CAR_Public/180806.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 156

                            Headlines

201 WATER STREET: Luxury Condo Firm Faces ADA Class Suit
30 PARK PLACE: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA
95TH AND THIRD: Murphy Files ADA Class Suit
A3H FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Workers, "McMiller" Suit Say
AEGIS SENIOR: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Conlin" Class Settlement

ALLIANT CREDIT: Page Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violations
ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drummer Says
AMERICAN HOMES: Woods FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN HONDA: Bill Schepler Sues over Seat Belts
AVANTE USA: Faces Johnson FDCPA Suit in South Carolina

BEAUTIFUL GROUP: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEST BUY CO: Dornaus Says 0% Interest Promotion Schemes Deceptive
BOULDER BRANDS: Cordes Suit Asserts  Fraud
BTA BUILDING: Faces Corona FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Rammer FDCPA Suit Filed in E.D. New York

CHARLTON STREET: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARTER FINANCIAL: Rubin Seeks to Block Sale to CenterState Bank
CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosso Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Says
COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces Mckeown FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CONN'S INC: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Demurrer in Ensure Tax Reimbursement Suit Upheld
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Focke Files Product Liability Class Suit
E L G PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says
EAT GREEN: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Amanda Hurst Sues over Overdraft Fees
ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Moved to New Jersey
FIRST NATIONAL: Guerrero Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
GOLD COAST: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GOOGLE LLC: ABA Files Amicus Brief in Frank v Gaos

GRAB & GO: Deli Faces Juarez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
GROUNDLINK HOLDINGS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEALTHPLANONE LLC: Quintana Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
Henry V Murray: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA
HYUNDAI MOTORS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 3 Consumer Suits

ILLINOIS CLINICAL: Prebe Seeks Minimum Wages for Phlebotomists
INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: Velez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
LIQUID WEB: Underpays Account Executives, "Enriquez" Suit Says
LOW-T CENTERS: Lozano Suit Alleges Discrimination & Harassment
MACK PEST: Fails to Pay Technicians Proper OT Wages, Lamar Claims

MDL 2551: Court Denies Certification of NHL Hockey Players
MDL 2863: Ford and Dubrovsky Seek to Consolidate 3 Cases
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Richmond Files Securities Class Action in Mass.
METHODIST HEALTH: Rudy Goff Files Suit to Recover Wages Under FLSA
MEX LUNA: Salman Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA

MICROSOFT INC: Employees Appeal Gender Bias Class Action Ruling
MIDLAND CREDIT: Folson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Olson FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MONROE NAIL II: Faces Cui FLSA Suit in New York
MONTAGUE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MONTE PIZZA: Galindo Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MOTEL 6: Settles Discrimination Class Action
MULLEN & IANNARONE: Lockett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Ocampo FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted

NISSAN NORTH: Wants Transmission Defects Class Action Dismissed
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Dovey FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
OCEAN VIEW: African-American Employees File Discrimination Case
OKLAHOMA BLOOD: Court OKs Notice and Consent Forms in "Lenore"
OLD MUTUAL: Responds to UCIS Investor Class Action

ORNUA CO-OPERATIVE: Sued Over Grass-Fed Butter Labeling
P.F. CHANG'S CHINA: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, Belt et al. Say
PATRIOT HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Health Aides, Hauser Says
PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Suit Removed to C.D. California
PM PEDIATRICS: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
REALTY EXECUTIVES: Highline Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Rafferty Seeks Cert. of FDCPA Class
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Hernandez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ROSEWOOD COLONY: Fenner Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class

ROYAL DUTCH: Fights Climate Change Class Action
S.K.I. WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Tavarez et al. Allege
SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Nance" Suit Alleges
SAM'S EAST INC: Freeman Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Files Class Action Under FLSA

SERVICE UNION: Janus Case Ruling Boosts Union Dues Class Action
SILVER WHEATON: Investors Fight Bid to Avert Tax Class Action
SMARTAX SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Basile" Suit Says
SOTHEBY'S: Visual Artists Not Entitled to Calif. Resale Royalties
SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Suit

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
STATCARE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STINE SEED: Mid-South Farmers File Suit Over Fake Soybean Seeds
TC PAYROLL: Przenkop Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TENNECO INC: Rigged Prices of Exhaust Systems, 2 Distributors Claim

THOMASSON THOMASSON: Lolongo Files Civil Rights Suit in Indiana
TRANS CONTINENTAL: Loiseau Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces Another Shareholder Lawsuit
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Hammer Files Securities Class Action in Maryland
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chief People Officer Resigns Amid Class Action

UNITED CARD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Fabricant Suit
UNITED STATES: Connecticut Court Denies Family Reunification
UNITED STATES: Osage County Joins PILT Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Billing
US BANK: Beats Royal Park Investments' RMBS Class Action

USA PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Diaz" Suit Alleges
VALLOUREC STAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Lopez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
WAL-MART STORE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Cashiers' Suit
WASHINGTON: Home Health Aides File Class Action Over Union Dues

WHITESTONE MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Claims
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Doesn't Pay OT to Supervisors, Contreras Claims
YOUFIT HEALTH: Sued by Halperin Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts
ZICAM LLC: Nov. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
[*] Class Action Securities Fraud Filings At Near Record Levels

[*] Five-Partner Team Joins Akin Gump's Class Actions Practice
[*] IADC Calls for Class Action Reform in Ontario
[*] Kavanaugh' Class Action Record Few, But Rulings Pro-Business
[*] Pioneering Judges Beginning to Track Class Action Settlements

                            *********

201 WATER STREET: Luxury Condo Firm Faces ADA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against a full service luxury
condominium in New York.  The case is James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 201 Water
Street LLC doing business as: 51 Jay Street, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06775 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

201 Water Street LLC offers Full Service Luxury Condominiums in
DUMBO NYC.[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

30 PARK PLACE: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA
------------------------------------------------
The tallest residential tower to grace the downtown skyline in New
York has been slapped with a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 30 Park Place Residential
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06772 (S.D. N.Y., July 27,
2018).[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


95TH AND THIRD: Murphy Files ADA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
95th And Third LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 95th And Third LLC doing business as: The Kent,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06778 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

95th and Third LLC owns, develops, and operates real estate
properties. The Company conducts business in 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

A3H FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Workers, "McMiller" Suit Say
------------------------------------------------------------
TERAY MCMILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A3H FOODS, LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02370 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff McMiller was employed by the Defendant as a
restaurant worker.

A3H Foods, LP was founded in 2007. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption. A 3 H Foods operates in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


AEGIS SENIOR: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Conlin" Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants preliminary approval of the class
action settlement in the lawsuit titled JAY CONLIN v. AEGIS SENIOR
COMMUNITIES LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-05534-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes the
Settlement Class described in the Amended Settlement Agreement,
composed of all persons, who worked for the Defendant as a
non-exempt employee in California at any time between August 18,
2013, and February 25, 2018.

Judge Koh appoints Jay Conlin as representative for the Settlement
Class and Gregory N. Karasik, Esq., of Karasik Law Firm and Emil
Davtyan, Esq., of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as counsel
for the Settlement Class.  The Court appoints Dahl Administration
as the Settlement Administrator.

The Court sets these deadlines:

   -- August 8, 2018 -- Defendant's Submission of Class Member
      Information;

   -- August 24, 2018 -- Notice Mailed to Class Members;

   -- August 24, 2018 -- Deadline to File Motion for Attorney's
      Fees;

   -- October 8, 2018 -- Deadline to Opt Out and to Object to
      Settlement and Motion for Attorney's Fees;

   -- October 25, 2018 -- Deadline to File Motion for Final
      Approval; and

   -- November 29, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. -- Final Approval Hearing.


ALLIANT CREDIT: Page Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia M. Page, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliant Credit Union and Does 1-100, Case No.
2:18-cv-11481 (D. N.J., July 10, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.

The class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief due to the Defendant's policy and practice of
assessing an overdraft or NSF fee on transactions when there was
enough money in the account holder's checking account to cover the
transactions presented for payment.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Hoboken, New Jersey, and was a
member of ACU at all times relevant to the class action.

The Defendant ACU is an Illinois state-chartered credit union with
branch offices located throughout New Jersey.

The Defendants Does 1 through 100, include agents, partners, joint
ventures, subsidiaries and affiliates of ACU and, upon information
and belief, also own and operate ACU branch locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
      WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
      90 Woodbridge Center Drive,
      Ste. 900, Box 10
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Tel: (732) 636-8000
      Fax: (732) 726-6686
      E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drummer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUINTON DRUMMER; STEFFAN WEBB; and DEMONTRAY STALLWORTH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; BG CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, LLC.; HECTOR BELTRAN; and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01251 (D. Nev., July 9, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general
laborers.

Alpha Team Construction Corporation is a Georgia Professional
Corporation, with a registered office address of 2202 Jasmine
Parkway, Alpharetta, GA, 30022. The Company is engaged in providing
clients with contract labor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
          Daniel Bravo, Esq.
          WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO
          SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com
                  dbravo@wrslawyers.com


AMERICAN HOMES: Woods FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Woods, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Homes 4 Rent, LP, and Does 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 18-777456 (D. Nev., July 10, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Monique Woods is a resident of the State of Nevada
and was employed by the Defendants as a customer service
representative at its Las Vegas call center location from May 18,
2015 until November 18, 2016.

The Defendant American Homes 4 Rent, LP is a foreign corporation
incorporated in the state of Delaware. The Defendant's corporate
headquarters are located  at 30601 Agoura Rd., Suite 200, Agoura
Hills, CA 91301. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      Thierman Buck LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV  89511
      Tel: (775) 284-1500
      Fax: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com
              josh@thiermanlaw.com
              leah@thiermanlaw.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Bill Schepler Sues over Seat Belts
--------------------------------------------------
BILL SCHEPLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-6043 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading advertising practices relating to
the sale of motor vehicle model years 2017 and 2018 CR-Vs, and to
obtain redress for those who have purchased CR-Vs across the United
States.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Honda deceptively
markets and advertises the CR-V as having a seating capacity of
five and having, as one of its passive safety features, 3-point
seat belts at all seating positions when, in fact, it does not,
because the backseat seat belts are configured in such a way that
only two backseat passengers can properly buckle their seat belts
at any given time.  This causes a safety issue as it prevents
customers from safely seating five people in a CR-V at any given
time.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda
automobiles. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Torrance, California. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com


AVANTE USA: Faces Johnson FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avante USA Ltd. The
case is styled as Shawn Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avante USA Ltd, Cascade
Capital LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-02072-DCN (D. S.C., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Avante USA Ltd is one of the most prominent collection agencies
based in Houston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
   505 Pettigru Street
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 756-1153
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


BEAUTIFUL GROUP: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful Group Management, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed by Thomas J. Olsen under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Beautiful
Group Management, LLC doing business as: MasterCuts, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04293 (E.D. N.Y., July 29, 2018).

MasterCuts is a chain of full-service, affordable, family hair
salons in busy shopping malls across Canada and the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST BUY CO: Dornaus Says 0% Interest Promotion Schemes Deceptive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA DORNAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04085-RMI (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2018) seeks monetary damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against the
Defendant for its misleading, deceptive, and ultimately false
representations and omissions made with respect to its so-called
"0% interest" or "no interest" promotions.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
purported "0% interest" or "no interest" promotions are in fact a
deferred-interest scheme. The Defendant lures consumers, including
the Plaintiff, with deceptive promises of "no interest" or "0%
interest" for the duration of a promotional period (e.g., 18
months), but there is a debt time bomb at the end. Consumers who
don't pay off the entire balance before the promotional period ends
will be charged interest retroactively back to the date that they
bought the item.

By way of illustration, consider a consumer who buys a $2,500
computer from the Defendant on January 2, 2016 in connection with
an offer touting "0% interest for 12 months." Assume she pays off
all, but leaving a $100 balance of the total purchase price by the
end of the promotional period (i.e., January 1, 2017). Despite
owing only $100, she will nevertheless be charged interest on much
of the $2,500, dating back a full year to January 2, 2016, the date
of her initial purchase.

Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a retailer of technology products,
services, and solutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The company was formerly known as Sound of Music, Inc. Best Buy
Co., Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Richfield,
Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


BOULDER BRANDS: Cordes Suit Asserts  Fraud
------------------------------------------
Mark Cordes filed a class action lawsuit against Boulder Brands
USA, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Cordes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boulder
Brands USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 10,
inclsuive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06534 (C.D. Cal., July 29,
2018).

The case docket states the nature of suit as fraud.

Boulder Brands Inc. provides health and wellness food solutions in
the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
   4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

BTA BUILDING: Faces Corona FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Arturo Contreras Corona filed a class action lawsuit against BTA
Building & Developing Inc. for denial of overtime compensation.
The case is styled as Arturo Contreras Corona, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BTA Building &
Developing Inc. doing business as: BTA Building & Developing, Rubin
Development and Construction, Inc. doing business as: Rubin
Development and Construction, Joseph Rubin and Billie Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04283 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

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

BTA Building & Developing Inc. is a general contractor in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Rammer FDCPA Suit Filed in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Rammer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04254 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018), arises under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN]

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collection agency in
Hawthorne, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net



CHARLTON STREET: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlton Street Owner
LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Charlton Street Owner LLC doing business as:
70 Charlton Street, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06777 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 27, 2018).

Charlton Street Owner, LLC provides real estate services. The
Company owns, develops, and operates real estate properties.
Charlton Street Owner serves customers in the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHARTER FINANCIAL: Rubin Seeks to Block Sale to CenterState Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUBIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CHARTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ROBERT L. JOHNSON, DAVID
Z. CAUBLE III, JANE W. DARDEN, EDWARD D. SMITH, THOMAS M. LANE,
DAVID L. STROBEL, and CURTI M. JOHNSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-02270-TDC
(D. Md., July 25, 2018), seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on a
proposed acquisition of the Company by CenterState Bank
Corporation, scheduled for August 21, 2018, unless and until
certain Exchange Act violations are cured.

On April 24, 2018, Charter and CenterState issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated April 24, 2018.  On July 18, 2018, Charter filed a
Definitive Proxy Statement on Form DEFM14A with the SEC in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Charter stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
Company's and CenterState's financial projections, relied upon by
Charter's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., in
its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by
Sandler in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion;
and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction, Mr. Rubin contends.

Charter, a Maryland corporation, is a savings and loan holding
company headquartered in West Point, Georgia.  Charter is the
parent company of CharterBank, a full-service community bank and a
federal savings institution that operates branches in Metro
Atlanta, the I-85 corridor south to Auburn, Alabama, and the
Florida Gulf Coast.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

CenterState, a Florida corporation, operates as one of the largest
community bank franchises headquartered in the state of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

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


CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosso Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rosso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cheetah Mobile America, Inc., a California Liability
Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23000 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct
of sending unsolicited text messages, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates as a mobile Internet company
worldwide.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the
Plaintiff alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
B. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-01152-WED (E.D. Wisc., July 25, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of denying the Plaintiff regular and overtime wages under
an illegal pay policy, which violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc., is a non-stock corporation
with its principal place of business in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.  The
Defendant is engaged in the operation of a hospital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces Mckeown FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of
the Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Caroline Mckeown,
Johanne Joseph and Karol Espinal, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Collection Bureau of the
Hudson Valley, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04275  (E.D. N.Y.,
July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.[BN]

Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. is a third-party
collection agency based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



CONN'S INC: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE CONN'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 4: 14-cv-00548 (KPE)
(Consolidated Action)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To: All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired
Conn's, Inc.'s ("Conn's") Publicly Traded Common Stock and/or Call
Options, or Who Sold/Wrote Conn's Put Options, During the Period
from April 3, 2013 through December 9, 2014, Inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and Were Damaged Thereby (the "Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement,
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives Laborers Pension Trust Fund – Detroit and
Vicinity, Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and Connecticut
Carpenters Annuity Fund, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association, and Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H., on
behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Conn's, Theodore
Wright, and Michael J. Poppe (collectively, "Defendants") have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of
$22,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by
the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in
the United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, TX  77002
at 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") to,
among other things, determine whether the Court should:  (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 28, 2018;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses.  The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing
without providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to this Action,
www.ConnsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
                
         In re Conn's, Inc. Securities Litigation
         Claims Administrator
         c/o Epiq Global
         P.O. Box 4087
         Portland, OR 97208-4087
         (855) 804-8547

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

         James M. Hughes, Esq.
         Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
         MOTLEY RICE LLC  
         28 Bridgeside Blvd.
         Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
         www.motleyrice.com
         (800) 768-4026

         Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
         Beth Kaswan, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT  
         ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         www.scott-scott.com
         (800) 404-7770

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or online no later than November 10, 2018.  If you
are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than September 20, 2018.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than
September 20, 2018.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel.

DATED: July 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Demurrer in Ensure Tax Reimbursement Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three,
affirmed the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's
Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Third Amend Complaint in the case captioned
LARRY LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A144440 (Cal.
App.).

Plaintiff Larry Littlejohn appeals from a ruling sustaining a
demurrer to his third amended complaint without leave to amend.
Littlejohn sought to sue Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco
Wholesale Membership, Inc., the California Board of Equalization
(Board) and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Abbott) to recover amounts
he paid in sales tax reimbursement on purchases of Abbott's product
Ensure.

Littlejohn alleged that because Ensure is properly categorized as a
food product no sales tax was actually due on his purchases. Costco
should not have charged him sales tax reimbursement, and was under
no obligation to pay and should not have paid sales tax to the
state on its sales of Ensure.

Littlejohn based his claim on a cause of action identified by our
Supreme Court in Javor v. State Board of Equalization (1974) 12
Cal.3d 790 (Javor), that held under "the unique circumstances" of
that case, that the customer could sue "to compel defendant
retailers to make refund applications to the Board and in turn
require the Board to respond to these applications by paying into
court all sums, if any, due defendant retailers."

Claims Premised on the Unfair Practices Act

In Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081 (Loeffler), the
California Supreme Court reviewed the history and development of
California law on the issues raised by Littlejohn's complaint. In a
brief overview, the Court summarized: under California's sales tax
law, the taxpayer is the retailer, not the consumer.

The Court rejected unfair business practice claims against a
retailer based on the allegation that the retailer had collected a
sales tax reimbursement on take-out sales of coffee allegedly not
subject to a sales tax, because resolution of the claims would
require the court to determine the taxability of the transactions.
For the same reason, the trial court clearly was correct in this
case to sustain the demurrers to plaintiff's first and second
causes of action.

