams Cardwell, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          200 St. Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-6337
          Facsimile: (410) 576-6566
          E-mail: lcardwell@oag.state.md.us

Defendant-Appellant GARY KLOPP, and Defendants ALL COUNTY
SETTLEMENTS, LLC, and CARROLL ABSTRACTS, INC., are represented by:

          Harry Levy, Esq.
          J. Steven Lovejoy, Esq.
          Michael Edward Rowan, Esq.
          SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, PC
          901 Dulaney Valley Road
          Towson, MD 21204-0000
          Telephone: (410) 825-5223
          E-mail: hlevy@shumakerwilliams.com
                  slovejoy@shumakerwilliams.com
                  mrowan@shumakerwilliams.com


ALTITUDE ENERGY: Mike Gierke Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE GIERKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALTITUDE ENERGY PARTNERS, INC. and JR
BOYLES, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00127 (W.D. Tex., July 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
owed to workers, as required by Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassify workers as
independent contractors and pay them a "day rate" for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Altitude Energy Partners provides Directional Drilling, Wireline
Perforations and Logging and Thru-Tubing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francisco J. Caycedo, Esq.
          MINCES PLLC
          4545 Bissonnet, Suite 286
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (346) 701 8563
          Facsimile: (713) 583 9795
          E-mail: frank.caycedo@mincespllc.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kristian Zamber Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kristian Zamber, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
American Airlines Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-mc-00004, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami) on July 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-mc-22949-JEM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

American Airlines, Inc. is a major United States airline
headquartered in Fort Worth, TX, within the Dallas-Fort Worth
metroplex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740 1986
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8158
          E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          John Richard Byrne, Esq.
          Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, ESQ.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740 1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8158
          E-mail: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com
                  scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          Michael Aaron Holt, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          201 So Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358 7470
          E-mail: hocariz@shb.com
                  mholt@shb.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Tovia Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tovia Jakubowitz filed a class action lawsuit against American
Coradius International LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.  The case is styled as Tovia Jakubowitz other individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Coradius International LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04197 (E.D. N.Y., July 24, 2018).

American Coradius International LLC is a full service financial
service agency representing banks and finance companies on a
national level.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMERICAN GENERAL: Can Compel to Produce Atty-Client Fee Deal Copies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-1709-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted the Defendant's motion to compel the Plaintiff to produce
all copies of her attorney-client fee agreement.

On July 18, 2017, Moriarty filed a putative class action asserting
causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief against
Defendant AmGen arising from its alleged policies and practices
pertaining to the application of California Insurance Code Sections
10113.71 and 10113.72, and asserts a cause of action for negligence
against Defendant Bayside Insurance Associates, Inc.  As an element
of her claimed damages for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, the Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees
pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by two law firms in the case --
Winters & Associates and Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP ("N&T").
Winters was first retained by the Plaintiff via written agreement
on Oct. 13, 2016.  N&T was associated into the case via written
agreement on Aug. 21, 2017.

On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff served her amended responses to
AmGen's request for production of documents.  Request number 10
asks for any and all fee agreements between YOU and Winters &
Associates in connection with the lawsuit.  The Plaintiff provided
the October 2016 agreement with Winters but withheld the August
2017 agreement that included N&T and Winters, arguing it was
protected by attorney-client privilege.

On May 16, 2018, the parties jointly alerted the Court to a pending
discovery dispute regarding the Plaintiff's responses to AmGen's
requests for production of documents.  Finding that further
briefing would be necessary to resolve the matter, the Court
ordered the parties to fully brief the issue.  The Court also
ordered the Plaintiff to provide all retainer agreements directly
to the Court for in camera review.

The Defendant argues any and all fee agreements between the
Plaintiff and her counsel are discoverable simply by the fact the
Plaintiff is alleging claims for Brandt fees.  The Defendant argues
the agreements may include fee shifting between the two firms that
improperly increases Brandt fees.

The Plaintiff concedes that because she is seeking Brandt fees, she
"waives the privilege" covering her attorney-fee agreement because
she has specifically put them in issue.  Notwithstanding this, the
Plaintiff argues the August 2017 N&T fee agreement should not be
turned over because she claims there is a clear division of labor
between the two firms representing her.  She argues the Winters
firm is representing her for individual claims, which include
claims for Brandt fees, while N&T will be representing her for the
class action claims, which do not include claims for Brandt fees.
Given this division of labor, the Plaintiff claims the August 2017
agreement with N&T remains privileged pursuant to Section 6149 of
California Civil Code.

Magistrate Judge Gallo strongly disagrees.  He finds that the fee
agreement belies the representation.  First, the agreement
explicitly states that in order to prosecute the Class Action, as
well as the Plaintiff's individual claims, Winters has associated
the firm of N&T.  This, in and of itself, discredits the
Plaintiff's argument regarding an established division of labor.
Second, the agreement states that the Plaintiff agrees she has
retained both firms, not any particular attorney, and the attorney
services to be provided to her will not necessarily be performed by
any particular attorney.  Lastly, the agreement states that Winters
intends to file a lawsuit against the Defendant and N&T will act as
co-counsel in the matter to pursue the action as both an Individual
claim and a class action.

The contract makes it abundantly clear that no division of labor
exists as claimed by the Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge holds.
Since the Plaintiff's August 2017 agreement explicitly includes the
claims that involve Brandt fees, it is not shielded by privilege.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gallo overruled the Plaintiff's
objection and granted the Defendant's motion to compel.  The
Plaintiff will comply with the subject request by June 22, 2018.

Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff's counsel, Craig M.
Nicholas, to show cause why sanctions should not issue for raising
a frivolous dispute and making oral misrepresentations to the
Court.  He finds the dispute is frivolous for the simple reason
that the agreement between the Plaintiff and her counsel are
written such that the agreement fits squarely within the law
providing such agreements are discoverable.  This clear cut issue
is one that the Plaintiff should have conceded from the outset.
Instead, the Plaintiff's counsel squabbled with defense counsel
resulting in the unnecessary expenditure of both time and financial
resources.

He further finds Nicholas misrepresented the structure of the fee
agreement.  Not only is the division of labor argued by Nicholas
not envisioned in the August 2017 agreement, the August 2017
agreement states almost the exact opposite.

On July 9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will convene a show cause
hearing.  The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's counsel will appear
personally.  The Defendant may appear at the hearing.

On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel will file a Declaration
in response to the Order to Show Cause explaining why sanctions
should not issue.  This Declaration will not exceed five pages,
excluding exhibits.

On June 27, 2018, the Defendant will file a Reply, not to exceed
five pages, excluding exhibits.  Its Reply will include the fees
and costs incurred in raising the present dispute.

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

Michelle L. Moriarty, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to
Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Heron D.
Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, represented by
Alex M. Tomasevic -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic,
Georg Capielo -- gcapielo@einsurelaw.com -- Jack B. Winters, Jr.,
Law Offices of Winters and Associates, Sarah D. Ball --
sball@einsurelaw.com -- Winter and Associates & Shaun A. Markley --
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP.

American General Life Insurance Company, a Texas Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Michael D. Mulvaney --
mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Boos --
nboos@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale LLP, Tara L.
Blake, Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLC, Thomas J. Butler --
tbutler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, pro hac vice,
Christopher Charles Frost -- cfrost@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard
Cooper & Gale & David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@noonanlance.com --
Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP.

Bayside Insurance Associates, Inc., a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Mark Byer -- jbyer@sllbv.com --
Sandler Lasry Laube Byer and Valdez.

ATLANTIC BAGELS: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Atlantic Bagels
LLC d/b/a Atlantic Bagels Cafe, Mila "Doe", the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04156-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2018), alleges that
Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

Atlantic Bagels is known for its bagel sandwiches.  Its menu also
includes burgers, subs, salads and sweet temptations such as cakes
or muffins.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8522
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com



ATOMIC WINGS:  James Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
Atomic Wings Franchisor Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
by James Murphy under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The
case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atomic Wings Franchisor Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06703 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

Atomic Wings Franchisor Inc. offers a service called fractional
franchising, allowing business owners to serve the popular wings in
their local bar or restaurant.[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


AV HOMES: Lawrence Zucker Seeks More Info on Taylor Morrison Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE ZUCKER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AV HOMES, INC., JOSHUA L. NASH, PAUL D. BARNETT,
MATTHEW COLEMAN, ROGER A. CREGG, ROGER W. EINIGER, PAUL HACKWELL,
JONATHAN M. PERTCHIK, MICHAEL F. PROFENIUS, AARON RATNER, JOEL M.
SIMON, and TAYLOR MORRISON HOME CORPORATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-01091-UNA (D. Del., July 24, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding the stockholder vote on a proposed merger
and from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless
and until material information is disclosed to AV Homes
stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote or, in the event
the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On June 7, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger with Taylor Morrison Home
Corporation, Taylor Morrison Communities, Inc. ("Intermediate
Parent"), and Thor Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which Merger Sub will be merged with and into AV Homes (the
"Merger"), with AV Homes continuing as the surviving entity in the
Merger as an indirect subsidiary of Taylor Morrison.

AV Homes, a developer and builder of residential communities in
Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona and Texas, is a Delaware
corporation, which maintains its principal executive offices in
Scottsdale, Arizona.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation, a national homebuilder and
developer, is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Scottsdale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          919 Market Street, Suite 1801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 330-8025
          E-mail: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL, & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America
Corporation. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of
America Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06701 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was
formed through Nationsbank's acquisition of BankAmerica in
1998.[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



BANK OF NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Scott Rasmus Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT RASMUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11518-IT (D. Mass., July 20, 2018),
alleges that BNY Mellon did not pay Plaintiff and other "analysts"
overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a given week in
violation of M.G.L. c. 151, sections 1A-1B and M.G.L. c. 149,
sections 148.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, which does business as BNY
Mellon, is an American worldwide banking and financial services
holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Francesco A. DeLuca, Esq.
          Patrick M. Curran, Jr., Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Boston Place, Suite 3500
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 994 5700
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5701
          E-mail: patrick.curran@ogletree.com
                  francesco.deluca@ogletree.com


BAYVILLE AMUSEMENT: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Adventure Park
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bayville Amusement Park LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bayville Amusement Park LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06741 (S.D. N.Y., July 26, 2018).

Family owned and operated since 2006, Bayville Adventure Park
offers exciting attractions for the entire family and is located
across the beach in Bayville Long Island.[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

BETHANNA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Williams" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NESSA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. BETHANNA, Case No. 2:18-cv-03106-GJP (E.D. Pa., July 24, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective overtime
premium compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week.

Bethanna is a corporate entity headquartered in Southampton,
Pennsylvania.  The Defendant, according to its Web site, "provides
adoption, child welfare services and behavioral health care in
Philadelphia, Southeastern and Central Pennsylvania."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


BIMMY'S LLC: Faces Colocho FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bimmy's LLC. The case
is styled as Gino Esperanza Garcia Colocho also known as: Esperanza
Garcia, Ivan Amado Guzman and Rosalia Chavez Mendoza, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bimmy's
LLC doing business as: Bimmy's, Elliot Fread, Carlos Perez, Ruben
Doe, Jeff Doe and Dan Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04236 (E.D.
N.Y., July 26, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bimmy's LLC is a Food Products Supplier.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.



BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boscov's Department Store, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed by James Murphy. The case is styled as James Murphy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Boscov's Department Store, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06705
(S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Boscov's Department Store, LLC owns and operates a chain of
department stores. The Company sells family apparel, jewelry,
shoes, accessories, and home and garden furnishings. Boscov's
Department Store serves customers throughout the United
States.[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


BRASSERIE CENTRAL: Sosa Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHAN SOSA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRASSERIE CENTRAL,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and PASCAL OUDIN, an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22551-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons who worked for Defendants as servers
      during three years preceding this lawsuit, were paid
      as tipped employees and were forced to share a
      portion of their tips with non-tipped employees and
      were not properly compensated for all hours worked";

   2. directing Defendants to produce to undersigned
      counsel within 20 days a list containing the names
      and last known addresses of putative 216(b) Class
      Members who worked for Defendants during the last
      three years; and

   3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send a notice
      to all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          Elitsa V. Yotkova, Esq.
          Andrew L. Rodman, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
          ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
          Museum Tower, Suite 2200
          150 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789 3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789 3395
          E-mail: eyotkova@stearnsweaver.com
                  arodman@stearnsweaver.com


CABLE TELEVISION: Hesseman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HESSEMAN, COLTON WILLIAMS, and ROBERT VANTASSELL
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CABLE TELEVISION INSTALLATION &
SERVICE, LLC, CALVIN F. MULLER, JEFFREY D. SALTER, and MICHAEL A.
SOROS, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01777-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.,
July 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, for many weeks, the technicians' total
piece rate pay for the week was less than federal minimum wage for
each hour worked in the pay period. For example during the week
ending March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours and
was paid only $203.89 in non-overtime compensation; thus Defendants
failed to pay him the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Lindstron, Esq.
          EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWACA, P.A.
          Post Office Box 2231
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 422 1400
          Facsimile: (407) 422 3658
          E-mail: elindstrom@eganlev.com

               - and -

          Harold Licthen, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 200
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llraw.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Jose Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Health 200,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Gonzalez, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cardinal Health 200, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01574
(C.D. Cal., July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cardinal Health 200, LLC engages in the marketing of pharmaceutical
preparations, hospital gowns, surgical appliances and supplies, and
medical instruments. It also distributes medical laboratory
equipments. In addition, it provides a range of integrated
services, such as clinical and productivity consulting,
procedure-based supply packaging, just-in-time delivery, and other
services. Cardinal Health 200, LLC was formerly known as Allegiance
Healthcare Corp. and changed its name to Cardinal Health 200, LLC
in January, 1999. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Dublin, Ohio. Cardinal Health 200, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Cardinal Health, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Murphy Sues Italian Resto for ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
An Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit has been
filed against Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc. The case is styled as
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06704 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

Carmines Broadway Feast Inc is an Italian Restaurant in New York
City.[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

CARVER BANCORP: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Carver Bancorp, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06700 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

Carver Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Carver Federal
Savings Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank.[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


CDR RESTAURANTS: Ricker Sues over Overtime Pay & Tip Pooling
------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH RICKER, On Behalf of HERSELF and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CDR RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a JOHNNY’S
PIZZA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00080-TCB (N.D. Ga., July
20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked between
30 and 40 hours per week, and occasionally worked overtime. CDR
required Plaintiff and other servers to contribute a portion of
their tips to employees who do not receive tips directly from
customers, including employees who worked in the position of
Dishwasher. CDR's Dishwashers do not receive tips directly from
customers because Dishwashers generally work in or near the kitchen
area and do not interact with restaurant customers. A Dishwasher's
job primarily consists of cleaning and washing cooking utensils as
well as cleaning and washing silverware and dishes used by
restaurant patrons

CDR is a franchisee of Johnny's Pizza Franchise Systems, Inc. and
operates at least two Johnny's Pizza restaurants in the state of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Moore, Esq.
          Aimee J. Hall, Esq.
          POPE McGLAMRY, P.C.
          3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 523 7706
          E-mail: efile@pmkm.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &
          GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza, Suite 900
          414 Union Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Diane Mey Sues over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00123-JPB
(N.D. W.Va., July 20, 2018), alleges that Defendants sent Plaintiff
automated telemarketing calls promoting Charter's television
internet and voice services without prior express written consent,
despite the fact Ms. Mey's number has long been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

According to the complaint, because these calls were transmitted
using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls
per day, she sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other
person who received similar calls.

Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications
company that offers its services to consumers and businesses under
the branding of Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Ryan M. Donovan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  rdonovan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paranovich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONOVICH P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738 7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  Anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655 1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


CHILLICOTHE, MO: Funk et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned REBECCA FUNK, TONYA SMITH & LINDA PENNELL
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiffs, v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., the Defendant(s), Case
No. 5:18-CV-06034-ODS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order to certify a class of:

   "all current and future persons who are currently, or
   in the future, will be, incarcerated at the Chillicothe
   Correctional Center in Chillicothe, Missouri."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joseph LaCome, Esq.
          3025 E. Hawkins St.
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (415) 847 1944
          E-mail: lacomelaw@gmail.com


CIPRO CASES: Hull's Objection to Barr Settlement Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re CIPRO CASES I & II, No. D072431 (Cal. App.),
Judge Cynthia Aaron of the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division One, dismissed Sean Hull's appeal
pertaining to a partial class action settlement between the
Plaintiffs and Barr Laboratories.

Objectors Hull, Sarah McDonald and Steven Helfand brought two
appeals pertaining to a partial class action settlement between the
Plaintiffs and certain Defendants in the underlying proceeding.  In
the underlying action, the Plaintiff class challenged settlement
agreements that were reached in a patent infringement case between
the maker of Cipro and companies that sought to market and sell a
generic version of Cipro.  The Plaintiffs argued that the
settlement agreements between the pharmaceutical companies amounted
to unlawful restraints of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act
and the Unfair Competition Law.  The appeal concerns a settlement
between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Barr Laboratories.

In late 2003, the superior court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On appeal, the court narrowed the proposed
class and affirmed the certification of the class as modified.  In
2004, after affirmance of the class certification ruling on appeal,
the trial court issued an order regarding class notice, which
included an opportunity for class members to opt out.

In February 2017, the trial court granted preliminary approval of
the Barr settlement and directed that notice be distributed to the
class members.  The notice described the terms of the settlement
and apprised class members of their rights with respect to the
settlement.  Three class members, Hull, McDonald and Helfand, filed
objections to the Barr settlement.  None of the objectors moved to
intervene in the action.

On April 21, 2017, the court held a final approval hearing with
respect to the Barr settlement.  Only the counsel for McDonald
attended the hearing.  The trial court overruled the three
objections to the settlement, granted final approval, and awarded
attorney fees, costs, and incentive awards.

Hull did not move to vacate the judgment.  However, Hull, and
McDonald and Helfand, filed notices of appeal from the trial
court's judgment and postjudgment order regarding fees and costs.

On Jan. 29, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hernandez
v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., reaffirming the holding in Eggert v.
Pac. States S. & L. Co. that unnamed class members may not appeal
from a judgment, settlement or attorney fee award in a class action
unless they have become parties to the action.  On Feb. 1, 2018,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the objectors' appeals,
based on the holding in Hernandez.

In response, McDonald and Helfand requested that their appeal be
dismissed.  The court granted their request for dismissal, leaving
Hull as the sole remaining objector with a pending appeal.  Hull
filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss his appeal.  The
Appellate Court permitted the Plaintiffs to file a reply to Hull's
opposition.

Hull argues that Hernandez does not require that his appeal be
dismissed.  According to Hull, Hernandez is limited to appeals from
judgments after a trial on the merits, and should not apply to the
settlement of a class action, where a formal objection procedure
exists for class members.  He further contends that even if
Hernandez does apply to the case, the facts here trigger an
exception to the general rule of retrospective application of
authority from the California Supreme Court, because applying
Hernandez would be unfair in this situation.  Finally, Hull argues
that if this court determines that Hernandez does apply such that
he was required to have become a party of record in order to have
standing to appeal, then the class notice violates standards of due
process because it failed to inform him of the requirement that he
intervene in order to have standing to appeal.

Judge Aaron finds no merit in these arguments.  First, it is
abundantly clear from the language of Hernandez that the Eggert
rule applies not only to class action judgments entered after a
trial, but also to settlements and attorney fee awards in class
actions.  Second, she rejects Hull's suggestion that Hernandez
should not be applied retroactively to the case because retroactive
application would be unfair.  The main problem with Hull's argument
against retroactive application of Hernandez is that Hernandez does
not establish a new rule of law.  Rather, it merely reaffirms and
applies an already-established rule of law.  

Finally, the Judge rejects Hull's contention that the class notice
somehow violated "due process" because it failed to inform Hull
that he would have to become a party of record in the action in
order to appeal from the court's approval of the settlement.
Hull's argument suggests that a settlement notice or settlement
agreement must include an instruction that class members wishing to
appeal must also intervene.  However, he provides no authority for
such a proposition, and we have found no basis for such a rule.

There is no contention that the Barr settlement notice failed to
explain the settlement, or failed to provide a discussion of the
process for objecting to the settlement, or that it omitted any
other relevant information that is required to be included in the
notice.  However, the Judge holds that the settlement agreement
does not set forth the procedures for initiating an appeal or for
obtaining standing to appeal.  The provision regarding the posting
of a bond merely provides the Defendants and the named class
Plaintiffs with some level of protection against a class member
attempting to delay distribution of the settlement by pursuing an
appeal.  She concludes that because Hull never became a party of
record, either by intervening or filing a motion to vacate the
judgment, he has no standing to appeal from the judgment.  His
appeal must therefore be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Aaron dismissed Hull's appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/g00T23 from Leagle.com.

Bandas Law Firm, Robert W. Clore --rclore@bandaslawfirm.com; Lang
Hanigan & Carvalho and Timothy R. Hanigan for Objector and
Appellant Sean Hull.

Law Office of John W. Davis and John W. Davis for Objectors and
Appellants Sarah McDonald and Steven Helfand.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Richard M. Heimann --
rheimann@lchb.com -- Eric B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- Dean
M. Harvey -- dharvey@lchb.com -- Lin Y. Chan -- lchan@lchb.com --
Michelle A. Lamy; Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Dan Drachler
--ddrachler@zsz.com; Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Joseph R. Saveri
--jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joshua P. Davis --
jdavis@saverilawfirm.com -- Ryan J. McEwan --
rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- and Kyla J. Gibboney --
kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

CLIENT SERVICES: Nikki Van-Orman Sues over Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI VAN-ORMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00349 (D. Nev., July 20, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is obligated, or
allegedly obligated, to pay a debt as to Chase Bank USA, N.A. The
Debt arises from transactions in which the money, property,
insurance, or services were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes. In an attempt to collect the Debt,
on or around October 13, 2017, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a
collection letter. The Defendant sent the Letter in connection with
its attempts to collect the Debt. This language falsely implied
that if Plaintiff does the converse -- that is, pays the claimed
balance in full rather than agreeing to the lesser settlement
amount -- Plaintiff could enhance her likelihood of receiving
future credit products from Chase Bank or improve her overall
creditworthiness. The Letter is also deceptive and misleading in
that it implies that the consumer may enhance her likelihood of
approval for credit products by paying the claimed debt in full
rather than the reduced settlement amount.

Client Services operates as a customer relationship management
company that offers a suite of accounts receivable management and
business processing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mathew K. Higbee, Esq.
          HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES
          2445 Fire Mesa Street, Ste. 150
          Las Vegas, NV 89128
          Telephone: (714) 617 8385
          Facsimile: (714) 617 8511
          E-mail: consumeradvocacy@higbeeassociates.com


CLUB EXPLORIA: Mallard Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MALLARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLUB EXPLORIA, LLC, d.b.a. Exploria
Resorts, the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80958-RLR (S.D. Fla., July
20, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other equitable and legal
remedies resulting from Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Exploria, or an agent acting on its
behalf, repeatedly called Plaintiff's cellular phone -- sometimes
three times per day -- for the purpose of encouraging him to
purchase an Exploria resorts timeshare. Exploria, or its agent,
used an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice to make these calls. The Plaintiff never
consented to receive calls from Exploria and has no prior
affiliation with Exploria. The Plaintiff has repeatedly asked that
Exploria stop calling his cellular phone, but he continues to
receive these telemarketing calls.

Club Exploria, LLC owns and operates hotels and resorts.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740 1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Angelica Ornelas, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  amo@girardgibbs.com
                  sg@girardgibbs.com


COMPLYRIGHT INC: Bohannon Files Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bohannon and Holly Buckingham filed a class action lawsuit
against ComplyRight, Inc. for breach of contract.  The case is
styled as Robert Bohannon and Holly Buckingham, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ComplyRight, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-61730-BB (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2018).

ComplyRight, Inc. provides human resource products and services for
businesses in the United States. It specializes in
business-to-business direct marketing, sales, service, and
fulfillment. The company offers corporate services that include
attendance tracking, recordkeeping and compliance, hiring and
performance, labor law, and greeting cards and recognition for
businesses; and provides tools to manage and motivate employees,
such as labor law and safety, forms and recordkeeping, training and
testing, greeting cards, and awards and recognition.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Mark Blaise DeSanto, Esq.
   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Meltzer, LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056

      - and –

   Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
   Edwards Pottinger, LLC
   425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 524-2820
   Fax: (954) 524-2822
   Email: seth@epllc.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Hacker Files Renewed Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gerald Hacker, individually and for a class,
the Plaintiff, v. Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04282 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff filed
with the Court a renewed motion for class certification under
F.R.C.P. Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3), seeking to certify these
classes:

   "all individuals incarcerated by the Sheriff of Cook
   County classified as hearing impaired or deaf who
   require hearing-related accommodations to communicate
   effectively and/or to access or participate in
   programs, services, or activities available to
   individuals in the custody of the Cook County Jail";

   and

   "all individuals incarcerated by the Sheriff of Cook
   County from July 25, 2015 to the date of entry of
   judgment classified as hearing impaired or deaf who
   require hearing-related accommodations to communicate
   effectively and/or to access or participate in
   programs, services, or activities available to
   individuals in the custody of the Cook County Jail".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elaine C. Davenport, Esq.
          SANCHEZ DANIELS & HOFFMAN, LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641 1555
          Facsimile: (312) 641 3004


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Canela Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled LILIANA CANELA v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:13-cv-03598-BLF, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action alleges violation of California Wage Order 7-2001 by failing
to provide seating to member service assistants, who act as
greeters and exit attendants in the Company's California
warehouses.  The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor
Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

The appellate case is captioned as LILIANA CANELA v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 18-80072, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent LILIANA CANELA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Parkway
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811
          E-mail: kevin@mcinerneylaw.net

Defendant-Petitioner COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is represented
by:

          Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 201-1581
          E-mail: kseldon@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Emily Elizabeth Schroeder, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          E-mail: eschroeder@seyfarth.com


DARP INC: S. Norrid's Wage Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald A. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma granted the Defendant's motion to transfer the
case, Shane Norrid, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. D.A.R.P., Inc., Raymond
Jones, and Hendren Plastics, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
17-CIV-401-RAW (E.D. Okla.), to the Western District of Arkansas.

On Oct. 23, 2017, Mark Fochtman and Shane O'Neal filed a putative
class action in Arkansas State Court.  The case was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
ordered amended.  

The amended class action alleges that Defendants DARP and Hendren
contracted together to use individuals on probation as involuntary
laborers.  The class action alleges that the labor violated the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Arkansas Constitution, Arkansas Human
Trafficking Act, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Action Section
16-123-105.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent all individuals who
worked for DARP in Arkansas from Oct. 23, 2014 to the present and
wishes to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 1, 2017, Plaintiffs Norrid, et. al. filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.  The instant class action alleges that DARP, Hendren, and
Jones, President of DARP, contracted to force individuals on
probation into involuntary servitude in violation of Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, Arkansas unjust enrichment laws, Oklahoma
Trafficking for Labor Act, Oklahoma fraud laws, Oklahoma wage laws,
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who have worked for
Hendren and DARP in Arkansas or Oklahoma since Nov. 1, 2007 and
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorney's fees, and costs.

Before the Court is Hendren's motion to transfer the case to the
Western District of Arkansas.

Judge White finds that the first-to-file rule provides an adequate
basis for the transfer.  The case in the Western District of
Arkansas is the first-filed action, while the instant case is the
second-filed action. The Fochtman case was indisputably filed
before the Norrid case.  The Plaintiff argues that Norrid should be
considered the first case, as Norrid is further along in its
proceedings than Fochtman.  Even if true, procedural maturity is
irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the first-to-file rule.  As
stated in Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., jurisdiction relates
back to the filing, not subsequent stages of the case.  Thus, the
Fochtman case in the Western District of Arkansas qualifies as the
first-filed case.