Claim Premised on Javor

Article XIII, section 32 of California's state constitution
provides in part: After payment of a tax claimed to be illegal, an
action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in
such manner as may be provided by the Legislature.

In Javor v. State Board of Equalization (1974) 12 Cal.3d 790,
there, the customer was seeking a refund of sales tax paid on a
purchase price that included a repealed federal excise tax. The
Board promulgated a regulation authorizing retailers who had
collected and received refunds of the repealed tax to seek a refund
of sales tax on the condition that they pay the refunded taxes to
their customers. The process required the retailer to demonstrate
to the Board that a refund had been paid in order to receive a like
amount from the Board.

The court observed that under the procedure set up by the Board the
retailer is the only one who can obtain a refund from the Board;
yet, since the retailer cannot retain the refund himself, but must
pay it over to the customer, the retailer has no particular
incentive to request the refund on his own. Despite this lack of
incentive, the Board has not required the retailer to refund the
total excessive amount collected, but rather has merely allowed
retailers to collect a refund when the retailer is compelled to pay
a refund to a customer who has demanded it.

The Court knows of no published case since Javor that has allowed a
cause of action against the Board to proceed for the purpose of
directing a retailer to file a claim for a refund of sales tax. In
Loeffler,our Supreme Court confirmed that the exact contours of a
Javor-type claim remain undefined: The integrity of the tax system
and avoidance of unjust enrichment, possibly of the retailer, but
more probably of the state, in certain circumstances may support a
Javor-type remedy for consumers. Plaintiffs, however, declined to
pursue such a remedy, and we need not consider the exact showing
required of consumers to demonstrate their entitlement to the Javor
remedy.

The Court review of the authorities lead the Cal. App. to conclude
that a Javor remedy should be limited to the unique circumstances
where the plaintiff's allegations show that the state has been
unjustly enriched by the overpayment of sales tax, and the Board
concurs that the circumstances warrant refunds to consumers.
Requiring such allegations ensures that courts will be faithful to
our state constitution's delegation of authority to craft a remedy
for the overpayment of sales tax to the Legislature, and to the
statutory scheme that allows the Board to first take into account
the timeliness of any claims for refund, the likely amounts
involved and the burdens and costs implicit in its refund
procedure.

The claims against Abbott

The Plaintiff's second amended complaint also contains two causes
of action against Abbott, the manufacturer of Ensure. It alleges
the existence of an unspecified agreement under which Costco
purchases Ensure from Abbott that is in force regardless of who
actually sells the product to Costco.

The trial court sustained Abbott's demurrer to both causes of
action without leave to amend. The court explained, among other
things, that the complaint makes it plain that Abbott had nothing
to do with the collection or payment of the taxes. There is no
suggestion that Abbott was under a duty to notify the retailers of
the fact that the tax status of the product had changed, or how
plaintiff would in some way be the beneficiary of that duty. The
Court agrees with the trial court. From the pleading it is far from
clear that there was ever any agreement between Abbott and Costco,
much less one that contains either an express or implied provision
such as plaintiff describes or with respect to which all Costco
customers would be third party beneficiaries.

Moreover, no facts are alleged that would give rise to a duty on
Abbott's part to advise retailers of the sales taxability of its
products in the various jurisdictions in which the products are
sold, or that would create a duty to customers paying sales tax
reimbursement on their purchases of the product. The Cal. App.
finds that the Plaintiff has cited no authority supporting these
claims, nor has he suggested any facts he might add to the
complaint were leave to amend granted that would establish a right
to relief against Abbott. Abbott's demurrer was properly sustained
without leave to amend.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s July 13, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybao2h6d from Leagle.com.

Daniel Berko -- Daniel@berkolaw.com -- Carlos Jato for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel -- mvogel@mofo.com -- David F.
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Purvi G. Patel -- ppatel@mofo.com
-- for Defendants and Respondents, Costco Wholesale Corporation and
Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.

Winston & Strawn, Robb C. Adkins -- radkins@winston.com -- Charles
J. Moll III -- cmoll@winston.com -- Krista M. Enns III for
Defendants and Respondents, Abbott Laboratories, Inc, and Abbott
Laboratories Sales, Marketing & Distribution Co.

Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, Diane Shaw , Acting Senior
Assistant Attorney General,Nhan T. Vu , Deputy Attorney General,
for Defendant and Respondent, California State Board of
Equalization.

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Focke Files Product Liability Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY L. FOCKE and ESTHER FOCKE v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DEPUY
PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01915-K (N.D. Tex., July 25,
2018), alleges that the use of the Defendants' Pinnacle hip implant
products results in unsafe release of toxic metal ions into hip
implant recipients' tissue and bloodstream.

The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System
("Pinnacle Device"), and launched it in 2001.  The Pinnacle Device
was designed, developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or
diseased due to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and
avascular necrosis.  The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened
to human bone with surgical screws.  The Pinnacle Device was
designed and sold to provide pain relief and consistent and smooth
range of motion.

Presently, there is a multidistrict litigation in the District
Court relating to this product.  The matter is captioned as IN RE:
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:11-MD-2244-K.

Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation with its
principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.  Depuy
International, Limited, is an United Kingdom entity with its
principal place of business in West Yorkshire, UK.  Depuy Products,
Inc., an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business
in Warsaw, Indiana.

Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., is a New Jersey Corporation with
its principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
          Tucson, AZ 85705
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          Facsimile: (520) 620-3991
          E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com



E L G PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO MIGUEL BAEZ DURAN and WILSON FRANCISCO SANCHEZ CRUZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. E L G
PARKING INC. (D/B/A E L G PARKING INC.), STEVEN ROSENBERG, BISHOP
JOSEPH ALEXANDER, and RAYMOND DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-06685
(S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for
the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked.

E L G Parking Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate or control a parking lot, located at
1240 Edward L Grant Hwy., in Bronx, New York, under the name "E L G
Parking Inc."  The Defendants' parking lot is located in the
Highbridge section of The Bronx in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com



EAT GREEN: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ, Individually v. EAT GREEN LLC A Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23008-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), is
brought on behalf of similarly situated blind and visually impaired
persons for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mr. Gomez alleges that the Defendant's Web site --
http://www.eatgreencoffee.com-- is inaccessible by blind people.  
He asks for injunctive relief and attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA.

Eat Green LLC is a limited liability company that operates a health
food restaurant known as "Eat Green," located in North Miami Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duane Crooks, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          P.O. Box 450973
          Sunrise, FL 33345
          Telephone: (305) 761-2146
          E-mail: crookslawfirm@gmail.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          644 North Mc Donald St.
          Mt. Dora, FL 32757
          Telephone: (954) 478-7811
          E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Amanda Hurst Sues over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG02541 (Cal.
Super., July 11, 2018) seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants'
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of "Overdraft
Fees" on checking accounts that were never actually overdrawn.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants charges her Overdraft
Fees even when her transactions have not overdrawn an account. The
Plaintiff was repeatedly charged Overdraft Fees on transactions,
even though, according to the monthly account statements prepared
by the Defendants, her account balance was never negative for the
supposed overdraft event. By definition, then, there were always
funds to cover those transactions -- yet the Defendants assessed an
Overdraft Fees on them anyway.

Educational Employees Credit Union, a retail financial institution,
provides various financial products and services in San Joaquin
Valley. Educational Employees Credit Union was formerly known as
Fresno Teachers Credit Union and changed its name to Educational
Employees Credit Union in November 1981. The company was founded in
1934 and is based in Fresno, California. It has locations in
Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Fresno, Hanford, Kerman, Kingsburg,
Lemoore, Madera, Merced, Reedley, Sanger, Selma, and Visalia,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991- 8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com


ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Moved to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Eli Lilly alleging violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was transferred
to the District of New Jersey effective July 10, 2018.

The case was originally filed in District of Rhode Island and
captioned as, ALETHA BENTELE; JAMES BONSER; SCOTT CHRISTENSEN; GAY
DEPUTEE; SCOTT DERCKS; DONALD DOUTHIT; F. DONALD FELLOW DIANNA
GILMORE; GERALD GIRARD; MICHELLE GWIN; RUTH HART; DAVID HERNANDEZ;
EMMA JENSEN; EDWARD JOHNSON; RICHARD KNAUSS; ANGELA KRITSELIS;
SUSAN LANDIS; JOHN LOSCHEN; ROBERT LOWMAN; SEAN MAC AN AIRCHINNIGH;
JEANNE MACNITT; LAWRENCE MANDEL; ANNE OLINGER; JULIANA PATTON;
MARILYN PERSON; BRIAN PHAIR; PATRICIA QUINT; ROBYN RUSHING; MARIE
SAFFRAN; MARK SCHLOEMER; HOWARD SCHURR; TREMAYNE SIRMONS; EDWARD
STANFORD; MICHAEL STARR; BRET STEWART; MOLLY THOMPSON; JON UGLAND;
HECTOR J. VALDES, SR.; and KARYN WOFFORD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELI LILLY
AND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-11479-BRM-LHG (D.R.I.,
March 29, 2018).

The New Jersey case is captioned, BENTELE et al v. ELI LILLY AND
COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-11479 (D.N.J., July 10, 2018).  Judge
Brian R. Martinotti presides over the case.  The matter is referred
to Lois H. Goodman.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Eli Lilly artificially
inflates and manipulates the benchmark price of Humalog, an insulin
drug. The Defendant's scheme caused and continues to cause
consumers to overpay for the insulin they need.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company has
collaboration agreements with Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.; Incyte
Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; AstraZeneca; and Nektar Therapeutics, as
well as has strategic collaboration with Sigilon Therapeutics. Eli
Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          MCINTYRE TATE LLP
          321 South Main Street, Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: 401-331-6095
          E-mail: smp@mtlesq.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  hannahb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: mcriden@Cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael Critchley, Esq.
          CRITCHLEY, KINUM & DENOIA, LLC
          75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 303
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 422-9200
          Facsimile: (973) 422-9700
          E-mail: mcritchley@critchleylaw.com

               - and -

          Ellen Relkin, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG
          220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: ERelkin@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG
          719 Griswold, Ste. 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Jessica Moy, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery St., Ste. 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
                  jmoy@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
          SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Stephen H. Weil, Esq.
          WEIL & CHARDON LLC
          333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312-585-7404
          E-mail: steve@weilchardon.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Guerrero Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC. AND PINNACLE
CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-04072 (D. Kan., July 25,
2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by using false, deceptive, or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of the
Plaintiff's debt.

FNCB is an entity, which is engaged, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from
the Plaintiff.  Pinnacle is an entity, which acquires debt in
default merely for collection purposes, and which is engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of directly or
indirectly attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
          LACROIX LAW FIRM
          406 W. 34th Street, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 399-4380
          Facsimile: (816) 399-4380
          E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com


GOLD COAST: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Manuel Perez and Macario Perex, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Gold Coast Farms, LLC, Means Nursery,
Inc., All AG, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:18-at-00498
(E.D. Calif., July 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
interest and penalties pursuant to California Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Manuel Perez is an individual who currently resides
in Tulare County and at all times relevant to this action, resided
in Tulare County. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from
approximately May 2013 through November 21, 2017 and worked for the
Defendants at a nursery owned by Gold Coast Farms, LLC in Woodlake,
California, located in Tulare County.

The Plaintiff Macario Perez is an individual who currently resides
in Tulare County and at all times relevant to this action, resided
in Tulare County. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from
approximately April 2001 through December 4, 2017 and worked for
the Defendants at a nursery owned by Gold Coast Farms, LLC in
Woodlake, California, located in Tulare County.

The Defendant All AG, Inc. provided employees to Defendants Means
Nursery, Inc. and Gold Coast Farms, LLC and employed Plaintiffs and
others for the operation of cultivating and preparing horticultural
orders for retail.  Defendant All AG, Inc. operated as a labor
contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Anali Cortez, Esq.
      Estella M. Cisneros, Esq.
      CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC.
      3747 E. Shields Ave.
      Fresno, CA 93726
      Tel: (559) 441-8721
      Fax: (559) 441-0724

GOOGLE LLC: ABA Files Amicus Brief in Frank v Gaos
--------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the
American Bar Association on
July 16 filed an amicus brief that told the U.S. Supreme Court that
class-action cy pres awards are often appropriate when paid to
legal service groups that help provide access to justice.

Cy pres awards -- paid to outside groups rather than class-action
plaintiffs -- provide an average of $15.5 million annually to legal
services organizations, according to the ABA brief.

Twenty-three states and Puerto Rico have enacted laws or rules
authorizing cy pres awards from class-action settlements to be
distributed to legal services organization that provide services to
low-income residents.

A broad ruling imposing constitutional restrictions on cy pres
awards would "potentially deprive legal services organizations of
critical funding and low-income residents of legal representation,"
the brief said.

Cy pres awards are particularly appropriate in class actions
aggregating small claims, the brief said. Class members with only
small amounts at stake seldom bother to collect their shares of a
settlement fund, creating a dilemma about how to distribute the
settlement funds. Cy pres awards avoid returning the funds to the
defendant or giving a windfall to class members who file claims,
the ABA argued.

A fundamental purpose of class actions is to offer access to
justice for people who could not otherwise realistically obtain
justice to the justice system, the brief said. "Legal service
organizations that represent poor and indigent litigants serve the
same fundamental purpose," the ABA brief adds. "With these closely
aligned purposes, legal services organizations should in most cases
be appropriate recipients of cy pres awards."

At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether a cy pres award in a
suit against Google meets the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires class-action
settlements to be "fair, reasonable and adequate."

The ABA brief doesn't take a position on the specifics of the case,
which challenges a class-action settlement that gave $5.3 million
of an $8.5 million settlement fund to groups that protect internet
privacy. Another $2.125 million was provided for attorney fees.

The class action before the court had alleged web browsers
disclosed Google searches to third-party websites. The settlement
included an agreement by Google to revise its FAQ page but gave
money only to three name plaintiffs.

The ABA brief cites ABA policy that urges adoption of court rules
authorizing the distribution of residual funds in class actions to
groups that help improve access to civil justice for people living
in poverty. The resolution says all reasonable efforts should be
made to fully compensate class members before residual funds are
awarded to charitable or nonprofit groups.

Cy pres awards serve an important purpose in class actions, and the
Supreme Court should "avoid broad pronouncements about the
constitutionality of cy pres remedies in class action settlements,"
the brief says.

The case is Frank v. Gaos. [GN]

GRAB & GO: Deli Faces Juarez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
VICENTE JUAREZ and OCTAVIO JUAREZ CANDIDO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. GRAB & GO GOURMET DELI INC.
(D/B/A GRAB & GO GOURMET DELI), DERHEM MOHAMMAD SALEH, ALIBABA DOE,
and DAVID DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-06689 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018),
alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Grab & Go Gourmet Deli Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Company
maintains its principal place of business in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an American deli, located
at 3920 Broadway, Store 1, in New York City under the name "Grab &
Go Gourmet Deli."  The deli is located in the Washington Heights
section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


GROUNDLINK HOLDINGS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Groundlink Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Groundlink Holdings LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06808 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2018).

Groundlink Holdings LLC provides point-to-point and airport
transfer chauffeured black car service in the United States and
internationally. The company offers point to point, airport
transfer, corporate limo, and hourly car service for corporate
clients and leisure travels through its mobile application,
website, and telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


HEALTHPLANONE LLC: Quintana Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HealthPlanOne, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02169 (D. Ariz.,
July 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Peggy Quintana was employed by the Defendant as an
hourly, non-exempt telephone-dedicated sales agent at the call
center operated by the Defendant located in Phoenix, Arizona.  The
Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's Phoenix, Arizona call center
from approximately June 2016 to August 2016

The Defendant is a sales and marketing organization that operates
call centers through which it sells and markets health insurance
plans.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
      MATHESON & MATHESON, PLC
      15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel: (480) 889-8951
      E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


Henry V Murray: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
James Murphy has brought a class action lawsuit against Henry V
Murray Senior LLC.  The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Henry V
Murray Senior LLC doing business as: 111 Murray Street, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06773 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

111 Murray Street is a residential skyscraper under construction
developed by Witkoff Group and Fisher Brothers in Tribeca,
Manhattan, 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

HYUNDAI MOTORS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 3 Consumer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment dismissing three consumer actions based
on Virginia state law claims.

The actions focus on a series of misrepresentations made by Hyundai
Motor America (Hyundai) regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) estimated fuel economy for the 2011, 2012, and 2013
models of the Hyundai Elantra.  A Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) consolidated dozens of similar consumer suits in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (MDL court).  But the JPML remanded to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia the three
actions at issue in this appeal: Gentry v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
No. 3:13-cv-00030; Adbul-Mumit v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., No.
3:14-cv-00005; and Abdurahman v. Alexandria Hyundai, LLC, No.
3:14-cv-00002.

The Western District of Virginia dismissed with prejudice the
claims in all three actions for failure to satisfy federal pleading
standards.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and sought leave to
amend their dismissed complaints. At no point throughout the
entirety of the litigation, however, did the plaintiffs provide the
district court with proposed amended complaints. The district court
denied the motion to reconsider, and the plaintiffs in each action
filed a timely notice of appeal.

The Court consolidated the appeals.

The district court dismissed those actions for failure to satisfy
the federal pleading standards pursuant to Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). Yet Appellants make no reference to Twombly or Iqbal in
either their opening or reply briefs. Instead, Appellants rely upon
their challenges to the district court's alternate grounds for
dismissal, which rest on Virginia state law.

On this record, the Court declines to invent an argument in support
of Appellants' complaints. The district court could not have been
more clear that Appellants' failure to satisfy federal pleading
standards constituted an independent basis for dismissal.  

Upon denying Appellants' motion to reconsider, the district court
again reiterated the insufficiency of the pleading: "Most
obviously, the Court provided independent basis for dismissal by
concluding the Abdurahman and Adbul-Mumit Complaints failed to
satisfy federal pleading standards: The Complaints do not make a
single, specific allegation about even one of hundreds of named
plaintiffs, much less about any of the seven, remaining plaintiffs.
Other arguments are simply recapitulations of their
previously-rejected arguments that are improper on
reconsideration."

Despite these clear holdings, the Appellants make no citation to
Twombly, Iqbal, or even Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, establishing the federal pleading standard, in their 55
page opening brief. And the Virginia state law arguments that the
Appellants raise are irrelevant to the concern that the Appellants'
complaints failed to satisfy pleading standards in federal court.

Thus, the Court holds that the Appellants have waived their
challenge to the district court's conclusion that the complaints
failed to satisfy federal pleading standards. Accordingly, the
Court affirms the district court's dismissal of the Abdurahman and
Adbul-Mumit actions and its denial of the plaintiffs'
post-dismissal request for leave to amend their complaints in those
actions.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's July 13, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y972pstf from Leagle.com.

The appeals cases are JIHAD ADBUL-MUMIT; MATTHEW ABEDI; MONICA
ADAIR SARGENT; MARK AGEE; ALIZ AGOSTON; YVONNE ALSTON; DAN
AMATRUDA; KRISTY AMBROSE; KIMBERLEY AMICK; WANDA G. AMOS;
CHRISTOPHER ARAUZA; CARL ARSENAULT; BROOKE ASHER; MICHELLE ATKINS;
RAYMOND O. ATKINS; MATTHEW ATWELL; DAVID AUB; SOHA AYYASH; ASIF
AZIZ; SUSAN BAILEY; KAREN BAKER; HAB BAKER, III; TERRY BARNES;
JOSEPH BARTELL; HARRY L. BARTON; BENJAMIN BASHAM; MATTHEW BASILONE;
JOHN BAXTER; JOHN BEASLEY; TIMM BETCHER; ELIZABETH BELEVAN; BARBARA
BELL; JUDY BENDER; AMINE BERBALE; JAMES BERLING; SHARON BISDEE;
WILLIAM BONNER; WALTER BORDEAUX; GARY BOYETTE; TODD BRADBURY; KAREN
BRADBURY; JOHN BRANCATO; WILLIAM BREWSTER; LORI BRODIE; GLORIA
BROOKS; ELSE BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; ANGELA BROWN; GARY BROWN; JEANNE
BROWN; SYDNEY BRUMBELOW; JAN BURFORD; SARA BURRUSS; JAMIE BURTON;
JOSEPH CALDARELLI; JASON CALL; TODD CARLSON; HOWARD L. CARPENTER;
CYNTHIA CARTER; FREDERICK CARTER; JACKLYN CASSELLE-TUPPONCE; JARED
CASTRO; REBECCA CATLETT; SUSAN CAVE; KIRT CHAPPELLE; LINDA
CHEESEBORO; ROGER CHESLEY, JR.; STEVE CHILDRESS; DAN CHO; SUNG CHO;
SUNG CHUN; WILLIAM CLARK; LINDA CLUNE; STUART COCHRAN; CHARLES
COCHRANE; ANGEL COLLINS; HENRY SHANE COLVIN; KARRI COLVIN; CARLY
CONNELLY; ANGIE CONNER; JEREMY CONRAD; PHILIP CORRAO; KIMBERLY
CRAWFORD; MARGARET CRITTENDON; APRIL CROCKER; WILLIAM CROMER; JAY
CUNNINGHAM; MARY CURTIS; ROBERT DANIELS; DONNA DAVIS; BOYD DAVIS;
LISA DAVIS; ROGER DAVIS; MICHELLE DEBROSSE; MICHAEL DECANIO; ALMA
DELIA DELEON; JENNIFER DEMARCO; ANTHONY DEPAUL, JR.; GEORGE D.
DESPERT, III; CYNTHIA DEVANE; RUTH DIAZ; RON DICKMAN; SHERI DIXSON;
SONYA DODSON; JESENIA DOMINGUEZ; TERRY DONALDSON; LATAVIA DREW;
ARLENE DREWRY; CHRISTINA DRUGATZ; KAREN DUNCAN; SANDRA K. DUNTON;
JEFF EDDY; DEBORAH EDGE; DEBORAH EDGEFIELD; PAMELA EDWARDS; KASEY
EIKE; MIRIAH EISENMAN; FREDERICK EITEL; SHARON EKSTRAND; NICOLE
ELSESSER; JOSEPH ELTON; KAREN EVANS; MASE FABAR; FLOYD FALLIN, JR.;
JAMES BASHAM; ELIZABETH FARRELL; MARGIE D. FAULS; CAITLIN FEELEY;
BARRY FELDMAN; BRIAN FELDMAN; WANDA FERGUSON; JAMES FICKLE; SHIRLEY
FICKLE; SCOTT FLORA; THOMAS ROBERT FRANCO; JOHN FRANKLIN; TAMMY
FRANKLIN; ANTHONY FREDERICK; TRACY FREDERICK; THOMAS FREEZE; ADAM
FURMAN; ALICIA FUSCO; DONNA GADDIS; GUILLERMO GALARZA; IVAN
GALLOWAY, JR.; IDA GARNER; WILLIS M. GARY; KURT GERGLE; TARUN GHAI;
ELAINE GIBSON; HELEN GILLESPIE; MELODY GILLEY; TANJA GILMORE; BRIAN
GLAUB; BARRY GOLDBERG; SCOTT GOODMAN; RICHARD GOULD; TROY L.
GRAHAM; GABRIELA GRAJEDA; ELIZABETH GRANT; BRANDI GRAY; CHRISTIE
GRAY; JANIE GRAY; VALERIE GRAY; GRAYBERG; AYNDRIA GREEN; DIANA
GRIFFIN; PAUL L. GROVER; JESSICA GROVES; DEDRA GUENO; CARL
GUSSGARD; ARNOLD GUTMAN; JULIAN GUTTERMAN; TESSIE GUTTERMAN; LISA
HAGERTY; LAUREN HAGY; CEDON J. HALEY, JR.; DOROTHY HALPIN; NANCY N.
HAMLETT; ERESTINE HARDING; DEBORAH HARE; AQUISI HARRIS; KENDALL
HARRIS; MARY HARRIS; PATRICE A. HARRIS; BRIANNA HARRISON; SHARON
HARRISON; SHARON HART; LEE ANN HARTMANN; PATRICIA HAUSER; DEANNA
HAVERLY; LESLIE HEARN; KATHLEEN HEDRICK; AMANDA HEINLEIN; CHARLES
HELMS; ROBERT HENDRICKSON; STEPHEN HERMAN; JAMES HERRINGTON;
WILLIAM HESTER, JR.; DEBBIE HETTERLY; NANCY HICKMAN; JEREMY
HILLBERRY; GREG E. HINES; ROBERT HITE; BRITTANY HOBAN; PAM HODGES;
THURMAN HODGES; CHRISTOPHER HOEHN; CAROLYN HORCHNER; JEFFREY
HORCHNER; BETTY HORNICK; JENNIFER HORNING; MAJOR M. HORTON; BITSY
HOUSE; ALYSSA HRONOWSKI; TEDDY HUDDLESTON; JERRY HUDSON, SR.;
HUBERT HUGHES; SHAY HUNTER; MARK HUSTEAD; CAROL HUTCHINSON; NATHEN
ILLIDGE; GEORGE IOANNOU; FRANCES JACOCKS; PATRICIA JACOCKS; JASON
JAFFEUX; SALLY JAMES; STACEY JANSEN; JOYCE JANTO; WALTER JEFFRIES;
JANICE JENKINS; CHELSEA JOHNSON; MONICA JOHNSON; RASHEEDAH JOHNSON;
TODD JOHNSON; DERWOOD JOHNSTON; JOHN JOHNSTONE; CHRISTINA JONES;
PAMELA JONES; WILBER B. JONES; RICHARD JORDAN; SANDRA JORDAN;
SHERYL JORDAN; JENNIFER JUSTICE; KIM KEATING; CODY KELLY; TERESA
KELLY; MELANIE KENYON; JOHN KERR; SHEA KERSEY; HANNAH KIGHT;
WILLIAM KIGHT; MIKYUNG KIM; CAROLYN KINES; LARRY KING; SUSAN KING;
VERNON KIRBY; DIANA KITE; EDWARD KIZER; PATSY KIZER; JOHN A.
KNIGHT; CONNIE KNISELEY; DONNA KNOELL; AMANDA KOZAK; TAMARA
KROBERT; FRANK KULOVITZ; CARL KURI; KELLY KUSEK; VICTOR C.
KVIETKUS; BRENDA LACKEY; TAMMY LACKEY; MARY LANG; MARKUS LANGE;
CATHERINE LANTZ; GLENN LAVINDER; CHRISTOPHER LEGENDRE; BARBARA
LEGGETT; DAVID LEHMAN; CALVIN LEWIS; CALVIN LEWIS; REGINA LEWIS;
DELORES LINDBLOM; WILLIAM LIPFORD; ASHLEY LIPPOLIS-AVILES; MIKE
LITTMAN; BILLY LLEWELLYN; ROBIN LOVETT; DAVID LOVING; CYANE LOWDEN;
KEN LU; JOSHUA LUBECK; ROBERT R. LUCAS; PATRICIA LYONS; WILLIAM
LYONS; CHRISTINE MACCASLIN; ANITA MADISON; JOHN MALIZIA; SUZANNE
MALIZIA; THOMAS MALONE; STANLEY MARCUS; HEATHER MATSEY; JAMES
MATSEY; RODNEY MATTHEWS; SHAWNA MATTOCKS; MATTHEW MATTRO; JEFF MAY;
HAROLD MAYHEW, JR.; SHAWN MAYNOR; DIANDRA MAYO; ROBERT MCCARRAHER;
PENNY MCCENEY; ROBERT MCCLELLAND; MICHAEL MCCLENNING; ROBERT
MCCURDY; JOSEPH MCDANIEL; SUSAN MCFADDEN; WILLIAM MCFADDEN; MARK
MCGINLEY; RICHARD MCGRUDER; VICTORIA MCGRUDER; DONALD MCINTIRE;
KAREN MELLER; KAREN MELLER; CARMEN MERCADO; SCOTT MEYERS; CAROL
MIEGGS; CHRISTY MILLER; DAVID MILLER; RON MILLER; MARIA MING LI;
MARY MITCHELL; TERRIE MITCHELL; BANKS MITCHUM; BENJAMIN MOHER;
DAVID MOLINARI; JUNG MOON; KAREN MOONEY; BONNIE MOORE; MONTE
MORGAN; PHILLIP MORGAN; WILLIAM MORGAN; BRYON MOSS; SUZANNE
MOWBRAY; DAVID MULLIGAN; MARY MULLIGAN; NANCY MURRAY; ROGER MYERS;
PATRICK NANCE; DENNIS NEGRAN; PENNIE NEWELL; GLEN NEWITT; JACQUI
NEWITT; EDWARD NEWMAN, JR.; KEVIN NEWSOME; REVEREDY NICHOLSON;
PATRICIA NICOSIA; RANDALL NIXON; KAREN NOLAN; RYAN NOLETTE; BRYAN
NORDQUIST; SERGEI NOVITSKY; JONATHAN O'BRIEN; WILLIAM O'FLYNN;
KAREN O'NEIL; ADRIAN ODYA-WEIS; DENNIS OLEARY; JOHN OLSEN; TANA RAE
OROPEZA; BRIAN OSBORNE; CANDACE OWENS; LYNN PAGE; TANYA PALIK; RONA
PALMER; ASHLEY PANNELL; HARRY PAULETTE; TANYA PEAKE; DONNA PEARSON;
RICHARD PEARSON; JOHN PEDERSEN; CHRIS PENA; ROY MASON PENNINGTON,
III; NICHOLAS PEREZ; GREG PERIGARD; KIM PERKINS; MARK PERRY; BRADY
PETERS; KAREN PETERS; THOMAS PETIT; REBECCA PETRELLA; SUSAN PETRIE;
ADRIAN PHILLIPS, JR.; ANNE PICCIANO; JOHN PICCIANO; CARL PIERCE;
SIVATHANU PILLAI; DEBRA PINES; CHARLES PINKARD; LILIA PINSON;
ARLOVE PLUNKETT; TIMOTHY POHLIG; DENISE POINDEXTER; RACHEL
POLIQUIN; MARGARET POMEROY; DAVID POORE, III; LAURA POTTER; KATHY
POWERS; LINDA PRATT; BERNARD PRESGRAVES; JASON PRICE; DENISE PRYOR;
JOSHUA PUCCI; VICTORIA PUCKETT; SARA PULLEN; TONY PULLEY; CYNTHIA
QUATTLEBAUM; EVA RALSTON; WILLIAM RALSTON; HANNAH RAMEY; JACQUELINE
RANDOLPH; THOMAS RANDOLPH; MICHAEL RANGER; BRAD RANSOM; HENRY
REQUEJO; DAVID REYNOLDS; ROSE RICKER; DANNY RIDDLE; ROBIN ROBERT;
JOSHUA ROBERTS; MARY ROBERTS; ANNIE ROBINSON; ANTONIO ROBINSON;
ROCKY ROCKBURN; DREW ROPER; TROY ROSIER; ERIC ROTHMAN; BRIAN ROWE;
JULIET ROWLAND; JOHN ROWLEY; NANCY ROWSEY; STEPHEN RUBIS; KYLE
RUSSELL; JENNIFER RYAN; THOMAS RYDER; JOSEPH SALAZAR; RANDALL
SAMPLES; REBECCA SAMUELSON; THOMAS SANCHEZ; AARON SANDERS; ASOK
KUMAR SARKAR; TOM SCARCELLA; EDWARD SCEARCE; SHANE SCHLESMAN; WADE
SCHWANKE, JR.; GWEN SEAL; AMY SEAY; BRADLEY SEAY; CHARLES SELTMAN;
PATTY SENTER; LYNN SETTLE; TIM SEYMOUR; RONALD SHARP; ERNEST
SHARPE; SHIRLEY SHAW; STEPHANIE SHELOR; MICHELLE SHIFFLETT; SANDRA
SHIFFLETT; JUNE SHORES; D. SHAWN SHUMAKE; NINA SIBERT; ROBERT
SILBER; CHRISTIAN SIMMERS; MARY SINGHAS; RANDALL SINGHAS; AMY
SMITH; DAPHNE HOPE SMITH; LISA SMITH; STEPHEN SMITH; SUZANNE SMITH;
KRISTINE SMOLENS; HOWARD SNYDER; WESLEY SONGER; EMILY SPARKS; BRIAN
SPENCER; SVETLANA SPENCER; PATRICIA SPIER; LORI SPIK; DEREK ST.
ONGE; RONALD STAFFORD; JONATHAN STARKS; MARK STEPHENS; TERRY STEPP;
SARAH STEVENSON; ERIC STEWART; ROXANNE STITH; TIM STOESSEL; JEAN
STOTLER; SARA STRAMEL; LARRY STRAYHORN; FRANKLIN STURKEY; BEN
SULLENGER; YOLANDA SULLIVAN; JOHN SUTOR; WANDA SUTPHIN; SHARON
SWINBURNE; STELLA TANG; ANDREW TAYLOR; ANN TAYLOR; DONNA TAYLOR; JI
JI THEKKEVEEDU; CHRISTOPHER THOME; MICHAEL THOME; DAVID THOMPSON;
TOM THOMPSON; ASHLI THURSTON; CHRISTOPHER TOKAR; DION TOMER;
CLIFFORD TRIMBLE; SERGIO TROMBA; ADELINE TROTTER; JAMES TURNER;
JEFFREY TURNER; OWENS TURNER, JR.; MARILYN TWINE; LONNIE URQUHART;
CHERI VALVERDE; MIKE VAMMINO; CARRIE VAN HOOK; KATHERINE
VANDENBRIEJE; MILCA VARGAS; MARY VAUGHAN; ROBENA VAUGHAN; JESSYCA
VENICE; KIMBERLY VEST; CAROL VIERGUTZ; MARYANN VILLIES; PATRICE
VOSSLER; AMADA WAGONER; STACY WALLER; GARY WALTON; GRETCHEN WARD;
SHELIA WARD; DANIEL WAXMAN; CHRISTOPHER WEAVER; MARGARET WEBB;
LAURA WEISIGER; STEPHANY WHIPPLE; DAVID WHITLEY; SARAH WHITLOCK;
DIANE WIEN; ROBERT T. WIENER; CHRISTOPHER WILCHER; MINDY WILLIAMS;
VINCENT WILLIAMS; HANNAH WILSON; JUANITA WILSON; RIED WILSON;
CHARLES WISER; SHARON WISER; MARK WOEHLER; KENNETH WOMACK; EMILY
WONG; GREGORY WOODS; KATHERYN WOOSLEY; CAROL WRIGHT; JONATHAN
WRIGHT; MARY WRIGHT; THOMAS WRIGHT; TIMOTHY WRIGHT, JR.; LESLIE
YAMNICKY; KENNETH YATES; JAMIE YOUNG; SANDRA YOUNG; ROBERT YOUNIE,
II; ATEF ZAYD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEXANDRIA HYUNDAI, LLC;
BROWN'S LEESBURG HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S MANASSAS HYUNDAI, LLC;
CHECKERED FLAG IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; CHECKERED FLAG STORE #6, LLC;
CRAFT AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; DUNCAN IMPORTS, INCORPORATED;
FAIRFAX HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; FIRST TEAM, INCORPORATED; GATEWAY
HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HALL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INCORPORATED; HALL
HYUNDAI NEWPORT NEWS, LLC; HALL HYUNDAI, LLC; HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, INCORPORATED; MILLER AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED; CAVALIER
HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HARRISONBURG AUTO MALL, LLC; JAMES CITY
COUNTY ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; MALLOY HYUNDAI; POHANKA AUTO
CENTER, INCORPORATED; PRICE HYUNDAI CORPORATION; PRIORITY
GREENBRIER AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; PRIORITY IMPORTS NEWPORT NEWS,
INCORPORATED; ROBERT WOODALL CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED; TYSINGER
MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WBM, INCORPORATED, d/b/a West Broad
Hyundai; WRIGHT WAY AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees.
ALIM ADBURAHMAN; JOHN ABEL; LENA ABEL; TAMARA ADAMS; BRANDON ADAMS;
ASHRAS AHMADI; WADHAH AL-HADDAD; CLAUDIA ALLEN; PAUL ALLEN; JAMES
ALLER; PEGGY ALLER; JIANPING ALLOCCA; NICOLE ALVARADO; GREGORY
AMODEO; ROBERT ANDERSON; SHERRY ANDERSON; DENNIS ANDREW; LINDA G.
ANDREWS; TINA ANTLEY; PAULINE APISITPAISAN; MONICA ADAIR ARGENT;
GAURAV ARORA; RAMON ARROYO; JAMES E. ASHLEY, JR.; BAKAL ASRAT;
ELIZABETH AVALAAN; CHERYL AYCOCK; JOANN K. BACHNER; SHANON BAILESS;
CHRISTOPHER BAILEY; ANDY BAKER; BRIAN BAKER; CAROL BAKER; GEORGE
BAKER; SUSAN BALLARD; DAVID BALMER; JEFF BARBER; SCOTT BARNITT;
LINDA BARR; EMMETT BATTEN; SAMANTHA BEARD CURRY; BRIAN BECKER; ROY
BECKER; TONYA BECKER; JOHN BECKNER, JR.; GINA BEEBE; KENNETH BELL;
PAMELA BELL; WHITNEY BENSON; RAYMOND J. BERNERO; JOHN BESSERER;
COLONEL BILLINGSLY; DANA BISHOP; MICHAEL BIZIK; THOMAS BJERS; PETER