The Judge also finds that the parties in the instant case are
substantially similar to the parties in the Fochtman case, as there
is substantial overlap between both the Defendants and the
Plaintiffs.  He says there is no concern of claims or issues
remaining unaddressed after transfer, since the Western District of
Arkansas may dispense with both cases through consolidation.  The
first-to-file rule would be illogical and self-defeating if courts
could not dispense with second-filed class actions featuring
somewhat larger classes.  Further, the court looks to the
similarity of the parties themselves, not the procedural means of
determining the parties.

The issues raised in both the Norrid and Fochtman cases are
substantially similar.  Both complaints allege that persons were
forced to illegally work as unpaid laborers for DARP and Hendren.
Both suits seek to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages,
punitive damages, and injunctive relief.  Though the Norrid case
may feature additional theories of recovery, both cases ultimately
hinge on the question of whether the Plaintiffs may recover unpaid
wages from the Defendants for forced, uncompensated labor.
Therefore, the issues are substantially similar.

Finally, the Judge finds that the interests of justice weigh in
favor of transferring the instant case to the Western District of
Arkansas under Section 1404(a).  The greatest factor is the
practical nature of consolidation that could occur with the
Fochtman case.  It is likely that, at the very least, the two cases
can consolidate their discovery and pretrial matters.  This helps
to reduce costs, expedite the case, and avoid inconsistent results.
Witness accessibility is a neutral factor.  Events and omissions
giving rise to the claims occurred in both Oklahoma and Arkansas,
and parties reside in both states.  Although the Plaintiffs reside
in Oklahoma, the potential for class representation reduces the
importance of this factor.  As such, he determines that transfer
would be proper under 28 U.S.C Section 1404(a).

Judge White granted Hendren's Motion to Transfer Venue, and
transferred the case to the Western District of Arkansas for
possible consolidation with Fochtman et al., v. DARP, Inc, et al.,
18-5047-TLB.  The motion is granted because the Judge, for the
reasons stated, finds that venue is proper under both the
first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C Section 1404(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ggbq2S from Leagle.com.

Shane Norrid, Individually, Shane Norrid, On behalf of all others
similarly situated, Kermit Michael Troxel, Individually, Kermit
Michael Troxel, And on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Kevin Hartman, Individually, Kevin Hartman, And on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Tim Hyers, Individually, Tim Hyers, And
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Lynn
Williams, Individually, Christopher Lynn Williams, And on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Codie Shreve, Individually, Codie
Shreve, And on behalf of all others similarly situated, Steven
England, Individually, Steven England, And on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Taylor Brantley, Individually & Taylor
Brantley, On behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brady R. Henderson -- bhenderson@acluok.org -- ACLU
of Oklahoma Foundation, Brent A. Robinson -- bar@asmlawyers.com --
Aiman-Smith & Marcy, pro hac vice, Carey A. James --
caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, pro hac vice, Daniel E.
Smolen -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC,
David A. Warta -- davidwarta@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman,
PLLC, Donald E. Smolen, II -- donaldsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen
Smolen & Roytman, PLLC, Hallie Von Rock -- hvr@asmlawyers.com --
Aiman-Smith & Marcy, pro hac vice, Lauren Lambright --
laurenlambright@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC, Randall
B. Aiman-Smith -- ras@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, pro
hac vice, Reed W.L. Marcy -- rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith &
Marcy, pro hac vice, Amy N. Gioletti -- agioletti@acluok.org --
American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma & Laura M. Hamilton --
laurahamilton@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, PLLC.

D.A.R.P., Inc., An Oklahoma for profit corporation & Raymond Jones,
Defendants, represented by William B. Putman --
bill@putmanlawoffice.com -- Putman Law Office, pro hac vice & Jack
Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius,
PLLC.

Hendren Plastics, Inc., An Arkansas for profit corporation,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Farris, Franden Farris Quillin
Goodnight & Roberts & Paula J. Quillin -- pquillin@tulsalawyer.com
-- Franden Farris Quillin Goodnight & Roberts.

EL PASO TAQUERIA: Tarax Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Tarax filed a class action lawsuit over denied payment of
overtime compensation. The case is styled as Efrain Tarax and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. El Paso Taqueria
Corp. doing business as: El Paso Taqueria, El Paso Taqueria 1643
Corp. doing business as: El Paso Taqueria, El Paso Deli Restaurant
Corp. doing business as: El Paso Deli Restaurant, Nocciola 110 Corp
doing business as: Nocciola Pizzeria E Trattoria, David Garnelo,
Rodrigo Abrajam, Angel Garnelo also known as: Angel Tepos and Jose
E Grande, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06694 (S.D. N.Y., July 25,
2018).

The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

El Paso Taqueria Corp. is a cantina with colorful decor for Mexican
street food, aguas frescas & tequila.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

EMPEREON MARKETING: Parnell-Dougharty et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS PARNELL-DOUGHARTY, MONICA SILERIO, JOY HENRY, and WILLIAM
LOUNSBURY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMPEREON MARKETING, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00206 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2018), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Arizona Fair
Wages and Healthy Families Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members are those similarly situated persons who have worked for
Empereon in call centers throughout the United States at any time
during their relevant statutes of limitations through the final
disposition of this matter and have not been paid for all hours
worked in violation of state and federal law.  Specifically,
Empereon has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it
improperly required its non-exempt hourly employees -- Plaintiffs
and the Putative Class Members -- to perform work off-the-clock and
without pay in violation of state and federal law.

Empereon Marketing, LLC provides contact center services.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with KKR
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, WILLIAM A. SANGER, CHRISTOPHER A. HOLDEN, CAROL J.
BURT, JAMES A. DEAL, LEONARD M. RIGGS, JOHN T. GAWALUCK, STEVEN I.
GERINGER, JAMES D. SHELTON, JOEY A. JACOBS, MICHAEL L. SMITH, KEVIN
P. LAVENDER, and CYNTHIA S. MILLER, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01077-UNA (D. Del., July 20, 2018), alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with a merger agreement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 11,
2018, pursuant to which Envision Healthcare Corporation will be
acquired by KKR and its affiliates. On June 10, 2018, Envision's
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement
and plan of merger with Enterprise Parent Holdings Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Enterprise Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is
approved by Envision's shareholders and completed, Envision's
stockholders will receive $46.00 in cash for each share of the
Envision common stock they hold. On July 9, 2018, the defendants
filed a preliminary proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The proxy statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


EZCORP INC: Court Wants Rooney Class Certification Bid Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN ROONEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EZCORP, INC. and
MARK E. KUCHENRITHER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam Sparks entered an order on July 26,
2018:

   1. directing Defendants to have until August 3, 2018 to
      file an amended answer, if necessary; and

   2. dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's pending
      motion for class certification and directing Plaintiff
      to have until August 31, 2018 to file an amended
      motion for class certification.



FIRST COMMUNITY: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Lavigne"
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Community Bancshares, Inc., and First National Bank Texas
filed an appeal from a court ruling certifying a class in the
lawsuit titled JANINE LAVIGNE v. FIRST COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.
and FIRST NATIONAL BANK TEXAS, Case No. 1:15-CV-00934-WPJ, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.

The Defendants-Appellants want the Tenth Circuit to determine
whether:

   1. the District Court manifestly erred in certifying a class
      without undertaking a rigorous analysis of the class
      certification requirements and in finding the class is
      ascertainable?

   2. the District Court manifestly erred in certifying a class
      where individual issues of consent will predominate over
      the entire litigation?

   3. the District Court manifestly erred in failing to analyze
      the applicable TCPA standard-ACA, 885 F.3d 687, which
      demonstrates class claims cannot be proven with common
      evidence? and

   4. the Tenth Circuit should weigh in on the Circuit split
      regarding the ascertainability requirement, and address
      novel legal issues regarding the impact of ACA, and the
      standards for expert and non-expert evidence at the
      certification stage?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted in part the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Reply Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

The lawsuit is a putative class action for relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant First Community Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary
Defendant First National Bank Texas, violated the TCPA by placing
automated telephone calls to her cellular telephone for
nonemergency purposes using an automatic telephone dialing system
as defined by the TCPA.

The appellate case is captioned as JANINE LAVIGNE, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff and Respondent
v. FIRST COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. and FIRST NATIONAL BANK TEXAS,
Defendants and Petitioners, Case No. 18-706, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response to
petition to appeal was due July 2, 2018, for Janine LaVigne.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JANINE LAVIGNE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BLAKE DUGGER
          1074 Llano Street, Suite B-1064
          Santa Fe, NM 87505
          Telephone: (505) 510-4090
          Facsimile: (505) 474-2886
          E-mail: blakejdugger@gmail.com

               - and -

          Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: staylor@lemberglaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners First Community Bancshares, Inc. and First
National Bank Texas are represented by:

          Jeffry A. Miller, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-1006
          Facsimile: (619) 233-8627
          E-mail: jeff.miller@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 659-6767
          Facsimile: (713) 759-6830
          E-mail: bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lundquist" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON LUNDQUIST, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-5301 RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma, denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff asserts that First
National's practice of using unexplained and unjustified condition
adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a total loss claim
for a vehicle, violates the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"),
and so constitutes: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation
of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").

In 2017, Lundquist owned a 1998 Dodge Ram 2500 Quad Cab that was in
an accident that was so severe that the truck was considered a
total loss.  At the time, the Plaintiff had a vehicle insurance
contract with First National, which provided that First National's
limit of liability for a total loss was lowest of either the
"actual cash value" or the amount necessary to repair or replace
the vehicle.

According to the Complaint, to calculate its offer and payment on a
total loss, First National obtains a Market Valuation Report from a
third-party company called CCC Information Services, Inc.  These
reports purport to contain values for comparable used vehicles
recently sold or for sale in the geographic area of the insured.
The Complaint asserts that while the reports reduce the estimated
value of the comparable vehicles for "condition adjustments," the
reports fail to "itemize or explain" the basis for these
adjustments.

After the Plaintiff made a claim for the total loss of his truck,
First National obtained a report from CCC, and based an offer of
settlement of $18,406.12 on the valuation report.  The Plaintiff
accepted the offer.  The Plaintiff's truck was given an upward
adjustment as being in "dealer ready" condition for the dashboard
and engine (in the amount of $51 each, for a total of $102) and was
listed as "normal wear" for the other conditions.

The Complaint alleges that by reducing the comparable vehicles by
$936, without regard to any of the individual characteristics of
those comparable vehicles (and without any explanation), First
National's settlement offer was arbitrary, unjustified, and
resulted in an underpayment to the Plaintiff.  The Complaint
maintains that First National is violating provisions of the
Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") which regulate the "Methods
and Standards of Practice for Settlement of Total Loss Vehicle
Claims."

Based on alleged violations of the WAC, specifically WAC 284-30-391
(4)(b) and (5)(d), the Complaint makes claims for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
for violation of the CPA.  The Complaint seeks damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief.

In the pending motion to dismiss, First National argues that it
complied with all applicable provisions of WAC, particularly WAC
284-30-391 (4)(b) and (5)(d).  It asserts that Subsection (4)(b)
does not impose any disclosure obligation and Subsection (5)(b)
does not apply to comparable vehicles. Id. It argues that even if
subsection (4)(b) did require disclosure and subsection (5)(d) did
apply to condition adjustments made to comparable vehicles, First
National fully complied with the regulations.  It asserts all the
Plaintiff's claims rise and fall on its compliance with WAC
284-30-391, and so, the Complaint should be dismissed.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion, and argues that WAC 284-30-391
prohibits un-itemized and unexplained condition adjustments,
whether to the loss vehicle or a comparable vehicle.  Accordingly,
whether an insurer makes a condition adjustment to the loss vehicle
or a comparable vehicle, the adjustment results in an addition or
deduction from the actual cash value" and so must be explained and
itemized under Subsection 5 (d).  The Plaintiff asserts that First
National did not do so here.

Judge Bryan finds that the Plaintiff accurately points out that if
the "additions or deductions" only applied to the loss vehicle, as
First National maintains, it would amount to an "end-run around"
the explanation and itemization requirements of subsection (5)(d).
The regulation's failure to so specify should be interpreted as to
include both the loss vehicle and comparable vehicles.  Nothing in
WAC 284-30-392 (which provides what information must be included in
the valuation reports) conflicts with this interpretation.
Accordingly, WAC 284-30-391 requires insurers itemize and explain
condition adjustments to either the loss vehicle or the comparable
vehicles.

The Judge also finds that First National's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim should be denied.  While the
valuation report stated that it was reducing all three comparable
vehicles by the exact same amount ($936), construing all factual
allegations and conclusions in the Plaintiff's favor as the Court
must do for purposes of the motion, First National did not fully
itemize and explain the deduction.  The Complaint asserts that the
Plaintiff was damaged.

First National's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing should also be denied.  The
Judge finds that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint, if
credited, raise sufficient questions regarding whether First
National's exercised its discretion in setting the settlement price
reasonably.

The Judge further finds that First National's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's CPA claim should be denied.  First National argues that
the Plaintiff bases his CPA claim on alleged violations of
284-30-391, and because it did not violate WAC 284-30-391, it did
not commit a per se violation of the CPA.  Construing all facts,
allegations and reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, he
cannot find that First National did not violate WAC 284-30-91.

Finally, as to First National's asserttion that because all the
Plaintiff's claims fail due to its compliance with WAC 284-30-391,
the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief fail, the Judge
finds that at this stage in the litigation, First National's
compliance with WAC 284-30-391 is at issue.  Its motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should
be denied.

For the reasons described, Judge Bryan denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12 (b)(6).  He directed the Clerk to send uncertified copies of the
Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at
said party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0wLKJn from Leagle.com.

Cameron Lundquist, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David L.
Woloshin -- dwoloshin@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN &
MANDEL, LLP, pro hac vice, Dina S. Ronsayro --
dronsayro@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro
hac vice, John M. DeStefano -- johnd@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac vice, Marc A. Goldich --
mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH LLC, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Carey -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro
hac vice & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

First National Insurance Company of America, a New Hampshire
Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Morsch --
jmorsch@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD, pro hac
vice, John O. Leahy -- jleahy@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN
SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Silk --
silk@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON & Julie Rodriguez
Aldort -- jaldort@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD
LLP, pro hac vice.