BOMBIK; SHARON BONNEAU; VIRGINIA BONNELL; ZESTANN BOOKER; STEPHANIE
BORN-NEWTON; JORDAN BOSCH; SHIRLEY BOURNE; CARROL E. BOWEN; JOSEPH
BOWE; JANICE BOWLES; JEAN BOWMAN; GRAY BOYCE; RPBERT BRABO, II;
CHERYL A. BRADFORD; MARIE BRADLEY; OLIVIA BRADY; PHYLLIS BRANCH;
NICOLE BRANDON; JOHNNY W. BRANSON; ELLIOTT ANDREW BRAY; EDMUND P.
BREITLING; MARY ANN BRENDEL; MICHELLE BRINDLE; RICHARD BRINDLE;
STEVE BRINGHURST; MELANIE BRINK; EDWINA D. BRITT-CRABLE; DANA
BROADWAY; BARBARA BROWN; CHRISTINA L. BROWN; DELORES BROWN; JAMES
A. BROWN; MATTHEW BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; MELISSA BROWN; NICOLE
BROWN; TONY BROWN; PATRICK D. BRYAN; BRIANNE BRYANT; THOMAS J.
BULLOCK; BEVERLY W. BURKE; JOYCE BURKE; RICHARD BURKE; MICHAEL
BURNAM; JOHN M. BURNETT; DARLENE BURTON; GRACE M. BUTLER; SUZETTE
BYRD; JOSEPH CALABRETTA; JAMES CALLIS; CLARE CAMPBELL; DOROTHY
CAMPBELL; SETH CAMPBELL; STEVEN CAMPBELL; WHITNEY CAMPBELL; JOYCE
CANTRELL; PAUL CAPOZZOLI; PHYLLIS CARIMI; DALE F. CARLEO; DENNIS
CARLSON; MARK CARLTON; JAMES CARNEAL; MICHAEL CARPENTER; JOSE
CARRASQUILLO; LINDA CARY; LEON CARY; JEFFREY CASH; ILONA CASTRO;
ROBERTO CASTRO; JENNY CAVENDER; SHANNON CHAIN; DILIP CHAKRABORTY;
BAISHAKHY CHAKRABORTY; ROGER CHELSEA; PETER CHIAMARDAS; MICHAEL
CHRISTOPHER; CHERENE CIMBALIST; BENJAMIN CLARK; DANIEL K. CLARK;
ELIZABETH CLARK; LARRY CLEMENTS; ROBBIN CLEMENTS; KENDALL S.
CLOETER; JEREMY COBB; QUEEN B. COBBS; GARY COCUZZI; JACK VICTOR
COHEN; JULIEANNA COLEMAN; CLINTON COLLINS; AMON R. COLLINS, JR.;
COLLIN CONNORS; LOLANDA COOPER; SHARON COOPER; EILEEN CORBIN;
MICHAEL CORCORAN; KRISTEN CORLEW; GARY COVERSTON; MARINA M. COX;
MOSES COX; TAMMY COX; JUSTIN CRONIN; JILL CROWDER; BELINDA CUBBAGE;
KELSEY CUBBAGE; BESSIE CUFFEE; DAN CUOMO; BRENDA CURTIS; ELVIS
CYPRIANO; STEPHANIE DAENZER; RICHARD L. DAMEWOOD; JON DANCE;
WILLIAM DANIEL; BROOKE DAVIES; ANGELA DAVIS; JODY W. DAVIS; MATTHEW
DAVIS; JASON DAWSON; LAURIE DAWSON; NELSON DAWSON; PAUL DAWSON;
DESIREE DEAN; ANTWAIN DEBERRY; BLAIR DEEM; JENNIFER DEGRAFF;
WILLIAM DEJOHN; JOE DELGADO; TOM DELPOZZO; ANTHONY DEPAUL, JR.;
MICHAEL DESOUTO; STACY DOBSON; DAVID DOBSON; SONYA DODSON; DAVID
DODSWORTH; MASON DOERMANN; YVONNE DOVER; MINNIE DUNFORD; SANDRA K.
DUNTON; CHRIS C. DUTTON; DEBORAH EDGEFIELD; KASEY EIKE; MIRIAH
EISENMAN; KATHY ELDRETH; TIMOTHY ELLIOTT; THOMAS ENGLISH; KEITH
EPPS; CINDY FABER; MASE FABER; LUIS FALCON; JOHN FARMER; BRANDON
FARRELL; CHRIS D. FERGUSON; FARANDA FERGUSON; WANDA FERGUSON; JUNE
FERRARA; MICHAEL FERTICH; JAMES FICKLE; SHIRLEY FICKLE; JOSELYN
FIELDS; JODI FILIPEK; BEVERLY FINTCH; JENNIFER FLEURET; SUSAN FOFI;
RANDALL FOFI; LAURI FOUTZ; TIMOTHY FOUTZ; KATHLEEN FOWLER; THOMAS
ROBERT FRANCO; GREG FRANK; JOHN FRANKLIN; RONALD FRASIER; CATHLEEN
FREIBURGER; SHARON FRITH; MICHAEL FRUITMAN; ALICIA FUSCO; ADLYN
FUTRELL; DOUGLAS FUTRELL; GUILLERMO GALARZA; ANTHONY GALLARDY; IVAN
GALLOWAY, JR.; PETER GARTNER; CYNTHIA GASTLEY; SHEILA GAY; JESSICA
S. GEARHART; PAMELA EDWARDS; JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY; MARK GEORGE; JOHN
GILBERT; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; ANGELA GIONIS; JACQUELINE
GIOVANNELLI; ADAM G. GOLDSMITH; RICHARD GOULD; CARRINE GRAHAM;
CHERYL GRAHAM; RAY GRAHAM; TAMMY B. GRAHAM; KAMERON GRAY-HAROLD;
ADAM GRAYBERG; AYNDRIA GREEN; LISA D. GREEN; THOMAS GREICO; ROBERT
GRIMES; DAVID GROSS; JOE GROSS; JESSICA GROVES; MEGAN GUILLAUME;
MICHAEL GUILLAUME; KELLI GUNTER; LAUREN HAGY; RICHARD HALL; DOROTHY
HALPIN; PETE HALSETH; DAVID HAMMOND; RICHARD HAMNER; STACY HARDY;
JIM HARNEY; TERESA R. HAROLD; AQUISI HARRIS; ASHLEY HARRIS; CHAD
HARRIS; ERVIN M. HARRIS; MARY HARRIS; WILLIAM HARRIS; BRIANNA
HARRISON; PATRICIA HARRISON; SHARON HARRISON; JESSE HATHAWAY;
CLAUDIA HAVEKOST; DAVID HAYNES; LESLIE HEARN; KATHLEEN HEDRICK;
ADAM HEIDEL; TINY L. HENLEY; AMBER HERNANDEZ; ZACHACY HERRERA; F.
DALE HERRON; TARENNE HERRON; JENNIFER HESTER; DEBBIE HETTERLY;
AMANDA HILL; RONALD HILL; CHRIS HILLAND; SHIRLEY B. HINES; VERON
HINES; TIMOTHY HINSON; HEATHER HOBACK; BRITTANY HOBAN; DOMINGA
HOBBS; MARY HODGES; CHRISTOPHER HOEHN; JERRY HOLLEY; KEISHA
HOLLOWAY; BRENDA HOLMES; JAMES HOLMES, III; TIMOTHY HOLROYD; CHAD
HOLSTON; CHARLES HOOFNAGLE; CANDI HOOVER; CHARLIE HOPKINS; MARCIA
HORSTMAN; RICHARD HOSKINS; CODY HOWARD; JESSICA HOWARD; AUDREY
HUBAND; MAX HUBAND; JOHN HUBBARD; SUZANNE HUBBARD; DAVID HUBER;
TEDDY HUDDLESTON; AMY HUDSON; HUBERT HUGHES; DENNY HUNCHES; LINNIE
HUPE; SHERRY HUTCHINS; DEBORAH G. JACKSON; MITCHELL JACKSON;
STANLEY JACKSON, SR.; TRACY JACKSON; JASON JAFFEUX; BRUCE JAMES;
SALLY JAMES; SANDY JAMES; WALTER JEFFRIES, SR.; RANDALL JNBAPTISTE;
AUSTIN JOHNSON; AUSTIN JOHNSON; EBORAH L. JOHNSON; DAVID W.
JOHNSON; BILLY JONES; CHARLIE JONES; CHRISTINA JONES; JOHN K.
JONES; PEYTON P. JONES; WILBUR JONES; PHILIP R. JUDSON; KENNETH
JUNGERSON; NANCY JUNGERSON; JENIFER JUSTICE; DAVID KADAS; TINA
KADAS; GREGORY KASHIN; SRINIVAS KATEPALLI; WILLIAM L. KEE; VICTOR
G. KEHLER; SEAN KELLER; TERESA KELLER; CHRISTOPHER KELLY; NONA
KELLY; VERONICA KELLY; PATRICK KEOUGH; MEE RAN KIM; CARLTON KINARD;
DORIS E. KING; KARL KING; JOHN KIRBY; VERNON KIRBY; DIANA KITE;
EDWARD KIZER; PATSY KIZER; JOHN KNIGHT; ANN KORKOLIS; FRED KRAUER,
JR.; JEAN KUESTER; KATHRYN KUYKENDOLL; DANIEL KWITCHEN; CHIN KWON;
DENNIS LAMB; JEANETTE LAMB; KAREN LAMB; JAMES LAMBERT; STEPHANIE
LAMM; KATHY LAMPERT; ANDREW W. LANDER; CODY LAUGHINGHOUSE; DAVID
LEATHERMAN; BLAIRE S. LEE; KENNETH LEE; JENNIFER LEEMAN; RONALD
LEEMAN; JERRY LERMAN; CALVIN LEWIS; HAYES LEWIS; REGINA A. LEWIS;
ROY W. LEWIS; KAREN LILLEY; STEPHEN LILLEY; LYLE LINDBERG; ASHLEY
LIPPOLIS-AVILES; BILLY LLEWELLYN; WILLIAM LOHMANN, JR.; ROBIN
LOVETT; DAVID W. LOVING; KEN LU; MICHELE J. LUIS; MELINDA LUMPKIN;
DIRK LYNCH; GINGER LYNCH; PATRICIA LYONS; WILLIAM LYONS; DINNE
MACDONALD; DWAYNE MADDOX; SORAYA MAINS; MELISSA MALONE; THOMAS
MALONE; REGINA MANNING; TERRANCE MANNING; KIRAN MANTRALA; ANDREA
MARCHESE; STANLEY MARCUS; STEVE MARKOVITS; KENNETH MARTIN; RACHEL
MARTIN; REYNALDO MARTINEZ; RALPH MARTINI; CLETIOUS T. MASHBURN;
LAUREN MATSKO; SHAWNA MATTOCKS; LEO MAYNES; PENNY MCCENEY; STELLA
MCCLAIN; WILLIAM MCCLELLAN; ROBERT MCCLELLAND; SUSAN MCCLELLAND;
SUSAN MCFADDEN; RICHARD MCGRUDER; VICTORIA MCGRUDER; DONALD
MCINTIRE; ANNE MCKENNA; RACHEL MCKENZIE; KENNETH MCKINNEY; TERESA
MCLAWHORN; DAVID MEADOWS; RITA MEDLEY; TOMMY MEDLEY; ROBERT MEEKER;
MICHAEL MEISTER; KAREN MELLER; CARMEN C. MERCADO; ROBERT E. MICKLE;
EDMEE MIGUEZ-GERSTLE; MICHAEL E. MILLER; LISA MILLFORD; MICHAEL
MINTZ; MARY MITCHELL; MICHELLE MONROE; CHRIS MOONEY; GARY MOORE;
KAREN MOORE; MELODY MORRIS; SUZANNE MOWBRAY; RAYMOND MUELLER;
PATRICK MULHERN; DAVID MULLIGAN; LAURENCE MULLIGAN; MARY MULLIGAN;
BILLIE MUTTER; MELISSA MUTTER; KEVIN NEWSOME; REVERDY NICHOLSON;
SUSAN NOON; SARAH NOVAK; RACHEL NOVERSA; TODD NUNNALLY; JONATHAN
O'BRIEN; DARLENE O'DONNELL; JAMES O'DONNELL; PAUL O'KEEFE; TIMOTHY
O'MARA; CAROLYN O'NEILL; PAUL J. O'ROURKE; MALCOLM O'SULLIVAN;
BRIAN OSBORNE; SARAH OSINSKI; JESSICA OUTER; HERBERT C. OVERSTREET;
CANDACE OWENS; CHRISTOPHER PALAZIO; LYNETTE PALMER-FORD; ASHLEY D.
PANNELL; MATTHEW PARK; TERRI PARKER; MICAH PARMAN; BHAGVATI PATEL;
MUKESH PATEL; PRADIP PATEL; SHREYA PATIL; JOHN PATTIE; JAMES
PEARSALL, JR.; DONNA PEARSON; OREST PELECH; CHRIS PENA; ROY M.
PENNINGTON, III; THOMAS PEPE; MARK PERRY; KAREN PETERS; JOHN
PETERSON; MARK PETERSON; REBECCA PETRELLA; SUSAN PETRIE; ROBERT
PETRUSKA; CLAUDE PETTYJOHN; CARL PIERCE; JANET PIETROVITO; DEBRA
PINES; LINDSEY POLI; ANGELA POLINKO; CARLTON POLLARD; DAVID POORE,
III; ANTON POPOV; LINDA M. PRATT; JASON PRICE; ROBERT PUAKEA; SARA
PULLEN; SARHAN QURAISHI; JAMES RADCLIFFE; MELISSA RADCLIFFE; SCOTT
RAMSEY; JACQUELINE RANDOLPH; MICHAEL RANGER; NANCY RANSOME; SHELLIE
RENZ; SHERI RESSE; MATTHEW D. REVELLE; STEPHEN RIBBLE; ANITA RICE;
LARRY RICE; RICHARD RICHARDSON; CARI RICHARDSON; MICHAEL RICHEY;
SARAH RICHEY; MARVIN RIDDICK; DANNY RIDDLE; JENNIFER RIGGER; WAYNE
RILEY; TAMRIA RISHER; DANIEL ROBERTS; MARY ROBERTS; SUSAN ROBERTS;
GAYE ROBERTSON; SKYLER ROBEY; ANNIE ROBINSON; ANTONIO ROBINSON;
KEVIN ROBINSON; PAMELA ROBINSON; ROCKY ROCKBURN; COLETTE ROOTS;
DARYL ROOTS; GREGG ROSENBERG; ERIC ROTHMAN; BRIAN ROWE; VIRGINIA A.
ROWEN; JULIET ROWLAND; PAUL ROY; RONALD RUCKER; DAVID RUFFNER, JR.;
JILL RUFFNER; KRISTYN RUZICKA; JENNIFER RYAN; STEPHEN RYAN; JOSEPH
SALAZAR; RACIN SAM; GEORGE SANCHEZ; BONNIE SANDAHL; GARY SARKOZI;
JEFF SAUNDERS; JEANNETTE SCHAAR; AILEEN L. SCHMIDT; EDWARD
SCHNITTGER; LINDA RUTH SCOTT; GWEN SEAL; AMY SEAY; ANTHONY SELB;
DELMAR N. SELDEN; LYNN SETTLE; RICHARD SEYMANN; SHARON SGAVICCHIO;
SHA'NESHA SHARPE; ROBERT L. SHELLHOUSE; GARY SHELOR; STEPHANIE
SHELOR; BRENDA SHIFFLETT; NINA SIBERT; DAVID SILVERNALE; JESSICA
SIMONS; MARY SINGHAS; RANDALL SINGHAS; DONALD SKINNER; RICHARD E.
SMITH; SUZANNE SMITH; CYNTHIA L. SNYDER; MANDY SNYDER; HOWARD
SNYKER; WESLEY SONGER; JOHN SORESE; RAYMOND M. SOUZA; SHELLIE S.
SPADARO; TONY L. SPARKS; LINDA SPRADLIN; SUSAN STANDRIDGE; NANETTE
STANLEY; JONATHAN STARKS; EUGENIA STARNES; GARY STECK; REBECCA
STECK; ANDREW STEELEY; CAROLYN RENEE STEVENS; SARA STEVENS; SASHA
STITT; TIM STOESSEL; CHEVON D. STOKES; EDWARD STOKES; NATHAN STONE;
YOLANDA SULLIVAN; DENNIS SUMLIN; JOHNNIE SUMLIN; JOHN SUTOR; WANDA
SUTPHIN; STELLA TANG; ANDREW TAYLOR; ANN TAYLOR; KIMBERLY TAYLOR;
FREDDY TELLERIA; MATTHEW TENGS; JOHN THACKER; CANDACE TILLAGE;
CHRISTOPHER TOKAR; SUSIE TORTOLANI; MARY TRAINOR; ADELINE TROTTER;
PEGGY TSACLAS; JAMES TURNER; ROBERT TURNER; RUFUS TUNSTALL; LUCILLE
TYLER; TRAVIS TYSINGER; JOHN TYSON; CYNTHIA UTLEY; CARRIE VAN HOOK;
DENISE VANGELOS; MILCA VARGAS; ROBERT VARNER; MARY VAUGHAN; ROBENA
D. VAUGHAN; KELLY VERHAM; KIMBERLY VEST; CAROL VIERGUTZ; MARY ANN
VILLIES; WALLACE VINGELIS; MARVIN WADE; SANDRA WADE; SCOTT
WAGGONER; TERESA WAGGONER; MAGI WAGNER; JANE WALLACE; STACY WALLER;
SHERYL WALTERS; GARY WALTON; KIMBERLY WARD; CATHERINE WATERS;
BERNARD WATTS; MICHAEL WEBB; SCOTT WEBB; MELISSA WEBSTER; SHARON
WELLS; STEPHANY WHIPPLE; SARAH WHITLOCK; ROBERT T. WIENER;
CHRISTOPHER WILCHER; DAVID WILD; CHRISTINA WILLIAMS; GEORGE
WILLIAMS; GINER WILLIAMS; DAGNY WILLS; GARY WILLS; DR. SARAH
WILMER; LESLIE WILSON; ROBIN WILSON; THOMAS WINSTON; CHARLES WISER;
SARA WOLLMACHER; MIKE WOO; WAYNE H. WOOD; WAYNE WOODHAMS; STACEY T.
WOODS; ARTHUR WRIGHT; THOMAS WRIGHT; DAVID WYCKOFF; GINO YANNOTTI;
JAMIE YOUNG; JONG YUN; ATEF ZAYD; ANGELA R. ZIMMERMAN; RINGO YUNG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEXANDRIA HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S LEESBURG
HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S MANASSAS HYUNDAI, LLC; CHECKERED FLAG
IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; CHECKERED FLAG STORE #6, LLC; CRAFT
AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; DUNCAN IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; FAIRFAX
HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; FIRST TEAM, INCORPORATED; GATEWAY HYUNDAI,
INCORPORATED; HALL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INCORPORATED; HALL HYUNDAI
NEWPORT NEWS, LLC; HALL HYUNDAI, LLC; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
INCORPORATED; MILLER AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED; CAVALIER HYUNDAI,
INCORPORATED; HARRISONBURG AUTO MALL, LLC; JAMES CITY COUNTY
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; MALLOY HYUNDAI; POHANKA AUTO CENTER,
INCORPORATED; PRICE HYUNDAI CORPORATION; PRIORITY GREENBRIER
AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; PRIORITY IMPORTS NEWPORT NEWS,
INCORPORATED; ROBERT WOODALL CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED; TYSINGER
MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WBM, INCORPORATED, d/b/a West Broad
Hyundai; WRIGHT WAY AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees.
LINDA RUTH SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all other Virginia
owners similarly situated; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE;
MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY,
individually and on behalf of all other Virginia owners similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 17-1582, 17-1587, 17-1611 (4th Cir.).

ARGUED: James B. Feinman, Esq., JAMES B. FEINMAN & ASSOCIATES, in
Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellants.

Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Jakarra J. Jones -- jakarra.jones@gmail.com -- Richmond,
Virginia, James F. Neale -- jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; David Cooper --
davidcooper@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.

ILLINOIS CLINICAL: Prebe Seeks Minimum Wages for Phlebotomists
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC PREBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN ILLINOIS CLINICAL LABORATORY LTD.
d/b/a NICL LABS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-4767 (N.D. Ill., July
11, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Prebe was employed by the Defendant as a phlebotomist -- people
who are trained to draw blood from a patient for clinical or
medical testing, transfusions, donations, or research.

Northern Illinois Clinical Laboratory LTD. d/b/a NICL Labs is an
Illinois entity headquartered at 306 Era Drive, Northbrook,
Illinois 60062. The Company owns and operates laboratory facilities
through Illinois and provides on-site blood draws for laboratory
testing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze , Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5 th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630)355-7590
          Facsimile: (630)778-0400


INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: Velez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Computer Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Aida Velez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. International Computer Systems, Inc. doing business
as: First Collection Services, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23063-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

International Computer Systems Inc. provides debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIQUID WEB: Underpays Account Executives, "Enriquez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIQUID WEB LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-691 (W.D. Tex., July 9, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonably attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Enriquez was employed by the Defendant as account
executive from October 16, 2017 to June 18, 2018.

Liquid Web LLC provides managed serves hosting and VPS services.
The Company is an affiliate of Liquid Web Inc. which was founded in
1997 and is based in Lansing, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 IH-1o West, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com


LOW-T CENTERS: Lozano Suit Alleges Discrimination & Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA M. LOZANO on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Low-T Centers, Inc., Low T Center LLC, Low-T
Physicians Services P.L.L.C., Low-T Shared Services, L.L.C., and,
Low-T Center of Tennessee JV, L.L.C., Case No. 3:18-cv-00689 (M.D.
Tenn., July 25, 2018), seeks equitable relief and damages for
alleged unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ms. Lozano also brings this action as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act because of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful deprivation of her rights to overtime compensation and/or
the failure to pay overtime compensation at the appropriate rate.

LTCI is a corporation that does business as The Low-T Center.
LTCLLC is a limited liability company.  LTPS is a professional
limited liability company.  The principal office of LTCI, LTCLLC
and LTPS is located in Southlake, Texas.  LTCI, LTCLLC and LTPS are
not licensed to do business in the state of Tennessee but operate
and does business within the State as The Low-T Center or Low-T
Centers.

LTCT is a limited liability company with its principal office
located in Colleyville, Texas.  LTCT does business as The Low T
Center.  LTSS is a Texas limited liability company registered to do
business in the state of Tennessee.  LTSS does business as The
Low-T Center.

Low-T Centers provide testosterone replacement therapy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MACK PEST: Fails to Pay Technicians Proper OT Wages, Lamar Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON LAMAR and WESLEY SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MACK PEST CONTROL, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-00692 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiffs one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of 40 hours.

The Plaintiffs are former pest technicians of the Company.  The job
duties of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated consisted of
providing pest control and termite treatment services to
residential and commercial properties as well as planning routes
for their services.

Mack Pest Control, Inc., provides pest control services to
residential and commercial properties in Middle and West
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          A. Ryan Simmons, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          525 4th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Telephone: (615) 850-0632
          E-mail: street@eclaw.com
                  rsimmons@eclaw.com



MDL 2551: Court Denies Certification of NHL Hockey Players
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury
Litigation, This Document Relates to All Actions, MDL No. 14-2551
(SRN/BRT)(D. Minn.).

This action, brought on behalf of a proposed class of former
National Hockey League (NHL) players, arises from what the
Plaintiffs describe as the pathological and debilitating effects of
brain injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts
sustained by former NHL players during their professional careers.
The NHL, according to the Plaintiffs, knew or should have known of
the growing body of scientific evidence linking repetitive
concussive events to long-term neurological problems, such as
dementia, Alzheimer's, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).
The NHL did not, however, warn the Plaintiffs or any other member
of the proposed class about the dangers of repeated brain trauma.

The Plaintiffs' Proposed Classes:

   Class 1: All Living Retired NHL Hockey Players

Plaintiffs Christian and Larson move for Rule 23(b)(2)
certification and for appointment as representatives of a class of
all living retired NHL hockey players.  The Plaintiffs assert that
under Minnesota choice-of-law rules, the Court should apply New
York law to the issue of liability (duty and breach), and Minnesota
law to the issue of the remedy sought (medical monitoring).
Alternatively, Plaintiffs Christian, Larson, Nicholls, and
LaCouture move for certification under a grouping of state laws.

   Class 2: All Retired NHL Hockey Players (or representative
claimants if they are deceased) who have been clinically diagnosed
with a Neurological Disease, Disorder, or Condition (NDDC).

Plaintiffs Leeman and the Ziedel Estate move for certification of a
class of all retired NHL hockey players (or representative
claimants if they are deceased) who have been clinically diagnosed
with a NDDC as to the legal issues of duty of care and breach of
duty, including the failure to warn, and factual issues relevant to
whether the head impacts that class members experienced can cause
latently-developed NDDCs.

Medical Monitoring Law Varies Widely Across the U.S. and Canada

The Plaintiffs argue that Minnesota law governs their request for
medical monitoring. Minnesota courts have allowed the recovery of
medical monitoring expenses where the elements of a tort claim are
proven and evidence of a present injury is established Medical
monitoring law in other jurisdictions, however, is greatly varied,
resulting in significant outcome-determinative conflicts between
Minnesota law and the other forty-nine states, the District of
Columbia, and the Canadian provinces.  

Several states, for example, recognize medical monitoring only if
the plaintiff has a manifest physical injury. One state has held
that plaintiffs can recover medical monitoring upon a showing that
the plaintiff has suffered a subcellular or subclinical injury.

In the first category of states, the Michigan Supreme Court has
rejected any independent claim for medical monitoring. The
plaintiffs in that case did not claim to have suffered any present
physical harm because of defendant's allegedly negligent
contamination.

In Massachusetts, plaintiffs may recover the costs of medical
monitoring as a form of future medical expense damages, upon a
showing of subcellular injuries.

Five other states allow medical monitoring awards as damages
without proof of present injury or cellular or subcellular harm,
such as California, where the cost of medical monitoring is a
compensable item of damages where the proofs demonstrate, through
reliable medical expert testimony, that the need for future
monitoring is a reasonably certain consequence of a plaintiff's
toxic exposure and that the recommended monitoring is reasonable.

Some states, such as Florida, recognize medical monitoring as an
independent cause of action that does not require proof of present
injury or cellular or sub-cellular harm.

The Plaintiffs maintain that a number of states can be grouped
together based on the way they treat medical monitoring claims. For
example, the Plaintiffs identify 28 jurisdictions that permit
medical monitoring relief where there is a showing of exposure plus
increased probability of developing a future disease.  The laws of
many of those jurisdictions are varied and complex. The Plaintiffs'
grouping theory cannot be used to sidestep the widespread
divergence among the states in the requirements for medical
monitoring. Thus, there are significant outcome-determinative
conflicts between the states' legal requirements for medical
monitoring relief.

Since, the choice-influencing factors point to several different
states, depending upon the playing history and domicile of each
class member, the Court would be forced to apply a wide range of
legal standards for the recovery of medical monitoring. Someone who
played for the New York Rangers or Islanders such as Plaintiff
LaCouture could not state a claim for medical monitoring without a
showing of present injury. A former player for the St. Louis Blues
such as Plaintiff Leeman could receive medical monitoring as an
element of damages without proof of present injury.

Someone who played for the Florida Panthers or Tampa Bay Lightning
or retired to Florida could be entitled to medical monitoring as an
independent cause of action without proof of present injury. A
former player for the Minnesota North Stars or the Minnesota Wild
or someone who currently lives in Minnesota such as Plaintiffs
Christian and Larson could receive medical monitoring as a form of
damages if he has proof of cellular or sub-cellular injury. For a
player who retired to Hawaii, the court would be acting on a blank
slate with no clear guidance from any court as to whether, and
under what circumstances, medical monitoring is a viable claim or
an element of damages.

For all of these reasons, individualized legal issues will
substantially predominate over common legal issues in this
litigation. Accordingly, class certification cannot be granted
under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Court therefore declines to certify either of the Plaintiffs'
proposed classes under Rule 23.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8rdwtq from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented
by Bradley C. Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed
PLLP, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S.
Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP,
David M. Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, Hart L. Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Janine D. Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbin
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kathleen L. Douglas --
kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Leonard
B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, LLP, Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com --
SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Steven D. Silverman --
ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE,
Stuart A. Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice & William N. Sinclair --
bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE.

National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D. Van Oort
-- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam M.
Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Daniel J.
Connolly -- daniel.connolly@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Geoffrey M. Wyatt -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Jessica D. Miller --
jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP,
John Herbert Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS
SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Joseph Baumgarten --
jbaumgarten@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Joseph M. Price
-- joseph.price@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Linda S.
Svitak -- linda.svitak@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Matthew Martin -- matthew.martino@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Matthew Stein --
matthew.stein@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
LLP, Michael H. Menitove -- michael.menitove@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom.

MDL 2863: Ford and Dubrovsky Seek to Consolidate 3 Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case of Michael Ford and Rudolph Dubrovsky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. [24]7.AI, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02770
(N.D. Cal., May 10, 2018), filed a motion before the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation for an Order to consolidate three
federal actions against [24]7.AI, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., and
Best Buy Co., Inc., and assign the cases as MDL No. 2863.

The Plaintiffs move the Panel to transfer and consolidate pretrial
proceedings for these actions:

   -- Ford, et. al. v. [24]7.AI, Inc., et al., Northern District
      of California, No. 5:18-cv-2770;

   -- McGarry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Northern District of
      Georgia, No. 1:18-cv-2794; and

   -- Naini, et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Central
      District of California, No. 2:18-cv-2876.

In the McGarry suit, [24]7.AI, Inc. filed on August 3, 2018, these
motions:

     -- Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim;

     -- Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Motion For
        Transfer And Consolidation Filed With The JPML And of
        Defendants' Motions to Transfer; and

     -- Motion to Transfer Case to United States District Court
        for the Central District of California.

Delta on August 2 filed its own Motion to Transfer Case to United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

[24]7.ai is a customer experience software and services company
headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL
          LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  jwatson@justice4you.com


MERCURY SYSTEMS: Richmond Files Securities Class Action in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Richmond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mercury Systems, Inc., Mark Aslett, and Gerald M.
Haines II, Case No. 1:18-cv-11434 (D. Mass., July 10, 2018), is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
Mercury common stock between October 24, 2017 and April 24, 2018,
inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants acted with scienter in
that they knew that the public documents and statements issued or
disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and
misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued
or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and
substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or
dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations
of the federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff Kent Richmond purchased Mercury common stock.

The Defendant Mercury is a commercial provider of defense and
intelligence, secure sensor and safety critical mission processing
subsystems for defense prime contractors. Mercury is deployed in
more than 300 programs, including: Aegis, Patriot, Surface
Electronic Warfare Improvement Program, Gorgon Stare, Predator,
F-35, Reaper, F-16 SABR, E2D Hawkeye and Paveway.  

The Individual Defendant Mark Aslet is the president and chief
executive officer of Mercury.

The Individual Defendant Gerald M. Haines II was the chief
financial officer of Mercury from the beginning of the class period
to February 2, 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

METHODIST HEALTH: Rudy Goff Files Suit to Recover Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUDY GOFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. METHODIST HEALTH CENTERS d/b/a HOUSTON METHODIST
WILLOWBROOK HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:18-cv-02580 (S.D. Tex., July 25,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, lost wages,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Methodist Health Centers, doing business as Houston Methodist
Hospital, is a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation that wholly owns and
operates Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital in Harris County,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Yanice Colon-Pol, Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  Yanice.Colon@kennardlaw.com



MEX LUNA: Salman Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE SALMAN v. MEX LUNA PRODUCE CO. INC.; LUNA WHOLESALE INC.; AND
RODOLFO LUNA, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:18-cv-02590 (S.D. Tex., July
25, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, including
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mex Luna Produce Co. Inc. is a domestic corporation.  Luna
Wholesale Inc. is a domestic corporation.  Mex Luna and Luna
Wholesale (the "Company") are owned and operated by Rodolfo Luna.

The Company is located at the Farmers Market on Airline Drive in
Houston, Texas.  The Company sells produce to Houston area
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522-9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com


MICROSOFT INC: Employees Appeal Gender Bias Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nat Levy and Kaitlyn Wang, writing for GeekWire, report that
current and former technical employees at Microsoft are not giving
up on a push to expand a three-year-old gender discrimination
lawsuit to cover thousands of women who have worked for the tech
giant in recent years.

The legal team representing former high-ranking cybersecurity
employee Katie Moussouris and current Microsoft employee Holly
Muenchow has filed a petition to appeal a federal judge's ruling
denying class-action status on their lawsuit. This moves the
dispute over class action status up to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, while the general claims of the lawsuit have yet to be
decided.

The plaintiffs sought to expand their lawsuit to cover 8,600 women
in technical roles that have worked at the company since 2012. U.S.
District Judge James L. Robart denied the request after legal teams
representing both sides presented their arguments in U.S. District
Court in Seattle last month.

The case dates back to 2015, when Ms. Moussouris and Ms. Muenchow
brought a gender discrimination lawsuit against the company,
alleging "continuing policy, pattern and practice of sex
discrimination against female employees in technical and
engineering roles, including technical sales and services positions
with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other
terms and conditions of employment."

Ms. Moussouris worked at Microsoft from 2007 to 2014. In that time,
she claims, she was given worse rankings than her manager told her
she deserved, paid less than male peers, and passed over for
promotion during her last four years at the company. She also
alleged in the lawsuit that she complained about the director of
her team, the Trustworthy Computing Group, for sexually harassing
other women. The director has since been moved to another part of
the group. Ms. Moussouris added in her deposition that she believes
he retaliated against her by giving her a lower bonus, though the
company says it found no evidence of that.

Ms. Muenchow, who has been working at Microsoft since 2002 and is
still employed there, said in the lawsuit that she only progressed
four levels in the company's technical career track in the 16 years
that she has been there. She believes that she was passed over for
promotions even though she was qualified, and male colleagues were
promoted. She said in her deposition that she has been criticized
for being too assertive.

Microsoft argues that the plaintiffs were each promoted on several
occasions and paid well. Ms. Moussouris in particular was among the
highest paid in her "cost center," making more than her male
manager. But Microsoft contends her communication skills needed
improvement, something Ms. Moussouris mentioned in her own-self
evaluations.

The unsealed ruling, written by Judge Robart, contends that the
plaintiffs didn't adequately demonstrate a commonality to create a
basis for the proposed class of plaintiffs, either in terms of
impact or treatment of women at Microsoft.

The ruling says the plaintiffs' commonality claims are invalid
based on the arguments they make on a lack of standardization in
the pay and promotion process. Therefore, the court says, since the
plaintiffs' argument centers on discretion, there is no common
practice that can be applied to the proposed class. Also because of
the discretion-based system, the court said that each plaintiff
would have a different experience and Ms. Moussouris' and Ms.
Muenchow's experiences could not represent those of the whole
class.

Further, the court said that the plaintiffs could not adequately
protect the class because the proposed class "presents
irreconcilable conflicts of interest." The proposed class, which
includes more than 8,000 women in technical roles at Microsoft,
also includes women who participated as managers in the calibration
process used to determine pay and promotions that the plaintiffs
argue was discriminatory.