FORTUNOFF FINE: NY Retailer Faces ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
James Murphy has filed a class action lawsuit against Fortunoff
Fine Jewelry and Silverware Inc.  The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fortunoff Fine Jewelry and Silverware Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06706 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fortunoff is a New York-based retailer of outdoor furniture and
jewelry. The company started as a home, jewelry and furniture
retailer founded in 1922 by Max and Clara Fortunoff.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

FOUNDATION ENERGY: Keeton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN KEETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01876-G (N.D. Tex., July 20, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other workers
like him, regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Defendant
did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA, Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to him as independent contractors and paid them
a set amount for each well serviced with no overtime compensation.

Foundation Energy operates as a private equity firm. The company
acquires, develops and enhances domestic oil and gas
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FOX ASSOCIATES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of "Childress" Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Fox Associates, LLC, filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated May 21, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Maria
Childress, et al. v. Fox Associates, LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00931-CDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Maria Childress, et al. v. Fox
Associates, LLC, Case No. 18-2352, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix was due July 31, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant Fox Associates was due July 31, 2018;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees Maria C. Childress, An Individual, on behalf
of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, also known as Tina
Childress; Association of Late Deafened Adults, (ALDA), an Illinois
Corporation; Mary Stodden, Individuals, on behalf of Themselves and
Others Similarly Situated; and Hearing Loss Association of America,
Greater St. Louis Chapter, (HLAA-StL), an unincorporated affiliate
of the Hearing Loss of America, A Maryland Corporation, are
represented by:

          John Frazier Waldo, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN F. WALDO
          2108 McDuffie Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (206) 849-5009
          E-mail: johnfwaldo@hotmail.com

Defendant-Appellant Fox Associates, LLC, doing business as Fabulous
Fox Theatre, is represented by:

          Rene Leigh Duckworth, Esq.
          James M. Paul, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 802-3935
          E-mail: rene.duckworth@ogletree.com
                  jim.paul@ogletree.com


FRITO-LAY: Sept. 17 Deadline to File Bid for Prelim Settlement OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Sale A. Drozd of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered
that the Plaintiff will have until Sept. 17, 2018 to file the
motion for preliminary approval, and that the hearing on
preliminary approval will be continued to Oct. 16, 2018.

On June 7, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation to extend
time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement and continue the scheduled hearing
thereto.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4FAdSx from Leagle.com.

Eliazar Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase --
bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase, LLP & Jerusalem F. Beligan
-- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase, LLP.

Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy, Esq.
-- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Ashley Teiko Hirano, Esq. --
ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- and Daniel Francisco De La Cruz,Esq.
-- ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kevin Mahar Sues over Stock Direct Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN D. MAHAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, JEFFREY R.
IMMELT, JEFFREY S. BORNSTEIN, JAN R. HAUSER, JOHN L. FLANNERY,
DOUGLAS A. WARNER III, and KPMG LLP, the Defendants, Case No.
653648/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of GE between July
20, 2015 and July 19, 2018, pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's false and/or misleading registration statements and
prospectuses issued in connection with the GE Stock Direct Plan.

GE is a digital industrial company with products and services that
include aircraft engines, power generation, oil and gas production
equipment, medical imaging, and industrial products. GE is
organized across various business segments, including GE Capital
Corporation, the financial services unit of GE, and GE Power, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of GE, that builds industrial products
including power plants, turbines, and generators.

GE operates a "GE Stock Direct" plan which allows investors to "buy
shares of GE common stock directly from GE." Investors may enroll
in GE Stock Direct if they either already own shares of GE stock or
acquire shares by buying a minimum of $250 of GE stock and paying a
one-time $7.50 registration fee for the initial purchase. Persons
enrolled in GE Stock Direct receive an account in which their
shares are held, and receive certain benefits not available to
those outside the Plan, including the right to reinvest dividends
without any fee. Enrollees may also purchase additional shares
through GE Stock Direct.[BN]

Attorneys for Kevin D. Mahar:

          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          712 Fifth Avenue, 31st floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 935 7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753 3630

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160


GEO GROUP: Plaintiff Substitution in Migrant Detainees' Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAO CHEN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Class
Action Complaint.

Chen seeks leave to amend his class action complaint to substitute
three individuals as named Plaintiffs and to withdraw Mr. Chen as a
named Plaintiff.  The proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint
for Damages introduces as the Plaintiffs three individuals:
Ugochukwu Goodluck Nwauzor, Fernando Aguirre-Urbina, and Fabiola
Alicia Camorlinga Cruz.  The second version of the First Amended
Class Action Complaint for Damages, filed in the Plaintiff's Reply,
drops Ms. Cruz as a named Plaintiff.  For purposes of considering
Plaintiff's motion, the Court will construe the second version as
the operative proposed complaint.

The proposed complaint adds two substantive paragraphs, which
provide detail about the two proposed Plaintiffs.  About Mr.
Nwauzor, the proposed complaint alleges that he resides in Kent,
Washington, was detained at the Northwest Detention Center from
approximately 2016 until January 2017, and is a Nigerian citizen
granted asylum by the United States in January of 2017.  About Mr.
Aguirre-Urbina, the proposed complaint alleges that he has been
detained since around September 2012 and is a citizen of Mexico.
Other than these two paragraphs, the proposed complaint is
identical to the Complaint, except for minor, non-substantive
changes, e.g., modifying the Complaint to reflect a plural, rather
than a singular, number of the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant is prejudiced, it argues, because the proposed
Plaintiffs cannot survive a motion for class certification and
should not be permitted to be used as placeholders. Judge Bryan
finds this as an argument on the merits of class certification,
which the Court has not reached.  Whether the proposed Plaintiffs
can survive a motion for class certification remains unresolved.
He finds only minimal prejudice to the Defendant.  He says he may
look askance at future efforts to amend the named Plaintiffs, but
presently, the Plaintiff has made the threshold showing that the
amendment is offered to reach the merits of the case.   

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has shown a lack of
diligence by the counsel's deficient preparation of Mr. Chao Chen's
class representation.  On the record shown, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff's decisions are better characterized as tactical
decisions.  The Plaintiff has adjusted his strategy based on the
clients' needs and input.  The Defendant has not shown a lack of
diligence.

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff acts in bad faith,
because counsel proposed, then withdrew, Ms. Cruz as a proposed
Plaintiff, and still proposes Mr. Aguirre-Urbina as a Plaintiff,
despite his known mental health issues.  The Judge holds that the
Defendant has not shown bad faith.  Ms. Cruz' decision to withdraw
is not within counsel's control.  Mr. Aguirre-Urbina's mental
health issues may -- or may not -- preclude his representation of
the proposed class, depending on their severity, but that question
should be resolved after his deposition and by the motion for class
certification.

Finally, the Defendant argues that amending the Complaint is
futile, because both proposed Plaintiffs have automatic
disqualifiers that preclude GEO from hiring them as 'employees,'
given their undocumented statuses.  The futility argument, accoring
to the Judge, is in part a rehash of the merits, and it assumes a
certain interpretation of the GEO-ICE contract.  The proposed
complaint alleges no more -- and no less -- plausible facts than
the Complaint.  

The balance of factors points to giving leave to amend.
Accordingly, Judge Bryan granted the Plaintiff's motion.  Plaintiff
Chao Chen may withdraw as a Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff is given
leave to file the First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages,
which will henceforth be the operative complaint.  The Clerk is
directed to send uncertified copies of the Order to all the counsel
of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last
known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EN9CzY from Leagle.com.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea D'Ambra --
andrea.dambra@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles A. Deacon --
charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea D'Ambra,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice,Charles A. Deacon,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Emery, NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice.

GLENCORE PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that  a federal
securities class action lawsuit  has been  filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Glencore PLC ("Glencore" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS:GLNCY)
(OTCMKTS:GLNCF), on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Glencore American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's)
between September 30, 2016 through July 2, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in the ADR's  of Glencore PLC
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If  you  have  incurred  losses  in  the  ADR's of  Glencore PLC,
you may,  no later than September 7, 2018, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Glencore PLC.

The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- 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

   -- 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
United States (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.

Glencore  has  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 News reported that the United Kingdom'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.

Subsequently, 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 ADR (GLNCF) has fallen nearly 22% to close at $4.20 per
share on July 3, 2018.

   Kevin Cooper, Esq.
   Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
   Gregory Stone
   Director of Case and Financial Analysis
   Telephone: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
   Email: gstone@whafh.com
          kcooper@whafh.com
          classmember@whafh.com [GN]

GOLDEN STATE: Howard Sues Over Employment Issues
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden State FC LLC.
The case is styled as Audrey Howard, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Golden State FC LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 34-2018-00237666-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 26, 2018).

The docket states the nature of suit as "other employment issues".

Golden State FC LLC is an Association or Organization in Moreno
Valley, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua H Haffner, Esq.
   Haffner Law PC
   445 S Figueroa St, Ste 2325
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-1631
   Tel: (213) 514-5681
   Fax Number: (213) 514-5682
   Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com



GORDON FLESCH: Charles Cook Seeks to Certify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES P. COOK, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. GORDON FLESCH CO.,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00711-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals employed by Gordon Flesch Co., Inc.,
   at any time between July 20, 2015 and the present, who
   were 40 years or older, and were terminated based on
   subjective complaints and criticisms – anything besides
   purely objective measures."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


GREEN CRUSH: Accused by Rosales Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY ROSALES, an individual v. GREEN CRUSH, INC. a California
Corporation; GREEN CRUSH DISTRIBUTION, INC., a California
Corporation and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. BC712214 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 28, 2018), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Labor Code, including
retaliation, wrongful termination and failure to pay for all hours
worked, including overtime.

Green Crush, Inc., and Green Crush Distribution, Inc., are
California Corporations existing under the laws of the state of
California with their principal place of business located in
Montebello, California.  Green Crush serves aguas frescas, fresh
pressed juice, and smoothies.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
          Jaime A. Danon, Esq.
          LYON LEGAL, P.C.
          2698 Junipero Ave., Suite 201A
          Signal Hill, CA 90755
          Telephone: (562) 216-7382
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com
                  j.danon@lyon-legal.com


HANSEN & ADKINS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Luna" FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leonard Luna and Ian Hall filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Leonard Luna, et al. v. Hansen and
Adkins Auto Transport, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00990-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Honorable
David O. Carter granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The STANDALONE DOCUMENT CLASS consists of:

     All natural persons residing in the United States (including
     all territories and other political subdivisions of the
     United States) who were the subject of a consumer report or
     investigation that was procured by Defendant (or that
     Defendant caused to be procured) within five years of the
     filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment
     in this action under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p.

The class action arises out of a single claim that Hansen & Adkins
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring (or causing to
be procured) consumer reports about Class Members for employment
purposes without first providing Class Members with a clear and
conspicuous disclosure in writing in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that
the Defendant routinely conducts background checks on all of its
job applicants as part of a standard screening process, without
providing those applicants with a stand-alone written disclosure
that clearly and conspicuously states that the Defendant may obtain
a consumer report for employment purposes, as is required by the
FCRA.

The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Luna, et al. v. Hansen
and Adkins Auto Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55804, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 18, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on August 17, 2018;

   -- Appellants Ian Hall and Leonard Luna's opening brief is due
      on September 26, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does and Hansen and Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on October 26, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants LEONARD LUNA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and IAN HALL are represented by:

          Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

Defendant-Appellee HANSEN AND ADKINS AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., a
California Corporation, is represented by:

          Victor Joseph Cosentino, Esq.
          LARSON & GASTON, LLP
          200 S Los Robles Avenue, Suite 530
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-6001
          E-mail: victor.cosentino@larsongaston.com


I MERCHANT DIRECT:  Livingstone  Sues Over Telemarketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LIVINGSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. I MERCHANT DIRECT, INC. d/b/a
iMerchantDirect.com, Case No. 0:18-cv-61704-KMM (S.D. Fla., July
24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing
text messages to the Plaintiff and the class violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

iMerchant is an Arizona company and a citizen of Arizona, with its
principal address located in Phoenix, Arizona.

iMerchant operates a Web site named
http://www.iMerchantDirect.com/. It is a registered ISO of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A.  iMerchant is also a Merchant Services Provider
that provides a merchant credit card processing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: Seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com



INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Bakhtiar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled IRAM BAKHTIAR, the Plaintiff, v.
INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order on July 26, 2018:

   1. granting Bakhtiar's motion for conditional
      certification of a putative Fair Labor Standard
      Act collective action;

   2. directing IRI to supplement Class List with an Excel
      (.xls.) document containing contact information for
      each putative collective class member within ten
      days of the filing of this order, including last-
      known home address and the last-known personal email
      address; and

   3. directing Bakhtiar's counsel to mail and email
      copies of the approved Notice of Collective Action
      and Consent Form to all putative collective class
      members, at their own expense, no later than 7 days
      after receiving the supplemented class list.


INSTANTFIGURE: Aretha Crosson Files Suit in New York Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aretha Crosson has filed a class action lawsuit against
InstantFigure, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. InstantFigure, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04234 (E.D.
N.Y., July 26, 2018).