After the ruling, Microsoft issued this statement: "We remain
committed to increasing diversity and making sure that Microsoft is
a workplace where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. The
judge made the right decision that this case should not be a class
action."

The plaintiffs' petition to appeal the certification says that
"denial of class certification will effectively end the litigation
for the plaintiffs." It argues that the discretion-based system
does not preclude commonality in the proposed class. In this case,
the plaintiffs say that Microsoft's use of a specific calibration
process with common criteria to set pay and evaluate promotions
means that even with managerial discretion, the proposed class are
subject to a common question.

The petition also responds to the court's ruling on the plaintiffs'
adequate protection of the proposed class. The plaintiffs argue
that the female managers the court cited as having conflicts of
interest do not "create nor control discriminatory policies." As
such, they say, there is no conflict of interest between the
plaintiffs and the proposed class.

In court documents, Microsoft says it has been committed to
diversity and inclusion for more than 20 years. It has a 25-person
team working on diversity issues, and a budget of more than $55
million per year through 2020 for new initiatives.

Microsoft reports that a little under 26 percent of its global
workforce is female. In tech and leadership roles, the split is
about 80/20 in favor of men. [GN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Folson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE FOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-00349-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Olson FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Marissa Olson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04257 (E.D.
N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.[BN]

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency in
Bensalem, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


MONROE NAIL II: Faces Cui FLSA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A Fair Labor Standards Act class action suit has been filed against
Monroe Nail II Corp.  The case is styled as Chunhua Cui and Shuya
Zhou, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Monroe Nail II Corp. doing business as Monroe Nail,
inclusive and Young Kyu Suh also known as Young Suh, Defendants,
Case No. 1:2018-cv-04256 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2018).

Monroe Nail II Corp. is located in Smithtown, New York. This
organization primarily operates in the Manicurist, Pedicurist
business/industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MONTAGUE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montague Urgent
Medical Care P.C. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Montague
Urgent Medical Care P.C. doing business as: UMD Urgent Care,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06783 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Brooklyn UMD Urgent Medical Care is an urgent care center in
Brooklyn, NY located at 633 Driggs Avenue. They are open 7 days a
week seeing walk-in patients in Brooklyn. Brooklyn UMD Urgent
Medical Care appears to be individually owned and operated and not
part of a larger network of urgent care clinics.[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


MONTE PIZZA: Galindo Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Marxlenin Galindo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. John Doe Corp. dba Monte Pizza and Ciro
Lopez, Case No. 1:18-cv-06208 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Galindo was employed as a delivery worker at the
"Monte Pizza" restaurant located at 360 E 188th Street, Bronx, NY
10458 from January 2017 until June 17, 2018.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 360
E 188th Street, Bronx, NY 10458 under the name "Monte Pizza". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael 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

MOTEL 6: Settles Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Joseph Flaherty, writing for Phoenix New Times, reports that Motel
6 has reached a tentative agreement with a prominent Latino civil
rights group to settle a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed
on behalf of Latino guests, according to court documents.

Last fall, Phoenix New Times revealed that two corporate-owned
Motel 6 properties in Phoenix were routinely sharing guest lists
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In January, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF) sued Motel 6 and parent company G6 Hospitality on behalf
of eight anonymous plaintiffs who were caught up in the ICE dragnet
that snared more than 20 guests at Motel 6 locations in Phoenix.
Five plaintiffs are residents of metro Phoenix, two live in Tucson,
and one lives in Washington state, according to the complaint.

MALDEF said that by sharing guest information with immigration
authorities, Motel 6 violated an array of state and federal laws.
In federal court in Arizona, the organization argued that the
budget motel chain discriminated against customers, violated their
Fourth Amendment rights, defrauded guests, and ran afoul of an
Arizona law guaranteeing the right to privacy.

"This is a note of settlement in principle," MALDEF President
Thomas Saenz said in a statement to New Times. "We are still
working on the details and plan to present to the court a public
filing with the full details of the settlement in the next couple
of weeks."

The parties notified U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell on July
6 that they have agreed to a settlement. Details of the settlement
are not available, and any agreement is still subject to the
judge's approval. Motel 6 and MALDEF plan to submit additional
documentation to the court by August 15, according to court
records.

G6 Hospitality did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

At the time of the lawsuit, Saenz explained that his organization
is hoping to deter unlawful collaboration with ICE by private
entities. He commended the plaintiffs for taking on a corporation.

"We believe the lawsuit will vindicate their rights and will
demonstrate, formally and officially, that immigrants of any status
have a right to privacy and protection when they choose to register
at a hotel or motel across this country," Saenz said on January
23.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has also sued Motel 6 on
behalf of his state over discrimination and consumer protection
violations.

Investigators discovered that six corporate-owned Motel 6 locations
in Washington regularly turned over guest information to ICE --
including dates of birth, license plate numbers, and room numbers
-- for at least two years. ICE agents at one location in South
Everett would circle Latino-sounding names on the guest list,
according to the complaint.

In Arizona, according to MALDEF's complaint, ICE banged on
motel-room doors and handcuffed guests in the parking lot after
they checked in at two Motel 6 locations located in predominately
Latino neighborhoods of Phoenix.

A husband and wife faced a harrowing arrest on June 29, 2017,
according to the lawsuit, after they checked in at the Motel 6 on
52nd Drive to escape the heat of a broken air conditioner. ICE
agents entered the room at 6 a.m. and demanded that the woman exit
the bathroom, where she was attempting to change clothes after
recovering from a recent surgery.

The agents then separated the pair at ICE's Phoenix field office,
where they were able to speak to each other for only a few minutes.
The man was released on a $3,000 bond, but the woman was sent to a
detention center. According to MALDEF, she was deported on June 30,
two days after checking into the Motel 6.

At the time of the lawsuit's filing, MALDEF's vice president for
litigation, Nina Perales, told reporters that MALDEF would seek
damages to compensate guests who had been unlawfully detained.

"The essence of this claim is that Motel 6 and its employees
collaborated and acted together with ICE agents to interrogate,
detain, and arrest the plaintiffs without a warrant and without any
probable cause that they had committed a crime," Ms. Perales said.
[GN]

MULLEN & IANNARONE: Lockett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The case is styled as Charde
Lockett, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mullen & Iannarone, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04279 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. in Smithtown, NY specialize in every facet
of the law from personal injuries to estate planning. It also
focuses some of its practice on debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Ocampo FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Ocampo filed a class action lawsuit against Nationwide
Credit, Inc. in New York.  The case is styled as Maribel Ocampo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04270 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts. Its customer relationship management services include
inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and
accounts receivable management services comprise pre charge-off
collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off mortgage
collections, and an attorney network.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Stark & Stark on July 10 disclosed that the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Mercer County Civil Law Division, granted a motion
for partial summary judgment in a class action lawsuit aimed at
protecting women in prison from sexual abuse. This is the first
time the New Jersey State Superior Court has explicitly held that
the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) extends to apply to prisoners,
a pivotal step toward providing plaintiffs with equitable and
monetary relief.

The suit was filed by Stark & Stark's Martin Schrama --
mschrama@stark-stark.com -- and Stefanie Colella-Walsh, along with
co-counsel Oliver Barry -- obarry@capelegal.com -- and Frank
Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz. Filed on
behalf of thousands of potential female class members against the
New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC), the motion concerned
conditions at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women
(EMCFW). "For decades, there has been an environment of rampant and
unchecked sexual assault and harassment of female inmates by prison
employees," said Ms. Colella-Walsh, partner, Stark & Stark. "We are
prepared to be at the forefront of protecting women at risk in
sexually abusive environments."

During October 2017, a longtime NJDOC employee at EMCFW pleaded
guilty to official misconduct for having sex with an inmate, and
was sentenced to prison. In January 2018, four veteran EMCFW
corrections officers were indicted by a Hunterdon County grand jury
on various sexual and other misconduct charges. In all, seven NJDOC
employees at EMCFW have been similarly charged within the past two
years. This has culminated in an ongoing investigation by the
United States Justice Department and the departure of NJDOC's
Commissioner.

According to Ms. Schrama, partner, Stark & Stark, "An environment
of sexual terror pervaded the EMCFW grounds. Stark & Stark has
sought to protect the rights of those injured, and force the NJDOC
to take appropriate corrective action to end this widespread
environment of harassment and discrimination against women at
risk."

The class action complaint filed alleges that EMCFW is a place of
public accommodation subject to the New Jersey LAD. Pursuant to the
LAD, freedom from discrimination is a civil right. The class action
complaint goes on to allege that the environment at the EMCFW is
discriminatory based on the sex of the female inmates, and that the
sexual harassment and discrimination at the facility has been so
severe and pervasive that it constitutes a hostile and abusive
environment in violation of the LAD.

Oliver Barry, partner, Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz,
explained, "The NJDOC knew, or should have known, of the
environment of rampant threats and sexual abuse at EMCFW, which was
especially harmful, considering the vulnerable status of those
women incarcerated there."

NJDOC, a public entity that maintains an annual budget of roughly
$1 billion, is responsible for the operations, supervision, and
management of EMCFW (formerly known as the Clinton Correctional
Facility for Women), which is located at 30 Route 513, in Clinton,
Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The state's only women's prison,
EMCFW opened in 1913 and has an average daily population of 659.
[GN]

NISSAN NORTH: Wants Transmission Defects Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Fowler, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North
America Inc. told a California federal judge on July 6 to punt part
of a putative class action over allegedly defective transmissions
prone to violent jerking during acceleration and "catastrophic
failure" in the middle of roadways, saying the drivers' amended
complaint fares no better than previous iterations.

In a motion to dismiss, the automaker said drivers should be barred
from seeking restitution, repairs and an injunction that are forms
of equitable relief a judge previously dismissed. Nissan also asked
to toss repackaged class claims.

The case is captioned Falk et al v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-04871 (N.D. Calif.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr.  The case was filed August 22, 2017.
[GN]

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Dovey FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Dovey, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04264
(E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

NorthStar Location Services, LLC offers full-service receivables
debt collection solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



OCEAN VIEW: African-American Employees File Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Metz, writing for WESH 2 News, reports that nine
African-American women are part of a class-action lawsuit filed
against Ocean View, a nursing home and rehabilitation center in New
Smyrna Beach, alleging discrimination and harassment.

WESH 2 News met with one of the plaintiffs and three attorneys who
are representing the women, many of whom have since been fired or
left their jobs

Several of the plaintiffs were hired in supervisory positions and
said some staff members refused to take direction from them and
that they were all frequently belittled because of their race.

The plaintiffs said they complained to management at the facility
and to corporate owners, but got no help.

A spokesman for the facility said the claims were investigated last
year and found to be without merit. [GN]

OKLAHOMA BLOOD: Court OKs Notice and Consent Forms in "Lenore"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants the Joint Motion for Approval
of Notice and Consent Forms filed in the lawsuit captioned LEILA
LENORE, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees and former employees v. OKLAHOMA BLOOD INSTITUTE, An
Oklahoma not for profit corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-01326-M (W.D.
Okla.).

The Court approves the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit, and the
Consent to Join 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Action.

The Notice and Consent shall be sent to the conditionally certified
putative class members as directed and defined in the Court's July
16, 2018 Order.



OLD MUTUAL: Responds to UCIS Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pedro Goncalves, writing for International Investment, reports that
Old Mutual International (OMI) and Friends Provident International
(OMI) have denied any wrong-doing amid claims that a 300-strong
group of investors are planning a class action lawsuit, over
alleged mis-selling of unregulated collective investment schemes
(Ucis), via Isle of Man-based subsidiaries.

Both FPI and OMI told International Investment that they believe
that the lawsuit -- should it make it to court -- will be thrown
out.

The group that could be up to 300-strong has accused the companies
of mis-selling Ucis to expats and pensioners in jurisdictions
including Thailand, Indonesia, Cyprus and the UAE, via subsidiaries
in the Isle of Man.

The collective schemes' losses reportedly amount to £200m, with
class action set to commence within the next two months. The
lawsuit is being pushed by a claims manager and could be worth as
much as GBP80m, according to a report in UK news outlet City AM.

The claim is targeting that Old Mutual International as liable now
that the funds have now lost value, as it was the facilitator of
the wrapper.

OMI says that since it does not provide any services outside of the
provision of insurance policies, it is not responsible for
investment selection or performance, or the financial advice
investors receive, and therefore it is not liable.

It does supply open architecture portfolio bond wrappers through
which investors, including expats, can invest in several different
funds. The claims are understood not to involve any accusations of
unsuitable recomendations from financial advisers within the Old
Mutual group.

'Without merit'
"We are aware of the allegations and have responded to those in
detail. The allegations are baseless and without merit," OMI said
in a statement.

FPI also released a statement, saying it "denies all allegations of
wrong-doing or liability". The company added that it "does not have
a UK presence and it is not authorised to give investment advice".
[GN]

ORNUA CO-OPERATIVE: Sued Over Grass-Fed Butter Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a California man on
July 6 launched a putative class action in California federal court
alleging the makers of Kerrygold butter deceptively promoted their
product as produced by milk from exclusively grass-fed cows.

Dyami Myers-Taylor claimed Ornua Co-operative Ltd., an Irish
corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary label and advertise the
products in its Kerrygold butter line as made with milk from
"grass-fed cows" when they are actually fed for part of the year
with soy, corn and other grains.

The case is captioned Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods North America,
Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (S.D. Calif.).  The case is
assigned to Judge Judge Marilyn L. Huff.  The case was filed July
6, 2018. [GN]

P.F. CHANG'S CHINA: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, Belt et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BELT; LAURA COUNCIL; and JAMES HARRIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.F. CHANG'S
CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02126-GJH (D. Md.,
July 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers. Mr. Belt
was employed from May 1, 2017 until February 1, 2018. Ms. Council
from November 1, 2014 to the present. Mr. Harris from September
2015 to the present.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the ownership and operation of restaurants in the United States.
The company owns and operates two restaurant concepts, P.F. Chang's
China Bistro and Pei Wei Asian Diner. As of April 30, 2018, it
owned and operated approximately 300 restaurants in the United
States, including three airport locations in 22 countries and
territories. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was founded in 1996
and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. As of July 2, 2012, P.F.
Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was taken private. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  gswegman@nicholllaw.com


PATRIOT HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Health Aides, Hauser Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM CHANNAY HAUSER individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. PATRIOT HOME CARE, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-03126-JCJ (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2018), alleges that Patriot
failed to pay the Plaintiff and other home health aides overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Patriot Home Care, Inc., is a Pennsylvania for-profit corporation
with its corporate offices located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Patriot is a provider of integrated healthcare services, offering
home care and health services to individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS, & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net


PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in a lawsuit filed by PBMS, Inc., filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, (Case No. BC688370) to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The case is
assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner and referred to Magistrate Judge
Gail J. Standish.

The new case caption is, PBMS, INC., Plaintiff v. PATRIOT NATIONAL,
INC.; CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; SPECIALTY
UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.; TOWER GROUP, INC.; CASTLEPOINT FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MASSACHUSETTS
HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY; YORK INSURANCE COMPANY OF MAINE; TOWER
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; HERMITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; NORTH
EAST INSURANCE COMPANY; PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANY; CASTLEPOINT
INSURANCE COMPANY; LION INSURANCE COMPANY; JAMESTOWN HOLDINGS
CORPORATION; PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, INC.; PLYMOUTH
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.; SOUTH
EAST PERSONNEL LEASING II, INC.; SOUTH-EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING, INC.;
SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING SERVICES, INC.; RISK TRANSFER, LLC;
FORZA LIEN, INC.; PATRIOT CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, LTD.; ANCORA RE, SPC;
ENDEAVOR RE, SPC; GREEN OAK RE, SPC; OLD DOMINION RE, SPC; OLD
GUARD RE, SPC; TM3 RE, SPC; TRIPLE M II RE, SPC; TRIPLE M RE, SPC;
VIRGINIA RE, SPC; ATLAS RE, SPC; HAWKEYE RE, SPC; INTREPID RE, SPC;
WATERVILLE RE, SPC; GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY; HEFFERNAN
INSURANCE BROKERS; KORAM INSURANCE CENTER, INC.; UNDERWRITING
SOLUTIONS OF AMERICA; STEVEN MARIANO; JOHN A. PORRECA; DEBORAH A.
PORRECA; LIAM FLEMING; LESLIE LEWIS; CAROL AZZRITO; DOES 1 THROUGH
1000, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06042-RGK-GJS (C.D.
Cal., July 11, 2018).

Patriot National, Inc. is a national provider of outsourcing
solutions within the workers' compensation marketplace for
insurance companies, employers, local governments, and reinsurance
captives. The Company provides services to increase business
production, contain costs, and reduce claims experience for its
clients. Patriot National operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
          Christopher T Aumais, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: amohamadi@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com
                  tmcfeely@selmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy J McFeely, Esq.
          Meka Moore, Esq.
          SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 445-0800
          Facsimile: (310) 473-2525
          E-mail: tmcfeely@selmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@selmanbreitman.com

               - and -

          Susan M Walker, Esq.
          DENTON US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
          Telephone: (213) 623-9300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
          E-mail: susan.walker@dentons.com


PM PEDIATRICS: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PM Pediatrics
Management Group, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PM Pediatrics Management Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06787 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

PM Pediatrics Management Group LLC provides pediatric urgent care
in New York and 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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey state
appeals court refused on July 11 to revive a proposed class action
accusing two lawyers and their respective firms of deducting
improper costs from settlement proceeds in litigation against
Prudential Financial Inc., saying a trial court properly tossed the
case because their former clients did not produce discovery.

The two-judge appellate panel upheld the court's rulings dismissing
the legal malpractice and related claims against attorneys Stephen
Snyder and Madeline Houston and their firms -- first without
prejudice and later with prejudice. [GN]

REALTY EXECUTIVES: Highline Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Highline Residential, LLC, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realty Executives
International, Inc., Realty Executives of New York, Realty
Executives Today, John S. Lagoudis, and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:18-cv-06191 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

The Plaintiff is a Delaware Foreign Limited Liability Company with
a place of business located in the County of New York, State of New
York, where it maintains telephone facsimile equipment.

The Defendant Realty Executives International, Inc. is an Arizona
Foreign Business Corporation with a principal place of business
located at 8324 East Hartford Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85255.

The Defendant Real Estate Executives of New York is a New York
Domestic Business Corporation with a principal place of business
located at 32-75 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York 11103.