InstantFigure is an apparel company offering the ultimate
compression slimming shapewear, as well as stylish tops, bottoms,
swimwear and accessories.[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

JASON & HARRY: Faces Ramirez FLSA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jason & Harry Food
Corp. The case is styled as Fernando Ramirez, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jason & Harry Food Corp. doing
business as: Cafe Oliviero, Harry H. Kim, Jason Kim and Kenny Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06653 (S.D. N.Y., July 24, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jason & Harry Food Corp. is a casual counter-serve spot for
breakfast, a lunch buffet, sandwiches & more, plus a coffee/juice
bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com



JEROME'S FURNITURE: Morales et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adan Morales, Richard Contreras,
and Juan Gonzales, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. Jerome's
Furniture Warehouse, a California corporation; and Diakon Logistics
(Delaware) Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02017-00020994-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego) on July 20, 2018. The Southern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-01662-BEN-AGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Jerome's Furniture Warehouse is a family-owned chain of discount
furniture stores in Southern California, with its headquarters in
San Diego, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Adan Morales individually and behalf of others
similarly situated and the general public:

          Joshua Pang, Esq.
          GRUENBERG LAW
          2169 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 1234
          Facsimile: (619) 230 1074
          E-mail: jp@gruenberglaw.com

Attorneys for Richard Contreras and Juan Gonzales, individually and
behalf of others similarly situated and the general public:

          David Gerald Greco, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: dgreco@nicholaslaw.org

Attorneys for Jerome's Furniture Warehouse:

          Collette Marie Tesauro, Esq.
          BROWN LAW GROUP
          600 B Street, Suite 1650
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 330 1700
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1701
          E-mail: Tesauro@brownlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Diakon Logistics (Delaware) Inc.:

          Shannon Riyana Finley, Esq.
          PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 755 8500
          Facsimile: (858) 755 8504
          E-mail: sfinley@pettitkohn.com


JP MORGAN: Faces Holmes FCRA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank.
The case is styled as Holly Holmes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01693-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 25,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue
   Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


KAYSER-ROTH CORP: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kayser-Roth
Corporation. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Kayser-Roth Corporation doing business as: Hue.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04235-CBA-SMG (E.D. N.Y., July 26,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Kayser-Roth Corporation is an intimate apparel and hosiery
manufacturer based in Greensboro, North Carolina. The company
currently markets two brands in North America, No Nonsense and
HUE.[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



KELLOGG COMPANY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Gardenburger Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TASNEEM L. MOHAMED, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who, between July 29, 2010 to
   approximately January, 20161, purchased Gardenburger
   products in the State of California that were labeled
   "Made With Natural Ingredients" but contained hexane
   processed soy ingredients."

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949 379 6250
          Facsimile: 949 379 6251


KINGSTON ACQUISITION: Rondout Suit Brought Before New York S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Kingston Acquisition Corp. was
brought before the New York Supreme Court on July 26, 2018.  The
case is styled as Rondout Hills Homeowners Association, Inc., and
Board of Directors of Rondout Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.,
suing on behalf of similarly situated homeowners, Plaintiff v.
Kingston Acquisition Corp., Kingston Acquisitions, and Ingrid Beer,
Defendants, Case No. 1506/2018.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit for breach of contract.

Kingston is an American, privately held, multinational computer
technology corporation that develops, manufactures, sells and
supports flash memory products and other computer-related memory
products. Headquartered in Fountain Valley, California, United
States, Kingston Technology employs more than 3,000 employees
worldwide as of Q1 2016. The company has manufacturing and
logistics facilities in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland,
Taiwan, and Mainland China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LASSER LAW GROUP, PLLC
   10 EAST 39TH ST. 12TH FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 376-9307

The Defendant is represented by:

   FRANKEL, P.C
   655 LITTLE BRITAIN RD.
   NEW WINDSOR, NY 12553
   Tel: (845) 562-9100


KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Wells" Suit Challenges Illegal No Poach Accords
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON K. WELLS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY, NEW YORK AIR
BRAKE LLC, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02256-TDC
(D. Md., July 24, 2018), is a civil antitrust class action seeking
to hold the Defendants responsible for entering into unlawful
agreements to restrain competition in the labor market for
rail-equipment-service employees.

The Defendants -- the world's largest rail-equipment suppliers --
through "no poach" agreements entered into without the knowledge of
their employees, collectively agreed not to solicit or recruit each
other's employees, hire each other's employees without prior
approval, or otherwise compete for employees, Mr. Wells alleges.

Knorr-Bremse AG is a privately-owned German company with its
headquarters in Munich, Germany.  Knorr is a global leader in the
development, manufacture, and sale of equipment for rail and
commercial vehicle systems.  Knorr Brake Company and New York Air
Brake LLC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Knorr-Bremse AG.

Knorr Brake Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Westminster, Maryland.  Knorr Brake Company manufactures
train control, braking, and door equipment used on passenger rail
vehicles.

New York Air Brake LLC is a Delaware company with headquarters
located in Watertown, New York.  New York Air manufactures railway
air brakes and other rail equipment used on freight trains.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.
Wabtec is the world's largest provider of rail equipment and
services.  Wabtec leads the industry in the freight and passenger
rail segments of the rail equipment industry.

Faiveley Transport North America is a New York corporation
headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina.  On November 30, 2016,
Wabtec acquired Faiveley, making Faiveley a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Wabtec.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
          Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                  bresch@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8103
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Tess Bonoli, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
                  tbonoli@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, 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

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NAST LAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19108
          Telephone: (215)923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com



KUMON NORTH: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kumon North America,
Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kumon North America, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06708 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

Kumon North America, Inc. provides after-school math and reading
enrichment programs. It offers math programs, including counting
and number sequencing, addition and subtraction, multiplication and
division, fractions, order of operations, positive and negative
numbers, solving equations, graphs, algebra, trigonometry and
logarithms, calculus, and probability and statistics. The company
provides reading programs that cover various topics, such as
pre-reading skills, vocabulary, grammar and punctuation, sentence
building, understanding paragraphs, reading comprehension, summary,
interpretation, and critical reading. In addition, it offers
franchising services.[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

L.I. ADVENTURELAND: Murphy Files Suit v. Amusement Park
-------------------------------------------------------
An amusement park is facing a class action lawsuit arising under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. L.I. Adventureland, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06742 (S.D. N.Y., July 26, 2018).

L.I. Adventureland, Inc. is an amusement park in East Farmingdale,
New York, located on Route 110. Adventureland has been Long
Island's main amusement park since 1962.[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

LA BOOM DISCO: Court Denies Bid to DQ TCPA Plaintiff's Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RADAMES DURAN, Plaintiff, v. LA BOOM DISCO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17 CV 6331 (ARR) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied the Defendant's request to disqualify
the Plaintiff's counsel due to a potential conflict of interest.

Duran filed the putative class action against the Defendant on Oct.
31, 2017, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  In recent filings, and during the telephone
conference held on June 13, 2018, the Defendant has raised the
issue of the Plaintiff's relationship with his counsel, suggesting
a potential conflict of interest that merits disqualification.

Specifically, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has testified
that he was hired by the Lee Litigation Law Firm in 2017, after
answering a help wanted ad seeking a Spanish speaking paralegal.
The Plaintiff is currently employed at this firm.  The Plaintiff is
a high school graduate who speaks Spanish but is not trained or
certified in paralegal work.

The Defendant's counsel wishes to depose the partner who recruited
the Plaintiff, to ascertain the Law Firm's motives (as evidenced by
prior lawsuits filed by the firm,) in hiring an unskilled
paralegal; who had an unified 'pending' possible TCPA claim against
its client, in order to determine and develop facts which may be
relevant, and to determine whether the civil matter was a product
of collusion, and or solicitation by the firm which would if true,
violate the ethical norms of practice.

The Plaintiff counters by explaining that he is employed as a
paralegal in the office of his counsel, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.
The Defendant has described this as disturbing.  Yet by the
Defendant's own admission, the Plaintiff received his first
marketing text message from the Defendant in March 2016, nearly a
year and a half before he was hired at the Lee Litigation Group in
August 2017.  The firm had already been involved in other TCPA
litigation prior to this point.

While learning about the TCPA in the course of his official duties,
Duran discovered that his rights had been violated by the
Defendant, who was then unknown to the Plaintiff's counsel.  At
this point, it was natural that the Plaintiff would bring his case
to attorneys he trusted and who were familiar with the TCPA.

Based on the letters, Magistrate Judge Pollak is unable to discern
any conflict or other basis on which to disqualify the Plaintiff's
counsel.  She is unaware of any rule that makes it improper for a
law firm to represent its employee in circumstances such as these,
and the Defendant has not cited a single rule or case in support of
its contentions.  Moreover, she finds that the Defendant has
offered only sheer speculation, which is an insufficient showing
for the Court to permit further inquiry.  

The Magistrate Judge holds that if the Defendant truly believes
there is a valid conflict that would disqualify the Plaintiff's
counsel from representing him in the action; the Defendant may file
a letter motion setting forth the factual and legal bases, along
with supporting case law, that would merit disqualification, or
even further inquiry into the matter.  Based on the facts currently
before the Court, however, the Defendant's request is denied.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of the Order to the parties
either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing system or
by mail.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/4Hyzmj from Leagle.com.

Radames Duran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig --
info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Taimur
Alamgir, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

La Boom Disco Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Lynn,
Long Island City.

LENNOX COMPANIES: Lovett Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS LOVETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE LENNOX COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00424-SWW
(E.D. Ark., June 28, 2018), alleges that the Defendant fails to pay
the Plaintiff and other maintenance technicians lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Lennox Companies, LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company
that does business in the state of Arkansas.  The Defendant is an
owner and operator of apartments, including town homes, high-rise
buildings, senior communities and student housing.  The Defendant
operates over 15 apartment complexes, including complexes in
Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LG ELECTRONICS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Frost Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs A. Frost and Jose Ra filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuits styled A. FROST; JOSE RA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG
ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case Nos. 5:16-cv-05206-BLF,
5:16-cv-05586-BLF, and 5:16-cv-05673-BLF, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought a class action suit alleging that the LG and Samsung
Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix and suppress
compensation for their employees, violating Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions
Code, and the New Jersey Antitrust Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff A. Frost was contacted via
LinkedIn by a recruiter seeking to fill a position with Samsung,
but who later informed Frost "I made a mistake!  I'm not supposed
to poach LG for Samsung!!!  Sorry!  The two companies have an
agreement that they won't steal each other's employees."  The
Plaintiffs also allege that Plaintiff Jose Ra was told by a manager
at Samsung's finance department that they do not hire people from
LG.

The appellate case is captioned as A. FROST; JOSE RA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS USA,
INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-16188, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- July 26, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- August 27, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- October 4, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- November 5, 2018 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


LIFE INSURANCE: Court Okays Joyce Walker's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOYCE WALKER ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, the Defendant, Case No.
2:10−cv−09198−JVS−JD (C.D. Cal.), Judge James V. Selna
granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification according to
Minutes (in chambers) dated July 31, 2018.

In a prior docket entry dated July 26, the Court took the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action under submission.
Counsel was directed to submit an amended schedule by stipulated
order.

LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hicks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN HICKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LINDSEY MANAGEMENT, CO., INC., and SCOTT ROGERSON, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00133-KGB (E.D. Ark., July 24, 2018), is brought on
behalf of all the Defendants' hourly-paid employees, who lived
on-premises and worked more than 40 hours per week without proper
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Lindsey Management Co., Inc., is an Arkansas corporation
headquartered in Fayetteville with offices throughout the southeast
United States.    Scott Rogerson, a citizen and resident of
Arkansas, is the president and chief financial officer of Lindsey.

The Company operates apartment complexes throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



M.A.C. COSMETICS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Juarez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIZA JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wages and failure and overtime pay under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed and
refused, and continues to willfully fail and refuse, to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members their wages, earned and unpaid wages,
either at the time of discharge, or within 72 hours of their
voluntarily leaving Defendants' employ. These wages include minimum
and overtime wages for all work performed off the clock and for
accrued vacation time. The Defendant also willfully failed and
refused, and continue to willfully fail and refuse to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members meal and rest break premiums.

MAC Cosmetics, stylized as M·A·C, is a cosmetics manufacturer
founded in Toronto in 1984 by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo. The
company is headquartered in New York City and became part of the
Estee Lauder Companies in 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES R. 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
                  MICHAEL@JAMESHAWKINSAPLC.COM


MAST CAPITAL: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mast Capital, Inc.
The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mast Capital,
Inc. doing business as: the Spa at Conrad Miami, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-23042-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mast Capital, Inc. is a real estate developer 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



MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SDHARI MORRIS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., a Virginia
corporation; and AEROTEK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, Inc., a Maryland
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01303-UN4 (M.D. Pa., June 28, 2018),
is brought to remedy the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Morris seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(b) and 217, and other applicable federal
law.

Maximus Federal Services, Inc., is a Virginia corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Virginia.  Maximus "provides
Medicare managed care appeals.  It offers information for Medicare
managed care enrollees in the areas of Medicare appeals and rights,
quality of care concerns, who can help with appeals, obtaining a
copy of case file, appeal case search, and how to request an
administrative law judge hearing.  The company also provides health
plans information, such as Medicare advantage, program of
all-inclusive care for the elderly organizations, cost and HCPP,
and search effectuation data; Medicare regulations and guidance,
and coverage information; and researchers/data."

Aerotek Professional Services is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Maryland.  Aerotek is a global recruiting and
staffing services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Rd., Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Gerard C. Kramer, Esq.
          SCHMIDT KRAMER, PC
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 232-6300
          Facsimile: (717) 232-6467
          E-mail: gkramer@schmidtkramer.com


MEDISCA INC.: Nashville Pharmacy Sues over Unsolicited Facsimiles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASHVILLE PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDISCA INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00676 (M.D. Tenn., July
20, 2018), challenges Medisca's practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles, which is in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Medisca transmitted by telephone
facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff on March 1,
2018. The Plaintiff's telephone facsimile equipment printed the fax
when it was received, causing Plaintiff to lose paper and ink or
toner. Medisca receives some or all of the revenues from the sale
of the products, goods, and services advertised on the facsimile,
and Medisca profits and benefits from the sale of the products,
goods, and services. The Plaintiff did not give prior express
invitation or permission to Medisca to send the facsimile.

Medisca is an FDA-registered supplier of quality pharmacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244 1713
          Facsimile: (615) 726 0573
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                  baaron@nealharwell.com


MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, "Lee" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Cody Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Megatel Homes, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01910-S
(N.D. Tex., July 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its workers for all
hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA.

Megatel Homes, Inc., is a corporation authorized to do business and
that does business in the state of Texas.  Megatel is a new home
builder that builds homes in Texas and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-3330
          Facsimile: (972) 398-8846
          E-mail: jillwlfirm@gmail.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Migliaccio Appeals Order in "Rawa" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector James Migliaccio filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum & Order entered on May 25, 2018, in the lawsuit styled
Joshua Rawa, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case Nos.
4:17-cv-01252-AGF and 4:17-cv-02300-AGF, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
alleges that label instructions that say the "up to" the amount
displayed on the front of the container was deceptive because that
statement was based on a mixing instruction "buried" inside the
booklet label rather than on the front of the back booklet label.
The Plaintiffs say that "reasonable consumers" would not see it
before buying because they would not feel they were permitted to
open the booklet label before purchase.  They claim the practice
violates the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Rawa, et al. v. James
Migliaccio, Case No. 18-2346, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript was due before July 31, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on August 10, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant James Migliaccio is due on August 10,
      2018;

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

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

Objector-Appellant James Migliaccio is represented by:

          Peter C. Woods, Esq.
          HAAR & WOODS LLP
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1620
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 241-2224
          E-mail: petewoods@haar-woods.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Rawa, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas A. Canova, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, P.C.
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          E-mail: tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
          JACKSON & FOSTER, LC
          P.O. Box 2225
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-6699
          Facsimile: (251) 433-6127
          E-mail: sid@jacksonfosterlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Joshua Rawa, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Elisabeth Martin, Robert Ravencamp, Amy
Ward, Cynthia Davies, Christopher Abbott, Owen Olson, Jeannie A.
Gilchrist, Zachary Sholar, Matthew Myers, John W. Beard, Jr., and
Michael Overstreet are represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY
          2726 S. Brentwood Boulevard
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com

               - and -

          John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, P.C.
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Monsanto Company is represented by:

          Matthew R. Grant, Esq.
          Erik L. Hansell, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          E-mail: matt.grant@husch.com
                  erik.hansell@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          John J. Rosenthal, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Telephone: (202) 282-5785
          E-mail: jrosenthal@winston.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Tucker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA TUCKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., July 20, 2018), seeks
to recover actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a natural person
allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to be owed to a creditor
other than Defendants. On or about April 6, 2018, Northstar sent
the Plaintiff a collection letter. The alleged debt was originally
allegedly owed to TD Auto Finance LLC and was incurred only for
personal, family or household purposes. Defendants' language reads
like an infomercial, attempting to pressure Plaintiff to "take
advantage" of a settlement offer, as if it is the only time it will
be offered.

The letters would not have been sent to Plaintiff for any purpose
other than debt collection. The Plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact
by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the
Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target
of the Defendants' misleading debt collection communications. The
Defendants violated the Plaintiff's right not to be the target of
misleading debt collection communications. Defendant used
materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and means
in its attempted collection of Plaintiff's alleged debt.[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


ONE KINGS: Hurst Sues over False Reference Prices
-------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HURST, Individually, As a Private Attorney General,
and/or On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
v. ONE KINGS LANE LLC; ONE KINGS LANE INC.; BED BATH & BEYOND INC.;
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-568256
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 20, 2018), seeks an order to disgorge all
revenues Defendants have unjustly received from proposed Class due
to their intentional and unlawful pattern and practice of using
false reference prices.

According to the complaint, Bed Bath & Beyond is liable for the
misconduct of One Kings Lane which occurred before the acquisition
and is liable for that lesser quantum of misconduct which continued
and continues to occur. In acquiring One Kings Lane and in
converting it into a mere instrumentality of the larger
corporation, Bed Bath & Beyond made its bed, and now Bed Bath & 8
Beyond must lie in it.

As a direct and proximate result of these violations, Plaintiff
Elizabeth Hurst and the proposed Class have suffered injury in fact
and lost money. They paid more than they otherwise would have paid
for the products they purchased from One Kings Lane. One Kings
Lane's false reference pricing scheme fraudulently increased demand
for its products, enabling it to charge higher prices than it
otherwise could have charged.

One Kings Lane is a home decor business that operates a furniture
and home accessories sales website. It was founded by Ali Pincus
and Susan Feldman in March 2009.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          P.O. Box 1645
          Bellevue, WA 98009
          Telephone: (650) 980 1990
          Facsimile: (425) 412 7171
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                  pkl@hattislaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Hawkins Files Suit v. SEPTA Over Delayed Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK HAWKINS, JR., D.O., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, Case No. 180603427 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty.,
June 27, 2018), alleges that SEPTA frequently pays medical benefits
to providers well after they become due, selectively picks and
chooses which providers to pay in a timely fashion, and never pays
the statutorily mandated interest owed on any overdue benefits.

Frederick Hawkins, D.O., is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine,
licensed to practice medicine in the state of Pennsylvania and
whose practice is located in Philadelphia.  During the relevant
time period, the Plaintiff provided medical services to persons
injured in motor vehicle accidents, who were entitled to covered
benefits payable directly to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

SEPTA is a municipal transportation authority organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with
its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
SEPTA is a self-insurer and is not only required to directly pay
providers of medical services for its insureds with respect to
injuries arising out of automobile accidents, but also required to
pay interest at 12% per annum for interest on all "overdue
benefits."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Benjamin Isser, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  bisser@golombhonik.com


PILOT CATASTROPHE: Price Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
TAMEIKA PRICE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02522 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Pilot allegedly violated the FLSA by employing Price and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than
forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their]
employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were]
employed." Pilot allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Price and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees.

Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. operates as an insurance adjusting
company in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Andrews"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., and Plains Pipeline,
L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 18-55850, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Personal Property Damage."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 5, 2018,
Defendants Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., and Plains Pipeline,
L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 18-80054, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 26, 2018;

   -- Transcript due August 27, 2018;

   -- Appellants Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains
      Pipeline, L.P.'s opening brief is due October 4, 2018;

   -- Appellees Keith Andrews, Tiffani Andrews, Baciu Family,
      LLC, Robert Boydston, Captain Jack's Santa Barbara Tours,
      LLC, Morgan Castagnola, Community Seafood LLC, Eagle Fleet
      LLC, Zachary Frazier, Mike Gandall, Alexandra B. Geremia,
      Jim Guelker, Jacques Habra, Mark Kirkhart, Mary Kirkhart,
      Richard Lilygren, Hwa Hong Muh, Ocean Angel IV, LLC,
      Pacific Rim Fisheries, Inc., Sarah Rathbone, Santa Barbara
      Uni, Inc., Southern Cal Seafood, Inc., Tractide Marine
      Corp., Wei International Trading Inc., Stephen Wilson and
      iSurf, LLC's answering brief is due on November 5, 2018;
      and

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

Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH ANDREWS, et al., are represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com
                  rlieff@lieff.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  rnelson@lchb.com

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          David Cousineau, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
          E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com
                  dcousineau@cappellonoel.com
                  lnoel@cappellonoel.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
                  dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

Defendants-Appellants PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas
limited partnership, are represented by:

          Brad D. Brian, Esq.
          Thomas Paul Clancy, Esq.
          Melinda Eades LeMoine, Esq.
          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          Jordan X. Navarrette, Esq.
          Henry Weissmann, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9280
          E-mail: brad.brian@mto.com
                  thomas.clancy@mto.com
                  melinda.lemoine@mto.com
                  daniel.levin@mto.com
                  Jordan.Navarrette@mto.com
                  Henry.Weissmann@mto.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Rabin's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVE RABIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02276-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order denying a motion for collective certification without
prejudice.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs may file an amended motion for
collective certification within 30 days. Failure to cure the
deficiencies identified in this order or failure to file a
subsequent motion within 30 days will result in a denial with
prejudice of conditional certification of FLSA collective action.


PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Boyle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled James Boyle, Sr. v.
Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. 2-09-cv-05515, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as James Boyle, Sr. v. Progressive
Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. 18-8032, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JAMES BOYLE, SR., on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher P. Caputo, Esq.
          O'MALLEY HARRIS DURKIN & PERRY, P.C.
          345 Wyoming Avenue
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 348-3711

               - and -

          Arleigh P. Helfer, III, Esq.
          Ira N. Richards, Esq.
          Samuel W. Silver, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-2430
          E-mail: ahelfer@schnader.com
                  irichards@schnader.com
                  ssilver@schnader.com

               - and -

          Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS LLC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 731-9004
          E-mail: ktrujillo@trrlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. is
represented by:

          Robert N. Feltoon, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN
          1500 Market Street
          West Towers, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 864-8064
          E-mail: rfeltoon@conradobrien.com

               - and -

          Francesco P. Trapani, Esq.
          KREHER & TRAPANI LLP
          1325 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 907-7289
          E-mail: frank@krehertrapani.com


QVC INC: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QVC, Inc. The case is
styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06648 (S.D. N.Y., July 24, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

QVC is an American cable, satellite and broadcast television
network, and flagship shopping channel specializing in televised
home shopping that is owned by Qurate Retail Group.[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


RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused by "Driesen" Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Driesen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RSI Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-08140-SPL (D.
Ariz., June 27, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

RSI Enterprises, Inc., is a "debt collector."  RSI regularly
collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed
or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
                  jpanvini@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


RUBBERMAID INC: FreshWorks' Label is Misleading, Zearfoss Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DYNITA ZEARFOSS, and TRACY SWAN on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RUBBERMAID, INC., and NEWELL BRANDS,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-06392 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2018), alleges
that the product packaging of the Defendants' FreshWorks Produce
Saver products is false and misleading.

The Defendants represented that FreshWorks Produce Saver Products
keep produce fresh up to 80% longer than store packaging.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' dissemination of this Claim
to California consumers constitutes violations of California's
False Advertising law, the unfair, unlawful and fraudulent prongs
of the Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as
well as breaches of express and implied warranties.  The Plaintiffs
insist that the FreshWorks Produce Saver Products do not keep
produce fresh up to 80% longer than store packaging.

Newell Brands, Inc., formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., is
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Hoboken, New Jersey.  Rubbermaid, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
Rubbermaid is a wholly owned subsidiary of Newell.

The Defendants market and sell a line of food storage containers
called FreshWorks Produce Saver Products.  The Product is
individually and in multipacks of various sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Starr, Esq.
          Adam Rose, Esq.
          Manny Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd., Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-Mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com



SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Decision in Jones Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brittany Jones v. Samsung
Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00571, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 12, 2018, the
District Court has denied Samsung's effort to arbitrate a proposed
class action over allegations that one of its phones has a tendency
to overheat and catch fire.

Judge Michael Ponsor on May 21 denied Samsung's motions to either
send the class action to arbitration, or dismiss the claims
entirely.  Although the phone maker had pushed for arbitration,
noting that lead plaintiff Brittany Jones never opted out of the
Company's arbitration agreement, Judge Ponsor said the agreement
and opt-out language were too inconspicuously buried in the phone's
informational manual to be enforceable.

The appellate case is captioned as Brittany Jones v. Samsung
Electronics America Inc., Case No. 18-2379, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BRITTANY JONES, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
          707 Grant Street
          2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Defendant-Appellant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC. is represented
by:

          Kenneth L. Chernof, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5940
          E-mail: kenneth.chernof@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          Three PPG Place, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2172
          E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com


SAN DIEGO CTY, CA: DC Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff D.C. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled D.C. v. County of San Diego, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01868-MMA-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
D.C., a minor, filed the putative class action through his guardian
ad litem pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the
Defendants violated his and putative class members' constitutional
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiff previously filed a motion to certify a
class of all children who had not yet reached 20 years of age as of
Aug. 24, 2015 and who were placed at A.B. and Jessie Polinsky
Children's Center and subjected to a physical examination without
the presence of their parent or legal guardian, without the consent
of their parent or legal guardian, without an individualized order
of the court authorizing their examination, and without exigent
circumstances.

The appellate case is captioned as D.C. v. County of San Diego, et
al., Case No. 18-55853, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant D.C.'s opening brief is due on August 27, 2018;

   -- Appellees A.B. and Jessie Polinsky Children's Center,
      County of San Diego and San Diego Health and Human Services
      Agency's answering brief is due on September 27, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad
Litem, Helen Garter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Donnie R. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONNIE R. COX
          402 N. Nevada Street
          Oceanside, CA 92054
          Telephone: (760) 400-0263
          E-mail: drcoxlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Paul Leehey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL W. LEEHEY
          210 E. Fig Street, Suite 101
          Fallbrook, CA 92028
          Telephone: (760) 723-0711
          E-mail: law@leehey.com

               - and -

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: smith@whafh.com

Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, A.B. AND JESSIE POLINSKY
CHILDREN'S CENTER and SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
are represented by:

          David Brodie, Esq.
          Christina Snider, Esq.
          Darin L. Wessel, Esq.
          OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
          1600 Pacific Highway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 531-4871
          Facsimile: (619) 531-6005
          E-mail: david.brodie@sdcounty.ca.gov
                  christina.snider@sdcounty.ca.gov
                  darin.wessel@sdcounty.ca.gov


SHUBERT ORGANIZATION: James Murphy Files ADA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Shubert
Organization, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06709 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 25, 2018) was filed pursuant the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Shubert Organization is a theatrical producing organization and
a major owner of theatres based in Manhattan, New York City. It was
founded by the three Shubert brothers in the late 19th
century.[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

SOFFT SHOE: Faces Slade ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sofft Shoe Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Sofft Shoe Company, LLC doing business as: Sofftshoe.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06620 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sofft Shoe Company Inc. provides handmade women footwear. The
company provides its products through stores in the United States,
as well as online. Sofft Shoe Company Inc. was formerly known as
Lowell Shoe, Inc. and changed its name to Sofft Shoe Company Inc.
in May 2003. The company was founded in 1927 and is based in
Andover, Massachusetts. Sofft Shoe Company Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SPOTIFY USA: Saunders-Thomas Appeals Ruling in Ferrick Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phynjuar Saunders-Thomas filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Melissa Ferrick, et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., Case
No. 16-cv-8412, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in early
August 2017, Spotify settled a major class action lawsuit to the
tune of $43.5 million.  The lawsuit was filed by Melissa Ferrick
and David Lowery on behalf of songwriters and publishers everywhere
alleging that the music streaming site had made thousands of songs
available to stream without the proper license.

On December 1, 2017, the final hearing was held and unfortunately
for Spotify, who pushed for final approval of the settlement
amount, two other rights holders filed objections that the damages
for each composition streamed was insufficient.  Under current
settlement terms, the writers of compositions that have been
streamed between zero and 100 times would receive a minimum
payment, while the rest of the money would be divided on a pro rata
basis.

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Ferrick, et al. v.
Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 18-1868, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Appellant Phynjuar Saunders-Thomas is represented by:

          N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq.
          N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR., PA
          4128 NW 13th Street
          Gainesville, FL 32609
          Telephone: (352) 378-9859
          E-mail: n.a.bacharach@att.net

Plaintiffs-Appellees Melissa Ferrick, Jaco Pastorius, Inc., and
Gerencia 360 Publishing, Inc., are represented by:

          Geng Chen, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 729-2008
          E-mail: gchen@susmangodfrey.com

Defendant-Appellee Spotify USA Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com


SPOTIFY USA: Silverman Appeals Ferrick Suit Settlement Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Tracy Silverman filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion & Order, dated May 22, 2018, and Corrected Order
and Final Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement, dated May 22,
2018, in the lawsuit entitled Melissa Ferrick, et al. v. Spotify
USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-8412, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Ferrick, et al. v.
Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 18-1864, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 21, 2018, the
District Court finalized the $113 million class action settlement
between music streamer Spotify USA Inc. and more than 500,000
owners of copyrights in musical compositions.

The May 22 ruling comes as Congress considers legislation to ease
the music licensing and royalty system for streaming services.  If
it passes, the legislation could end a liability headache for
Spotify as it begins its life as a public company.  The legislative
fix also would ease the way for competitors like Apple Music,
Amazon Prime, and Google Play, together seen as the main source of
income for music creators.

About 1,200 potential class members objected to the deal and opted
out, but the District Court concluded the settlement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate, as required by class action law.

The lawsuit accused Spotify of streaming music without properly
securing licenses and paying royalties.  Spotify settled a similar
lawsuit by the National Music Publishers Association for $30
million in 2016.[BN]

Objector-Appellant Tracy Silverman is represented by:

          Vincent S. Verdiramo, Esq.
          VERDIRAMO & VERDIRAMO, P.A.
          3163 Kennedy Boulevard
          Jersey City, NJ 07306
          Telephone: (201) 798-7082

Plaintiffs-Appellees Melissa Ferrick, Jaco Pastorius, Inc., and
Gerencia 360 Publishing, Inc., are represented by:

          Geng Chen, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 729-2008
          E-mail: gchen@susmangodfrey.com

Defendant-Appellee Spotify USA Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com


STEADYMED LTD: "Hoover" Securities Suit Challenges Sale to United
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA A. HOOVER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. STEADYMED LTD, KEITH BANK, JONATHAN M.N.
RIGBY, RON GINOR, DONALD D. HUFFMAN, ELIZABETH CERMAK, STEPHEN J.
FARR, and BRIAN J. STARK, Case No. 3:18-cv-03841 (N.D. Cal., June
27, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of
SteadyMed by United Therapeutics Corporation.

On April 29, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which each
ordinary share of SteadyMed will be converted into the right to
receive (a) $4.46 in cash, without interest and less any applicable
withholding taxes with respect to such cash consideration and the
CVR ("Closing Cash Consideration"), plus (b) one contractual
contingent value right (each, a "CVR" which will be subject to the
Contingent Value Rights Agreement (the "CVR Agreement")), and which
will represent the right to receive $2.63 in cash, without interest
and less any applicable withholding taxes, upon the achievement of
a specified "Milestone" (collectively the "Buyout Price").

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from completing the announced proposed merger transaction.

SteadyMed, incorporated on June 15, 2005, is an Israeli corporation
and maintains its headquarters in San Ramon, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

SteadyMed is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of various therapeutic product
candidates to treat orphan and high-value diseases with unmet
parenteral delivery needs.  The Company's primary focus is to
obtain approval in the United States for the sale of Trevyent for
the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).  The
Company is also developing two products for the treatment of
post-surgical and acute pain in the home setting, which include
bupivacaine PatchPump for local anesthesia post-surgery and
ketorolac PatchPump for short-term management of moderately severe
acute pain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, 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


STERLING BANCORP: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Bancorp. The
case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sterling Bancorp, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06698 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sterling Bancorp is a regional bank holding company whose principal
subsidiary, Sterling National Bank, provides a full range of
banking and financial services to business owners, their families,
and consumers, primarily in the greater New York metropolitan and
Hudson Valley regions. Sterling Bancorp had assets of approximately
$30 billion at October 2, 2017, following its acquisition of
Astoria Financial Corp.  Headquartered in Montebello, New York,
Sterling Bancorp's shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.[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



STEWART CIROLO: Gomez Files ADA Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stewart Cirolo. The
case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stewart Cirolo
doing business as: Bodies Kneaded, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23027-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Stewart Cirolo doing business as: Bodies Kneaded is a sports
massage therapist in Granite City, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   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



STEWART INFORMATION: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Fidelity
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION, THOMAS G.
APEL, ARNAUD AJDLER, CLIFFORD ALLEN BRADLEY JR., JAMES CHADWICK,
ROBERT L. CLARKE, GLENN C. CHRISTENSON, FREDERICK H. EPPINGER,
MATTHEW W. MORRIS, CLIFFORD PRESS, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL,
INC., A HOLDCO CORP., and S HOLDCO LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00951-UNA
(D. Del., June 27, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Stewart will be acquired by Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. ("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, A
Holdco Corp. ("Merger Sub I") and S Holdco LLC ("Merger Sub II).

On March 18, 2018, Stewart's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with FNF.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction
is approved by Stewart's shareholders and completed, each share of
Stewart common stock will be converted into, at the election of the
holder of such share, subject to proration and adjustment, either
(i) $50.00 in cash; (ii) 1.2850 shares of Parent common stock; or
(iii) $25.00 in cash and 0.6425 shares of Parent common stock.

The class action suit alleges that the company misled investors by
failing to disclose important information in regulatory filings
surrounding its acquisition by Fidelity National Financial Inc.

Stewart is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Stewart is a global real estate services company, offering products
and services through its direct operations, network of Stewart
Trusted Providers and family of companies.  From residential and
commercial title insurance and closing and settlement services to
specialized offerings for the mortgage industry, Stewart offers the
comprehensive service, deep expertise, and solutions its customers
need for any real estate transaction.

Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II are Delaware
corporations and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Parent.  The Merger
Subs are parties to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


STEWART INFORMATION: Lowinger Suit Challenges Sale to Fidelity
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION, THOMAS G.
APEL, ARNAUD AJDLER, CLIFFORD ALLEN BRADLEY, JR., JAMES CHADWICK,
ROBERT L. CLARKE, GLENN C. CHRISTENSON, FREDERICK H. EPPINGER,
MATTHEW W. MORRIS, CLIFFORD PRESS, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL,
INC., A HOLDCO CORP., and S HOLDCO LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-02203
(S.D. Tex., June 28, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Stewart will be acquired by Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. ("Parent") and its wholly owned subsidiaries, A
Holdco Corp. ("Merger Sub I") and S Holdco LLC
("Merger Sub II").

On March 18, 2018, Stewart's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with FNF.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed
Transaction is approved by Stewart's shareholders and completed,
each share of Stewart common stock will be converted into, at the
election of the holder of such share, subject to proration and
adjustment, either (i) $50.00 in cash; (ii) 1.2850 shares of Parent
common stock; or (iii) $25.00 in cash and 0.6425 shares of Parent
common stock.  Holders of Stewart common stock who do not make an
election will receive the mixed cash and stock consideration.

Stewart is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Stewart is a global real estate services company, offering products
and services through its direct operations, network of Stewart
Trusted Providers and family of companies.  From residential and
commercial title insurance and closing and settlement services to
specialized offerings for the mortgage industry, Stewart offers the
comprehensive service, deep expertise, and solutions its customers
need for any real estate transaction.

Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II are Delaware
corporations and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Parent.  The Merger
Subs are parties to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

               - and -

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL, & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com


SYNERGY USA: Fitness Club Faces ADA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Synergy USA Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is captioned James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Synergy USA Inc. doing business as: Synergy Fitness
Clubs, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06702 (S.D. N.Y., July 25,
2018).

Synergy USA, Inc. operates fitness clubs. It offers cardio,
strength training, endurance, kick-boxing, and fitness classes and
programs, as well as lifestyle coaching and personal training
programs. The company is based in New York, New York with fitness
club locations in New York, Astoria, Fresh Meadows, and Staten
Island, New York; and Jersey City, New Jersey.[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

TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Approval of Data Breach Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation, Jim Sciaroni Objector-Appellant, v. Consumer
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, Target Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Leif A. Olson Objector-Appellant, v.
Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, Target Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Leif A. Olson Objector-Appellant, v.
Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, Target Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Jim Sciaroni Objector-Appellant, v.
Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee Target Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation Leif A. Olson Objector-Appellant, v.
Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, Target Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 15-3909, 15-3912, 16-1203, 16-1245,
16-1408 (8th Cir.), Judge Bobby Shepherd of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's (i)
re-certification of the class after, and (ii) approval of the
settlement agreement.

In 2015, the district court certified a class of all persons in the
United States whose credit or debit card information and/or whose
personal information was compromised as a result of the data breach
that was first disclosed by Target on Dec. 19, 2013.  As has become
common, the class was certified solely for the purpose of entering
into a settlement agreement.  The parties presented such an
agreement to the court in short order.

Under the terms of the agreement, Target agreed to pay $10 million
to settle the claims of all the class members and waived its right
to appeal an award of attorney's fees less than or equal to $6.75
million.  For those class members with documented proof of loss,
the agreement called for full compensation of their actual losses
up to $10,000 per claimant.  For those class members with
undocumented losses, the agreement directed a pro rata distribution
of the amounts remaining after payments to documented-loss
claimants and class representatives. Additionally, Target agreed to
implement a number of data-security measures and to pay all class
notice and administration expenses.

There were two primary objectors to the court's certification of
the class and approval of the settlement agreement: Leif Olson and
Jim Sciaroni.  In the original appeal of the matter, Olson argued
that the court failed to conduct the appropriate pre-certification
analysis, and Sciaroni objected to the court's approval of the
settlement.  The Appellate Court agreed with Olson's argument and
therefore remanded to the district court without considering
Sciaroni's objections.

On remand, the court again certified the class.  Olson appeals that
decision, claiming the district court factually misunderstood the
settlement agreement and failed to account for a number of alleged
conflicts of interest between the class counsel and the class
members and among competing subgroups of class members.  In
addition, Sciaroni's original objections to the settlement are
before the Court.

Addressing Olson's first argument, Judge Shepherd finds that the
court had already determined that no intraclass conflict existed
four pages prior to making the statements, so it stretches
credulity to assert that its conclusion depended on a statement
made thereafter.  The Judge holds that he needs not define at what
point an erroneous factual statement constitutes reversible error.
In the case, it was obvious that the district court did not rely on
an erroneous understanding of the settlement, and thus no abuse of
discretion occurred.

As to Olson's second argument, the Judge finds that the case has a
discrete and identified class that has suffered a harm the extent
of which has largely been ascertained.  Thus, similar to the mass
tort cases the Supreme Court discussed in Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
Windsor, the case has one accident -- the data breach -- that
caused a series of events leading to the Plaintiffs' injuries.  But
all the class members had the ability to register for credit
monitoring, and all of the compromised payment cards undoubtedly
were cancelled and replaced by the issuing banks.  Any risk of
future harm is therefore entirely speculative, which is perhaps
best illustrated by Olson's inability to direct the court -- even
generally -- to a concrete type of future harm that the settlement
fails to consider.

The Judge says it is hypothetically possible that a member of the
zero-loss subclass will suffer some future injury; for example, a
line of credit could be opened using the personal information
compromised in the breach.  But this is just as likely to happen to
a member of the subclass with documented losses.  Accordingly, the
interests of the two subclasses are more congruent than disparate,
and there is no fundamental conflict requiring separate
representation.  The district court therefore did not abuse its
discretion in certifying the class.

Having found the district court properly certified the class, the
Judge turns to Sciaroni's challenges to the district court's
original order concerning the settlement in the case. Sciaroni
first launches a two-fold challenge to the court's award of
attorney's fees, arguing at the outset that the court erred by
considering the costs of notice and administration expenses as a
benefit to the class and then challenging the overall
reasonableness of the award.  Next, he contends that the court
erred in approving the settlement.

Judge Shepherd holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion.  Indeed, despite the brevity of its reasoning on other
questions, the court gave a carefully reasoned and complete
analysis of all four Van Horn factors.  On the first, it accurately
noted the uphill battle facing the plaintiffs if this litigation
were to proceed: standing issues being the most prevalent given the
glaring fact that most of the plaintiffs suffered no concrete
injury as a result of the breach.

Weighed against this consideration, the monetary and non-monetary
relief offered under the settlement likely offers the plaintiffs
the only conceivable remedies they could expect.  It thus is
unclear why Sciaroni strenuously argues that the non-monetary
relief is inadequate, especially in light of his concession that
while some class members filed a claim, the vast majority of the
millions of the class members are entitled only to injunctive
relief.  Accordingly, because he has not demonstrated that the
settlement was unfair or inequitable, te Judge will affirm the
court's approval of the settlement agreement.

For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Shepher affirmed the rulings
of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xv5PEI from Leagle.com.

Karl L. Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Allen Ponto -- michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Wendy J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Patrick J. Kenny -- pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

David Woodward -- dwoodward@wbbklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Karen Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Norman Siegel, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Robert Walsh -- cwalsh@gibbonslaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Vincent J. Esades, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael J. Agoglia -- michael.agoglia@alston.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Amanda R. Cefalu -- Amanda.Cefalu@KutakRock.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

John A. Yanchunis, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas H. Meal -- Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Michelle Visser, for Defendant-Appellee.

David Frank McDowell, Jr. -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Fred B. Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Harold J. McElhinny, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jack W. Londen -- jlonden@mofo.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

THAI NUM: Escalante Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Rocael Anibal Ramirez Escalante filed a class action lawsuit
against Thai Num Soup Inc. for denial of overtime compensation.
The case is styled as Rocael Anibal Ramirez Escalante, on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thai Num Soup Inc. doing
business as: Thai Soup and Wachara Nittayarot also known as: Jaki,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06641 (S.D. N.Y., July 24, 2018),
filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thai Num Soup Inc. doing business as: Thai Soup is a Thai
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TJX COMPANIES: Cochran Appeals Decision in "Chester" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Barbara S. Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Staci Chester, et al. v. The TJX Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01437-ODW-DTB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Otis D.
Wright, II, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification
of Settlement Class.

In the operative Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on Sept. 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs allege that from July 17, 2011, to
the present, the Defendants have engaged in a deceptive scheme
advertising "sale" prices that were substantially lower than the
advertised "Compare At" prices for the products sold in the
Defendants' stores.  They further allege that the higher Compare At
prices were deceptive because they were not based on actual prices
that identical items sold for either in the Defendants' stores or
other retailers, and that Defendants failed to adequately disclose
to consumers what its Compare At reference prices were intended to
represent.  The Plaintiffs raise claims under California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, Section 17500, False Advertising
Law, and California Civil Code Section 1750, California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

The parties' Settlement Agreement provides that TJX will contribute
$8,500,000, in return for a release of claims against TJX.  The
Monetary Component will be used to pay: (i) the actual costs
incurred in providing notice of the settlement to the Class Members
and the administration thereof, but not to exceed $1,000,000; (ii)
the award of reasonable attorneys' fees for the class counsel, not
to exceed 25% of the Monetary Component, plus costs, not to exceed
$50,000; and (iii) an incentive award to each class representative
in the amount of $7,500.

The appellate case is captioned as Staci Chester, et al. v. The TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55817, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 11, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on August 10, 2018;

   -- Appellant Barbara S. Cochran's opening brief is due on
      September 19, 2018;

   -- Appellees Robin Berkoff, Staci Chester, Does, Daniel
      Friedman, Homegoods, Inc., Marshalls of CA, LLC, Theresa
      Metoyer, TJ Maxx of CA, LLC and The TJX Companies, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on October 19, 2018; and

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

Objector-Appellant Barbara S. Cochran, of Oxnard, California,
appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees STACI CHESTER, DANIEL FRIEDMAN, ROBIN BERKOFF
and THERESA METOYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Greg Hafif, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT HAFIF
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 624-1671
          E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77305 California Drive
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

Defendants-Appellees THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; TJ MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; and HOMEGOODS, INC., are represented
by:

          Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          E-mail: baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
                  jramsey@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          John P. Bueker, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: John.Bueker@ropesgray.com


TRANS UNION: Letren Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Neil F. Letren filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit entitled Neil Letren v. Trans Union, LLC, et al., Case No.
8:15-cv-03361-PX, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Letren
filed a class action complaint against three consumer reporting
agency -- Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information
Services, LLC, and Trans Union for alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  The Complaint asserts that Trans Union
falsely reported the Chase Account as due and owing when the Chase
Account was discharged in bankruptcy.

The appellate case is captioned as Neil Letren v. Trans Union, LLC,
et al., Case No. 18-1706, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix were due August 1, 2018; and

   -- Response Brief due is on August 31, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NEIL F. LETREN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin Leslie Chapple, Esq.
          CHAPPLE LAW FIRM
          438 South Street Northwest
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 669-4014

               - and -

          Quinn Breece Lobato, Esq.
          LOBATO LAW LLC
          8583 Seasons Way
          Lanham, MD 20706
          Telephone: (240) 305-4770
          E-mail: quinn.lobato@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee TRANS UNION LLC is represented by:

          Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
          SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
          4545 Northwestern Drive
          Zionsville, IN 46077
          Telephone: (317) 363-2400
          E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

               - and -

          Henry Mark Stichel, Esq.
          ASTRACHAN GUNST & THOMAS PC
          217 East Redwood Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 783-3547
          E-mail: HMStichel@ghsllp.com


UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Manriquez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Elisabeth DeVos and United States Department of
Education filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
MARTIN CALVILLO MANRIQUEZ, JAMAL CORNELIUS, RTHWAN DOBASHI, and
JENNIFER CRAIG on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Education, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-07210-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of this class:

    "all individuals who borrowed a Direct Loan to finance the
     cost of a program who are covered by the Department's
     Corinthian Job Placement Rate Rule, who have applied, or
     will apply for a borrower defense, and who have not been
     granted the relief provided for by the Rule."

The appellate case is captioned as Martin Manriquez, et al. v.
Elisabeth DeVos, et al., Case No. 18-16375, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MARTIN CALVILLO MANRIQUEZ, JAMAL CORNELIUS,
RTHWAN DOBASHI and JENNIFER CRAIG, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Eileen M. Connor, Esq.
          Joshua Rovenger, Esq.
          HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390-2528
          Facsimile: (617) 522-0715
          E-mail: econnor@law.harvard.edu
                  jrovenger@law.harvard.edu

               - and -

          Noah Zinner, Esq.
          HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1040
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 271-8443
          Facsimile: (510) 868 4521
          E-mail: nzinner@heraca.org

Defendants-Appellants ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as
secretary of the United States Department of Education, and UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION are represented by:

          Robert Charles Merritt, III, Esq.
          DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 616-8098
          E-mail: robert.c.merritt@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joshua Marc Salzman, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 532-4747
          E-mail: joshua.m.salzman@usdoj.gov


US BANK: Royal Park Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its lawsuit entitled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S.
Bank National Association, Case No. 14-cv-2590, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Royal Park Investments SA/NV v.
U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 18-2163, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph David Daley, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: jdaley@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, is
represented by:

          Michael S. Kraut, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6927
          E-mail: mkraut@morganlewis.com




US BANK: Thole Files Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in SC Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James J. Thole, et al., file with the Supreme Court of
United States Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the lawsuit
titled James J. Thole, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 17-1712.

Responses were due July 27, 2018.

The Lower Court Case is styled James J. Thole; Sherry Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. U.S. Bank, National Association,
individually and as successor in interest to FAF Advisors, Inc.;
U.S. Bancorp, Defendants-Appellees; Nuveen Asset Management, LLC,
as successor in interest to FAF Advisors, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
16-1928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

Named Plaintiffs James Thole and Sherry Smith brought a putative
class action against U.S. Bank, N.A.; U.S. Bancorp; and multiple
U.S. Bancorp directors challenging the Defendants' management of a
defined benefit pension plan from September 30, 2007, to December
31, 2010.  The case is entitled James J. Thole, et al., Petitioners
v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 13-cv-02687, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by breaching their fiduciary
obligations and causing the Plan to engage in prohibited
transactions with a U.S. Bank subsidiary, FAF Advisors, Inc.  The
plaintiffs' complaint asserts that these alleged ERISA violations
caused significant losses to the Plan's assets in 2008 and resulted
in the Plan being underfunded in 2008.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners James J. Thole, et al., are represented by:

          Peter K. Stris, Esq.
          STRIS AND MAHER LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 995-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
          E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com


VECTREN CORPORATION: Micheal Kent Challenges Sale to CenterPoint
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VECTREN CORPORATION, DERRICK BURKS, CARL L. CHAPMAN,
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 L. WOJTOWICZ, Case No.
1:18-cv-02263-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 24, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Vectren will be acquired by
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. ("Parent") and Pacer Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub).

On April 21, 2018, Vectren's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CenterPoint.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vectren stockholders
will receive $72 in cash for each share of Vectren stock that they
own.

The complaint questions the fairness of the consideration offered
to the Company's shareholders and alleges that the proxy statement
regarding the Proposed Transaction fails to disclose material
information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess
the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain
statements in the Proxy incomplete and misleading.

Vectren is an Indiana corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Evansville, Indiana.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Vectren is an energy holding company.  The Company's energy
delivery subsidiaries provide gas and/or electricity to more than
one million customers in adjoining service territories that cover
nearly two-thirds of Indiana and about 20 percent of Ohio,
primarily in the west central area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          James A. Piatt, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
          E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com
                  jpiatt@rwp-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-680

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: D'Amore Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., removed on June 27,
2018, the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL D'AMORE, on behalf of himself
and those others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and DOES 1-10, Case No.
56-2018-00510371-CU-BT-VTA, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-05682 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll current and former
owners of Class Vehicles who reside in the State of California
and/or who purchased or leased Class Vehicles in California."[BN]

Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., is represented by:

          Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471-8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
          E-mail: mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Winterman, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN LLP
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 553-0451
          Facsimile: (310) 553-0648
          E-mail: cwinterman@hrllp-law.com


VUZIX CORPORATION: McDonel Files Securities Class Suit Over SPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MCDONEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VUZIX CORPORATION, PAUL J. TRAVERS, and GRANT RUSSELL,
ALEXANDER RUCKDAESCHEL, MICHAEL SCOTT, CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
and MAXIM GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06656 (S.D.N.Y., July 24,
2018), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that:

   (a) acquired Vuzix securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
       Company's alleged false and/or misleading registration
       statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
       Company's January 2018 secondary public offering (SPO);
       and/or

   (b) acquired Vuzix securities between November 9, 2017, and
       March 20, 2018, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
that Vuzix used unlawful stock promotion tactics to boost the
Company's stock price; (2) that Vuzix used misleading stock
promotion tactics to raise nearly $30 million at an all-time high
share price; and (3) that, as a result, the Defendants' statements
in the Registration Statement regarding Vuzix's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading.

Vuzix Corporation is incorporated in Delaware and its principal
executive offices are located in West Henrietta, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Vuzix purportedly designs, manufactures, markets and sells devices
that are worn like eyeglasses and feature built-in video screens.
The Company's products purportedly enable users to view video and
digital content, such as movies, Web sites and video games.

Chardan Capital Markets LLC and Maxim Group LLC served as
underwriters for the Company's SPO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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


WAKE COUNTY, NC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Smith" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Lee Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled David Smith v. County of Wake, Case No.
5:03-ct-00561-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

The nature of suit is stated as prison condition.

The appellate case is captioned as David Smith v. County of Wake
and Donnie Harrison, Sheriff, Case No. 18-6703, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

David Lee Smith is currently incarcerated at the Pender
Correctional Center, in Burgaw, North Carolina.
Plaintiff-Appellant Smith, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN]


WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Baker Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates Inc. pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case is styled as Cheryl Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wakefield & Associates
Inc, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00473-SWW
(E.D. Ark., July 23, 2018).

Wakefield & Associates Inc. is a collection agency in Fort Morgan,
CO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles C. Gibson , III, Esq.
   Gibson & Keith, PLLC
   Post Office Drawer 447
   Monticello, AR 71657-0447
   Tel: (870) 367-2438
   Email: ccgiii@gibsonandkeith.com

      - and -

   Lee Douglas Curry, Esq.
   Gibson & Keith, PLLC
   Post Office Drawer 447
   Monticello, AR 71657-0447
   Tel: (870) 367-2438
   Email: ldc@gibsonandkeith.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Decertify Meal Period Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RODERICK MAGADIA, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants
ask the Court for an order decertifying the Meal Period Class.

The Court certified Plaintiff's meal period premium claim based on
Plaintiff's representation that Walmart's investigation records
would allow the Court to readily identify which associates were
legally entitled to a meal premium. Because discovery has now shown
that this assumption was incorrect and that determining who is
legally entitled to a meal period premium will require
individualized inquiries that will overwhelm any common questions,
the Court should decertify the Meal Period Premium Class, Wal-Mart
argued.

Attorneys for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. & Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.:

          Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Kearns, Esq.
          Allegra A. Jones, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101 4681
          Telephone: (619) 744 2200
          E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
                  jkearns@duanemorris.com
                  aajones@duanemorris.com


WALMART STORES: Swank Appeals Denial of Class Cert. to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andrew Swank, Sean McCraken and James Paolicelli filed
an appeal from the District Court's order denying class
certification in their lawsuit entitled Andrew Swank, et al. v.
WalMart Stores Inc., Case No. 2-13-cv-01185, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Andrew Swank,
et al., allege that they were misclassified as exempt from the
overtime protections of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Swank, et al. v. WalMart
Stores Inc., Case No. 18-8031, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ANDREW SWANK, JAMES PAOLICELLI and SEAN
MCCRAKEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David A. Borgen, Esq.
          Katharine L. Fisher, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Megan E. Ryan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: borgendborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  kfisher@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  mryan@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 281-8481
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
          E-mail: Linklaw@comcast.net

Defendant-Respondent WALMART STORES INC. is represented by:

          Kelly D. Bunting, Esq.
          Robert M. Goldich, Esq.
          Samantha Hirsch, Esq.
          Amber Munck, Esq.
          Barbara Pinto, Esq.
          Stephen Stanley, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2001 Market Street
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7858
          E-mail: buntingk@gtlaw.com
                  goldichr@gtlaw.com
                  hirschs@gtlaw.com


WEBCOLLEX LLC: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conde Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fernando Conde filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Fernando Conde v. Webcollex, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-14060-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Webcollex, LLC, is a Virginia Limited Liability Company doing
business as CKS Financial and is engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices.

The appellate case is captioned as Fernando Conde v. Webcollex,
LLC, Case No. 18-12551, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's brief was due July 25, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due no later than seven days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before July 13, 2018, as to Appellee Webcollex, LLC.[BN]

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

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          Sovathary Keley Jacobson, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com
                  jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee WEBCOLLEX, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability
Company, d.b.a. CKS Financial, is represented by:

          Joseph Alan Sacher, Esq.
          Andrew R. Schindler, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 3900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-3200
          E-mail: jsacher@gordonrees.com
                  aschindler@grsm.com



                            *********

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 ***