The Defendant Real Estate Today is a New York Domestic Business
Corporation with a principal place of business located at 32-75
Steinway Street, Astoria, New York 11103.

The Defendant Lagoudis, is an individual residing in the State of
New York.  Upon information and belief, Lagoudis is the President
and/or owner or shareholder of Defendants RENY and RE Today. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (917) 373-9128
      Fax: (718) 504-7555
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Rafferty Seeks Cert. of FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHERYL RAFFERTY, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS
CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., d/b/a RMCB Collection Agency, a foreign
corporation, and JEFFREY S. WOLLMAN, an individual, Case No.
5:17-cv-00426-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), moves for class certification
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The proposed class consists of all Florida consumers, who received
RMCB's form Collection Letter that contained at least one of RMCB's
alleged violations of the FDCPA.  The class period begins one year
prior to the filing of the action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Massey, Esq.
          MASSEY & DUFFY, PLLC
          855 East University Avenue
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 505-8900
          Facsimile: (352) 414-5488
          E-mail: Massey@352law.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Sechrest, Esq.
          D. Marc Warner, Esq.
          Sean G. Hipworth, Esq.
          WARNER, SECHREST & BUTTS, P.A.
          5200 SW 91st Terrace, Suite 101
          Gainesville, FL 32608
          Telephone: (352) 373-5922
          Facsimile: (352) 373-5921
          E-mail: Sechrest@fbswlaw.com
                  Marc@fbswlaw.com
                  shipworth@fbswlaw.com

Defendant RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., is represented
by:

          Carlos A. Ortiz, Esq.
          West A. Holden, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          E-mail: cortiz@hinshawlaw.com
                  wholden@hinshawlaw.com


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Hernandez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS
BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01774-N (N.D. Tex., July
10, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. was founded in 1977. The
company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues. [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


ROSEWOOD COLONY: Fenner Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled HILLARY FENNER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ROSEWOOD COLONY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, P.A., Case No.
6:18-cv-00653-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify a
class defined, subject to amendment, as follows:

   a. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one
      year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been
      contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to
      collect debts that were time barred by the applicable
      statute of limitations and said correspondence contained no
      notice that said debts were uncollectable by legal action;

   b. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one
      year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been
      contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to
      collect debts that imposed an interest fee that was not
      collectable under the documents governing CM LAW's clients;

   c. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one
      year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been
      contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to
      collect debts that did not contain the "mini-miranda" as
      required under 15 USCA Section 1692(e)(11); and

   d. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one
      year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been
      contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to
      collect debts that were time barred by the statute of
      limitations and sought to induce consumers to enter into
      settlement agreements without warning the consumer that to
      do so could toll and revitalize time barred debts.

Ms. Fenner brings the proposed class action against the Defendant
for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.  She also asks
the Court to name her as class representative, to appoint her
lawyers as counsel for the class, and to allow her to file a
memorandum in support of the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq.
          Michael J. Owen, Esq.
          OWEN & DUNIVAN, PLLC
          615 W. De Leon St.
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 502-6768
          E-mail: bdunivan@owendunivan.com
                  mowen@owendunivan.com

Defendant Clayton & Mcculloh, PA, is represented by:

          Christina B. Gierke, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          1900 Summit Tower Boulevard, Suite 400
          Orlando, FL 32810
          Telephone: (321) 972-0025
          Facsimile: (321) 972-0099
          E-mail: christina.gierke@csklegal.com

Defendant ROSEWOOD COLONY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., is represented
by:

          Matthew Bernstein, Esq.
          VERNIS & BOWLING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, P.A
          1450 S Woodland Blvd., Floor 4
          Deland, FL 32720-7767
          Telephone: (386) 734-2505
          Facsimile: (386) 734-3441
          E-mail: mberstein@florida-law.com



ROYAL DUTCH: Fights Climate Change Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for Chron, reports that leaders of the
world's largest oil companies want everyone to know it won't do
anyone any good to make them pay for the damages of climate
change.

Executives have been making the argument after a series of U.S.
states and municipalities filed class action lawsuits against Royal
Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and others in recent months, arguing it
should be them that pays for the sea walls, levees and other
infrastructure climate change is sure to require.

"It's sort of bizarre that the users of our products say: 'Well,
actually, we didn't want your product. So why did you force it on
us?"' Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told reporters in London. "I don't
think also that in the end it will solve anything other than maybe
redistributing wealth to a certain class of the economy."

The quickening pace of climate change -- and the potential
environmental catastrophes that could follow -- are blamed on
fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal, that release carbon
dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is a leading greenhouse gas
that traps heat in the atmosphere and raises global temperatures.

The lawsuits brought against oil companies aim to recast the debate
around climate change. Many of the world's governments have
accepted responsibility for cutting carbon dioxide emissions from
the energy system by dedicating money to public funds to
infrastructure works and increasing regulation. The class actions
argue it was oil companies that forced society to damage the
environment, so they solely carry the financial burden of fixing
it.

"Like the tobacco companies that were successfully sued decades
ago, we're also suing five of the biggest including Exxon Mobil,
for example, who systematically poisoned the Earth, knew about it,
covered it up, explained it away, tried to hook people more and
more on their product," said Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York
City, about the suits when they were filed. "Let's help bring the
death knell to this industry that's done so much harm."

Big oil fights back

The position has incurred a strong response from the companies
facing the complaint, including calling into question whether it's
just a money grab from lawyers.

Bob Dudley, chief executive of the British oil major BP, said class
actions are "a business model in the United States" at the
company's annual general meeting this year, and said they're no
help. In a statement last month, Chevron Corp. said the same
attorneys have been filing suits across the country.

A judge in California dismissed suits from Oakland and San
Francisco arguing climate change was too broad a topic for a single
court to decide, and that it should be left to legislators. He also
argued the world has prospered because of fossil fuels and it
didn't make sense to now turn against the companies that provide
products in high demand.

The companies named in the suit said they welcomed the dismissal
and expressed hope the logic would prevail across other areas of
the country. But days later, the attorney general in Rhode Island
filed another suit with the same set of allegations, saying it was
part of his fiduciary responsibility to the state.

Shell's Van Beurden said the threat of additional legal action has
also put the company off the idea of setting specific climate
targets, and instead caused it to stick to broader "ambitions."

"The moment we adopt a target and you cannot quite deliver on
elements of it, you immediately have a class action suit from
shareholders or you get the SEC investigating you," he said.
Targets that are "legally binding; we don't think it's going to
help us." [GN]

S.K.I. WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Tavarez et al. Allege
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY TAVAREZ and FREDDY AREVALO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.K.I. WHOLESALE BEER
CORP.; KSH TRUCKING CORP.; RALPH MAURIELLO, and CHARLIE YIM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03991 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly
employees.

S K I Wholesale Beer Corp was founded in 1987. The company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of beer, ale,
porter, and other malt beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3 rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 11553
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Nance" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIE NANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00474-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., July 5, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Ms. Nance was employed by the Defendant performing customer
services at retail locations in Lehigh Acres and at the Gulf Coast
Town Center, from February 26, 2006 to February 22, 2018.

Sally Beauty Supply LLC retails beauty supplies through its stores
and online. The company was founded in 1964 and is headquartered in
Denton, Texas with stores in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Canada, Germany, Spain, and Ireland. Sally Beauty Supply LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Sally Holdings LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAM'S EAST INC: Freeman Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled TERRENCE FREEMAN and BRADLEY
WARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. SAM'S EAST INC., SAM'S WEST, INC., SAM'S CLUB, an
operating Segment of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and WAL-MART STORES,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01786-WJM-MF (D.N.J.), moves for conditional
certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants' answering papers, if any, are due to be served and
filed on August 29, 2018, and Plaintiff's Reply papers are due to
be served and filed on September 19, 2018.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: marc@hgrlawyers.com
                  Charles@hgrlawyers.com
                  david@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com



SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Files Class Action Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case is styled as Luisa Santos
de Oliveira, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Scores Holding Company Inc. doing business
as: Scores, Club Azure LLC doing business as: Scores, Robert Gans,
Mark S. Yackow and Howard Rosenbluth, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06769 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).

Scores Holding Company, Inc. (Scores) is an adult entertainment
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SERVICE UNION: Janus Case Ruling Boosts Union Dues Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on July 9
disclosed that the recent Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling
in Janus v. AFSCME strengthens the legal case brought for 40,000
California state employees seeking refunds of dues seized by
Service Union International (SEIU) union officials.

Hamidi et al. v. SEIU Local 1000 is a class-action lawsuit
challenging SEIU Local 1000 union officials' opt-out policy that
required workers to affirmatively opt-out of the portion of union
fees that workers cannot be legally required to fund. In 2015, a
federal District Court Judge certified National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation staff attorney W. James Young as the attorney
for the class of over 40,000 nonmembers who have been forced to
fund SEIU union officials as a condition of employment.

On the same day Janus was decided, Young wrote a Rule 28(j) letter
to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally notifying the Court of
the Janus decision and its relevance to the Hamidi case. The High
Court's opinion in Janus, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel
Alito, makes several points that bolster the legal claims of lead
plaintiff Ken Hamidi and the other tens of thousands of other
workers who seek damages for improperly seized "non-chargeable"
union fees going back to June 2012.

In Janus the Supreme Court not only made it clear that the First
Amendment protects public sector workers from being required to
make any payments to a union as a condition of government
employment, but also that workers cannot be required to opt out of
such payments. According to the Supreme Court, "neither an agency
fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a
nonmember's wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect
such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to
pay."

The Court also held that, since at least 2012 when the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of a similar class of tens of thousands of
nonmember employees forced to pay money to SEIU Local 1000 in the
Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, unions "have been on
notice" about the dubious legal grounds for requiring workers to
pay any union fees.

Because SEIU Local 1000 did not adjust its policy of forcing
workers to opt-out of non-chargeable fees after the Knox decision,
the Supreme Court's Janus decision means the union could now be
required to refund all non-chargeable fees (determined by the
Supreme Court in Janus to be all fees) seized since June 2012 from
over 40,000 class members, an amount likely well over $100
million.

"Around the country, the effect of the Janus decision is just
starting to be felt," said Mark Mix, President of the National
Right to Work Foundation. "Thanks to this landmark ruling, tens of
thousands of California government employees are now a step closer
to finally receiving recompense for years of being forced to hand
over their hard-earned money to an SEIU union they choose not to
join." [GN]

SILVER WHEATON: Investors Fight Bid to Avert Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Hansen, writing for Law360, reports that investors on July 6
fought Canadian mining company Silver Wheaton Corp.'s bid in
California federal court to escape their class action that alleges
the firm kept $207 million in transfer pricing tax liability secret
to boost stock prices, saying discovery provided enough evidence to
prove their case.

The investors, who were granted class certification in May 2017,
alleged thousands of shareholders lost money due to the mining
company's use of a Cayman Islands subsidiary to avoid paying taxes
on more than $500 million in profits.

The case is captioned Chris Masillion is v. Silver Wheaton Corp. et
al, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146 (C.D. Calif.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Christina A. Snyder.  The case was filed
July 8, 2015. [GN]

SMARTAX SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Basile" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GODWIN BASILE and ALANA CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTAX SERVICE, INC.; and
YVES ST. SURIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03993 (E.D.N.Y., July
11, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid hourly wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an hourly and
non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff Basile was hired from January
15, 2018 to April 17, 2018. The Plaintiff Charles was hired on
January 2018 to April 2018.

Smartax Service, Inc. is an entity incorporated in the State of New
York, engaged in providing tax preparation and accounting services
to clients. The Company operates under the name "Smartax." [BN]

The Plaintiff is representative:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3 rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 11553
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


SOTHEBY'S: Visual Artists Not Entitled to Calif. Resale Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Svachula, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal appeals court has ruled that visual artists will no longer
be entitled to royalties from resales of their work in California
-- a decision that may discourage other states from considering
royalty laws.

The ruling, issued on July 6, addressed a 1977 law, the California
Resale Royalties Act, the only of its kind implemented in the
United States. The law benefited visual artists, who, unlike
composers, filmmakers or writers, do not receive a share of any
future sales under copyright law. California residents selling work
in or out of state, or others selling their work in California,
were entitled to earn 5 percent of the price of any resale of their
artwork over $1,000. (For deceased artists, royalties went to
estates or heirs.)

After a seven-year battle, prompted by class-action lawsuits, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San
Francisco restricted the state law to resales occurring in 1977, on
the grounds that the statute was pre-empted by the federal
copyright law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1978.

The state law stemmed from droit de suite, the French concept of
offering artists compensation for future sales. Variations of
resale royalty laws for artists have been implemented worldwide, in
dozens of countries including Australia, and most of the countries
in the European Union, but all attempts at creation of a United
States law have failed.

The artists Chuck Close and Laddie John Dill, among others, filed
the three class-action lawsuits, against Sotheby's, Christie's and
eBay, for failing to pay these royalties in California. But in
2012, a district court struck down the law, and in 2015, the Ninth
Circuit ruled that the statute could survive if it only applied to
resales in California.

On July 6, the court said that the state law conflicts with the
federal copyright law's first-sale doctrine that claims once a
copyright owner sells work a first time, they lose control over
future sales.

"This quixotic action, which was based on an obviously
unconstitutional statute, is finally nearing its end," the auction
house Sotheby's said in an email statement. Christie's said in a
statement that it "is pleased with the court's decision."

Representatives for eBay did not respond to requests for comment.

The court also remanded the 1977 claims to the district court. Ira
Bibbero, a lawyer arguing for the artists, appeared to be looking
on the bright side, saying he was pleased to fight for these
artists and to enforce the act for that one-year span.

This type of legislation has been introduced in Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Rhode Island and Texas, but no laws ever made it through, except in
California.

Nicholas O'Donnell -- nodonnell@sandw.com -- a partner at the
Boston-based firm Sullivan & Worcester, who has written about the
case in his firm's Art Law Report, said it would now be up to
Congress to do something about art royalties, but he sees any
action as unlikely.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, championed
unsuccessful bills for federal droit de suite laws in 2011, 2014
and 2015. In 2014, the issue became especially contentious as arts
organizations and auction houses, including Sotheby's and
Christie's, became mired in political lobbying.

The 2011 lawsuits do not specify particular sales of art, as the
action sought to force auction houses to name the identities or
locations of sellers, proceedings usually kept secret. Mr. Dill, a
plaintiff on the case, said he wanted to stand up to the large
auction houses for the sake of helping young artists capitalize on
their work.

"If they're starting out and something goes up for auction, I think
they should get a piece of it," he said, though he added that
royalties from auctions sometimes also just don't add up to much --
he's made from a few hundred dollars to the $2,500 range.

The artist Robert Rauschenberg, a central figure in the fight for
the statute's implementation in the 1970s, often referenced his own
experiences to champion the law. (He sold a collage, "Thaw," to the
collector Robert Scull for $800 -- the work was later sold at
auction for $85,000.)

In recent years, a few cases -- all high-profile, with established
artists pursuing royalty rights -- have come to light, raising
questions in the industry about whether the law benefits everybody,
specifically struggling artists. In France, a study of droit de
suite demonstrated that around 70 percent of royalty payments went
to famous artists like Picasso. In 2012, the famous collector Dean
Valentine agreed to a settlement to pay royalties from the sale of
a few of the painter Mark Grotjahn's pieces.

Under the state law, a seller was supposed to seek out the artist,
but if the artist couldn't be traced, the seller was to give the
royalties to the California Arts Council. That council then
distributed them. .

Up until 2012, when the council suspended the administration of the
act because of litigation, a spokeswoman said, the organization
helped to trace 555 artists or their heirs and distributed $256,144
to them since 1977. It kept $50,839 of royalties for those artists
it could not trace. [GN]

When contacted, the council could not provide information as to
which public art projects this money funded.

At the national level, in 2014, the Artists Rights Society was
among those lobbying in favor of resale royalties. In an email
statement, its president, Theodore Feder, said the group was still
hopeful that a federal droit de suite law might be implemented to
"enable artists to participate in the ongoing economic exploitation
of their works in our country."

As for the application of the new ruling, Mr. Dill, one of the
original plaintiffs, said he will not be pursuing royalties for any
of his works sold in 1977.

"I personally am not going to delve into it, because it was a long
time ago," he said. [GN]

SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Director of the
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.  The case
is styled as Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Julie Edwards,
on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Joshua Baker in his official capacity as Director,
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant,
Case No. 2:2018-cv-02078  (D.S. C., July 27, 2018).

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

The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS)
administers the Medicaid program, a joint state-federal program
that provides health care for about 1 million low-income, elderly
and disabled residents each year.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kathleen McColl McDaniel, Esq.
   Burnette Shutt and McDaniel PA
   PO Box 1929
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 850-0912
   Fax: (803) 904-7910
   Email: kmcdaniel@burnetteshutt.law

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THOMAS QUINN and THERESA
QUINN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021
(N.D. Ill.), moves to certify two classes under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act:

   (a) (1) all consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin,

       (2) whose home loans SLS began servicing after the loans
           were in default,

       (3) where SLS had written notice that the consumer was
           represented by an attorney,

       (4) where SLS sent an "Independent Field Inspector" to the
           consumer's home, who left a door hanger containing a
           slip of paper requesting that the consumer call a
           number owned by SLS, and

       (5) where at least one such "Independent Field Inspector"
           visit occurred on or after a date one year prior to
           the filing of this action; and

   (b) (1) all consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin,

       (2) whose loans SLS began servicing after the loans were
           in default,

       (3) where SLS caused an "Independent Field Inspector" to
           visit the consumer's home and leave a door hanger with
           the same or substantially the same notice, attached
           hereto as Exhibit A, and

       (4) where at least one such visit occurred on or after a
           date one year prior to the filing of this action.

The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint
containing two counts for class action relief for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The complaint alleges that it
was the policy and practice of the Defendant to send door hanger
communications to consumers demanding that the consumer "Please
contact Specialized Loan Servicing at 1-800-306-6062."  They
contend that the Defendant sent the communications without any
indication that the communication was from a debt collector and
without regard to whether the Defendant knew the consumer was
represented by an attorney with respect to the debt.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Brooks, Esq.
          Charles Howell, Esq.
          Deadra Woods Stokes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          4747 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 200
          Matteson, IL 60443
          Telephone: (708) 283-5900
          Facsimile: (708) 747-2390
          E-mail: lbrooks@clg-lawfirm.com
                  chowell@clg-lawfirm.com
                  dstokes@clg-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Al Hofeld, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC
          30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3125
          Chicago, IL, 60602
          Telephone: (773) 241-5844
          Facsimile: (773) 241-5845
          E-mail: al@alhofeldlaw.com


STATCARE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
An Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit has been
filed against Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical Care PLLC.  The
case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical
Care PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06786 (S.D. N.Y., July 27,
2018).

Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical Care PLLC is an Urgent care
center in Hicksville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STINE SEED: Mid-South Farmers File Suit Over Fake Soybean Seeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMCActionNews5.com reports that Mid-South farmers filed a lawsuit
against a company that they said sold them fake soybean seeds at a
convention.

A group of African-American farmers from Louisiana and the
Mid-South, say that Stine Seed Company purposefully switched seeds
in order to sell black farmers a subpar product at the Mid-South
Farm & Gin Show in March 2017.

Despite above average rainfall, experienced black farmers saw
limited soybean yield from the Stine seeds during the 2017
harvest.

"Mother nature doesn't discriminate," President of Black Farmers
and Agriculturalists Association Thomas Burrell said. "It doesn't
rain on white farms but not black farms. Insects don't [only]
attack black farmers' land...why is it then that white farmers are
buying Stine seed and their yield is 60, 70, 80, and 100 bushels of
soybeans and black farmers who are using the exact same equipment
with the exact same land, all of a sudden, your seeds are coming up
5, 6, and 7 bushels?"

After losing millions of dollars, the farmers took the seeds to
experts at Mississippi State University to have them tested. They
say the tests show the seeds sold to the black farmers were not
certified Stine seeds.

The black farmers said the distributor working for Stine Seed
Company used labeled certified seed backs--tampering with factory
sewn seals, in order to remove the certified seeds. The distributor
would then sell the fake certified seeds to black farmers at a high
price.

The farmers bought more than $100,000 in soybean seeds from the
distributor, plus an additional $100,000 purchase in chemicals.

As for a motive, Burrell said farming is a very competitive
industry and unscrupulous people see black farmers as easy prey. He
said by hurting those farmers' bottom line, someone else would be
able to swoop in and buy up the land that belongs to black
farmers.

"All we have to do is look at here: 80 years ago you had a million
black farmers, today you have less than 5,000. These individuals
didn't buy 16 million acres of land, just to let is lay idle. The
sons and daughters, the heirs of black farmers want to farm, just
like the sons and daughters of white farmers. So we have to
acknowledge that racism is the motivation here."

The farmers filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western
Division in Memphis on April 19, 2018 against Stine Seed Company of
the largest genetic seed trait manufacturer in the world.

Tennessee Rep. G.A. Hardaway said he will push the state government
to investigate these allegations.

"We will explore the avenues -- whether its civil, whether it's
criminal -- dealing with fraud. Those issues which have negatively
impacted our black farmers, those who are in the chain of commerce
in agriculture, we'll be looking at how the state of Tennessee can
protect the interests of those citizens," Hardaway said.

Stine Seed Company President Myron Stine issued the following
statement addressing the lawsuit and the allegations his company
intentionally sold bad seeds to black farmers:

"The lawsuit against Stine Seed Company is without merit and
factually unsupportable. Stine takes seriously any allegations of
unlawful, improper, or discriminatory conduct and is disturbed by
the baseless allegations leveled against the company. Upon learning
of these claims, the company took swift action to conduct an
internal investigation, which has not revealed any evidence that
would support these allegations. Stine intends to vigorously defend
itself against this meritless lawsuit and has filed a motion to
dismiss. Our focus is on continuing to serve all our customers with
the highest degree of integrity and respect that are the bedrock of
our company's values." [GN]

TC PAYROLL: Przenkop Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Przenkop, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TC Payroll, LLC dba Dunkin Donuts, and Igor
Pimentel, Case No. 2:18-cv-14265 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
unlawful retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as store manager of Defendants from
August 2016 until January 13, 2018.

The Defendants operate Dunkin Donuts franchises in Martin County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was, at the time of her
employment, the Defendant Igor Pimentel. The Defendant Pimentel is
a person who acted directly in the interest of the Defendant TC
Payroll in relation to the Plaintiff. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth Coke, Esq.
      COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW
      131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204
      Fort Pierce, FL 34950
      Tel: (772) 252-4230
      Fax: (772) 252-4575

TENNECO INC: Rigged Prices of Exhaust Systems, 2 Distributors Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MANNY'S AUTO SUPPLY, INC.; and IRVING LEVINE AUTOMOTIVE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TENNECO, INC.; TENNECO GMBH; and
TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING CO., INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-12166-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 10, 2018) alleges violation
of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, as early as January 1, 2002, the
Defendants violated the antitrust laws by entering into a
continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of Automotive Exhaust Systems sold in the United
States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. As a result of
this unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other Class members paid
artificially inflated prices for Automotive Exhaust Systems and
have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property.

Tenneco Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes clean air and
ride performance products and systems for light vehicle, commercial
truck, off-highway, and other vehicle applications worldwide. The
company was formerly known as Tenneco Automotive Inc. and changed
its name to Tenneco Inc. in 2005. Tenneco Inc. was founded in 1987
and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU
          & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Carl E. Person, Esq.
          225 E. 36 th Street – Suite 3A
          New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
          Telephone: (212) 307- 4444
          E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Scott Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com


THOMASSON THOMASSON: Lolongo Files Civil Rights Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomasson, Thomasson,
Long & Guthrie, P.C. The case is styled as Rosalie S. Lolongo also
known as: GEDEON French Court Appointed Law-Guardian, and similarly
Situated Women & Children form the DRC and Other Civil French
Napoleonic Law Contries, State and Provinces, Helene Shaku Ahondju
Lolonga French Court protected senior citizen born Lokoto now known
as Lumumba, Lolonga Matrimonial Estate of Community of Acquisitions
& Educational Trust of its beneficiaries and Martin Mamuntima
Ndukisi in his quality as the Manager of the Undivided Marital
estate of Community of Acquisition and Educational Trust,
Plaintiffs v. Patrick V. Gedeon, Shari Long Esq. and Thomasson,
Thomasson, Long & Guthrie, P.C., Defendants, Case No.
1:2018-cv-02306 (S.D. Ind., July 27, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights.

Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Guthrie, P.C. is a Family law attorney
in Columbus, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


TRANS CONTINENTAL: Loiseau Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is facing a class
action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The
case is captioned Daphne Loiseau, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Continental Credit &
Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04262 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 27, 2018).

Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is a loan agency in
White Plains, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces Another Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Lauren K. Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports
that as Triangle Capital Corporation's deals inch closer toward a
vote, another shareholder has filed a lawsuit against the Raleigh
investment company in federal court. [GN]

TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Hammer Files Securities Class Action in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Hammer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02086 (D. Md., July 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff also wants to enjoin the vote on, among other things,
the Company's sale of its December 31, 2017 investment portfolio to
funds advised by Benefit Street Partners LLC pursuant to the Asset
Purchase Agreement dated as of April 3, 2018, by and between the
Company and BSP Asset Acquisition I, LLC; and the Company's entry
into a stock purchase and transaction agreement dated as of April
3, 2018, with Barings LLC, through which Barings will become the
investment adviser to the Company in exchange for a cash payment
from Barings of $85.0 million, or $1.78 per share, directly to the
Company’s stockholders.

The Plaintiff alleged that unless remedied, Triangle's public
stockholders will be forced to make a voting decision on the
Proposed Transactions without full disclosure of all material
information concerning the Proposed Transactions being provided to
them. The Plaintiff owns Triangle common stock.

The Defendant Triangle is a Maryland corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 530,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612.  Triangle invests capital in
established companies in the lower middle market to fund growth,
changes of control and other corporate events and offers a wide
variety of debt and equity investment structures including first
lien, unitranche, second lien, and mezzanine with equity
components.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290
      Fax: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com
              etripodi@zlk.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chief People Officer Resigns Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Rodriguez and Heather Somerville, writing for Reuters,
report that Uber Technologies Inc's Chief People Officer Liane
Hornsey resigned in an email to staff on July 10, following an
investigation into how she handled allegations of racial
discrimination at the ride-hailing firm.

The resignation comes after Reuters contacted Uber on July 9 about
the previously unreported investigation into accusations from
anonymous whistleblowers that Hornsey had systematically dismissed
internal complaints of racial discrimination.

Ms. Hornsey is head of Uber's human resources department and one of
the firm's top spokespeople on diversity and discrimination issues.
She had been in the role for about 18 months, as the company was
rocked by claims of widespread issues of gender discrimination and
sexual harassment.

The allegations raise questions about Chief Executive Dara
Khosrowshahi's efforts to change the toxic culture of the firm
after he took over in August last year from former CEO Travis
Kalanick following a series of scandals.

Ms. Khosrowshahi praised Ms. Hornsey in an email to employees,
which was seen by Reuters, as "incredibly talented, creative, and
hard-working." He gave no reason for her departure.

Ms. Hornsey acknowledged in a separate email to her team at Uber,
also seen by Reuters, that her exit "comes a little out of the blue
for some of you, but I have been thinking about this for a while."

She also gave no reason for her resignation and has not responded
to requests for comment about the investigation.

The allegations against her and Uber's human resources department
more broadly were made by an anonymous group that claims to be Uber
employees of color, members of the group told Reuters.

They alleged Ms. Hornsey had used discriminatory language and made
derogatory comments about Uber Global Head of Diversity and
Inclusion Bernard Coleman, and had denigrated and threatened former
Uber executive Bozoma Saint John, who left the company in June.

"This person ultimately was the reason behind (Saint John's)
departure from Uber," the anonymous employees said in an email,
referring to Ms. Hornsey.

Ms. Saint John joined Uber from Apple Inc in June, 2017 but left
only a year later to join Endeavor, the parent company of several
talent agencies. She declined to comment, telling Reuters by phone:
"I don't have anything to say about my experience there."

Coleman, who came to Uber in 2017 after serving as the chief
diversity and human resources officer of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, also declined to comment.

Some of the allegations were substantiated, investigators from law
firm Gibson Dunn told the employees in a May 15 email that was seen
by Reuters.

It is not clear which of the allegations were substantiated, but
the investigators shared their "thoughts regarding several options
to address concerns regarding Ms. Hornsey" with
Ms. Khosrowshahi, they wrote in the email.

The investigators added that they were commencing another
investigation after receiving a complaint from another anonymous
Uber employee regarding "allegations that appear to relate in some
ways."

UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS
The complaints against Ms. Hornsey come about a year after Uber was
embroiled in widespread allegations of gender discrimination and
sexual harassment, triggering an investigation by former U.S
Attorney General Eric Holder and ultimately Mr. Kalanick's
resignation.

Uber in March agreed to pay $10 million to settle a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against more than 400
women and minorities brought by three women engineers. One of the
women removed herself from the class-action and sued the company in
May alleging discrimination based on gender and race.

The employees behind the latest allegations said complaints filed
to Uber's anonymous tip line often were left unresolved or were
dismissed, especially if they dealt with issues of race.

They also accused the company of ignoring a board-approved
recommendation by Holder that its chief diversity officer report
directly to the CEO or COO.

Uber told Reuters in a statement that the latest complaints had
been properly investigated.

"We are confident that the investigation was conducted in an
unbiased, thorough and credible manner, and that the conclusions of
the investigation were addressed appropriately," it said. [GN]

UNITED CARD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Fabricant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Percy Anderson denies the Motion for Class
Certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Terry
Fabricant v. United Card Solutions LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-01429-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Anderson concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for violations of the
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applicable to
telephone calls placed to telephone numbers assigned to cellular
telephone services.  In the Motion, the Plaintiff, who operates a
sliding-door repair business, seeks to represent a class of those
who received calls made by or on behalf of the Defendant to
cellular telephone numbers.



UNITED STATES: Connecticut Court Denies Family Reunification
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned J.S.R., by and through
his next friends J.S.G. and Joshua Perry, and V.F.B., by and
through her next friends A.B.A. and Joshua Perry, Plaintiffs, v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, et al., Defendants, No.
3:18-cv-01106-VAB (D. Conn.).

J.S.R. and V.F.B. ("Plaintiffs"), two children, who were separated
from their parents after crossing the country's southern border,
filed a motion for preliminary injunction against numerous federal
government officials and entities, seeking an Order that would (1)
enjoin the Defendants from continuing to detain Plaintiffs J.S.R.
or V.F.B., maintaining their separation from their parents, or
delaying release to suitable sponsors; and (2) after parent and
child confer, order the Defendants to release J.S.R. and V.F.B. to
a suitable sponsor or to reunite with their respective parents, as
directed by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction on the grounds that
forcibly separating the children from their parents: (1) violates
the children's substantive and procedural Fifth Amendment due
process rights; (2) denies the children's equal access to the
asylum program and constitutes disability discrimination under the
Rehabilitation Act; (3) violates the Administrative Procedure Act;
(4) and deprives the children of equal protection under the laws.

The Plaintiffs argue that J.S.R. and V.F.B., as persons in the
United States, have been deprived of their substantive due process
rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Plaintiffs argue that they have a protected liberty interest in
being reunited with their parents. The Plaintiffs also argue that
the government lacks any legitimate, let alone compelling, interest
in the separation of these children from their families.

The Defendants object to the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' lawsuits,
which seek reunification by July 13, 2018, interfere with the
Government's ongoing effort to implement the relief ordered in Ms.
L., 2018 WL 3129486. The Defendants argue that there is substantial
overlap with Ms. L., and that duplicative litigation is disfavored
in the federal courts because of the risk of inconsistent
judgments, as well as the waste of the parties' and judicial
resources. The Defendants argue that they have already undertaken
extensive efforts towards compliance with the preliminary
injunction order.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

First, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on
the merits of their claim that J.S.R. and V.F.B. suffered a
constitutional violation. The Government has not challenged the
California Order, and the parties agree that a constitutional
violation occurred when the Government separated children from
their parents both on the basis of substantive due process, as the
separation deprived the children of their right to family
integrity, and procedural due process, as J.S.R. and V.F.B. were
given no notice and no fair opportunity for a hearing before being
separated from their parents.

The Court agrees that the Government violated J.S.R.'s and V.F.B.'s
constitutional rights by forcibly removing them from their parents
without due process of law. The Government failed to provide the
children with notice or a hearing, instead taking their parents,
while distracting the children.

The Court's conclusion is also supported by the California Order.
Although that case considered a class of parents, not children, it
held that the parents' constitutional rights were violated when
they were separated from their children, and that this
constitutional violation required reunification.

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed
on the merits of their constitutional claim.

Irreparable Injury

Dr. Martin offered evidence that J.S.R. struggles to sleep,
distrusts adults, and is depressed and tearful. Dr. Martin found
that J.S.R. is suffering from PTSD, and that he had an
extraordinarily high score on the childhood post-traumatic stress
symptom scale, as a result of the acute trauma of being separated
from his father, an adult with whom he has a loving, supportive
relationship.

Dr. Martin offered evidence that V.F.B. is tearful, avoidant, and
has a blunted and flat affect. She had a score consistent with PTSD
on the childhood post-traumatic stress symptom scale, and Dr.
Martin explained that she was so distressed that she had trouble
answering many of his questions. Even if this Court did not presume
irreparable harm, as it should, this evidence firmly establishes
it.

As a result, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs likely would
succeed on the merits of their motion for a preliminary injunction,
and that the Plaintiffs established that the Government violated
J.S.R.'s and V.F.B's constitutional rights to due process and
caused them irreparable harm.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted and relief
directed towards the effects of the constitutional violation
suffered by these minor children, namely trauma or more precisely,
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), shall be provided.  To the
extent that J.S.R. and V.F.B. seek immediate reunification with
their respective parents, the motion for a preliminary injunction
is denied.

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

J. S. R., by and through his next friend, Joshua Perry and J.S.G.,
Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Wishnie --
michael.wishnie@yale.ed -- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, Joanne
Lewis -- jlewis@connlegalservices.org -- Connecticut Legal
Services, Inc., Marisol Orihuela -- marisol.orihuela@ylsclinics.org
-- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services & Muneer I. Ahmad --
muneer.ahmad@ylsclinics.org -- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services.

V. F. B., by and through her next friend, Joshua Perry and A.B.A.,
Consol Plaintiff, represented byJoanne Lewis , Connecticut Legal
Services, Inc., Marisol Orihuela , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services,
pro hac vice, Michael J. Wishnie , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services &
Muneer I. Ahmad , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States,
Department of Homeland Security, ("DHS"), Kirstjen Nielsen,
Secretary of DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ("CPB"),
Kevin K. Mcaleenan, Commissioner of CBP, U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, ("ICE"), Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Director of ICE,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ("USCIS"), L. Francis
Cissna, Director of USCIS, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, ("HHS"), Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ("ORR") & Scott
Lloyd, Director of ORR, Defendants, represented by John B. Hughes ,
U.S. Attorney's Office & Michelle Lynn McConaghy , U.S. Attorney's
Office.

UNITED STATES: Osage County Joins PILT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Bill Lynch, writing for Bartlesville Radio, reports that the
Commissioners decided to join the class action lawsuit against the
federal government and Treasurer Sally Hulse discussed properties
acquired at the resale at the meeting of the Osage County Board of
County Commissioners.

As a continuation of the meeting the Osage County Commissioners
discussed and took action to approve and sign a class action opt-in
notice form to recover payment-in-lieu-of-taxes for fiscal years
2015, 2016, and 2017 in the case United States Court of federal
claims Kane County, Utah v. The United States. Commissioner Darren
McKinney was apprehensive on whether joining the class action
lawsuit would have ramifications. However, following discussion
with the District Attorney's office as well as Osage County
Treasurer Sally Hulse The Commissioners decided to join the class
action lawsuit.

Ms. Hulse discussed the 43 properties which the county acquired the
most recent resale, 6 of which have already received bids. Many of
the properties on the new County roll will need cleanup and
maintenance, and Ms. Hulse discussed with the Commissioners the
possibility of purchasing a lawn mower. Currently the county is not
equipped to provide simple lawn maintenance, and bids out for the
service. The purchase of a lawnmower would reduce the need to go
out for bids to maintain county owned properties and lots. The
Commissioners decided to go out for bids on a lawn mower for the
county, and will discuss the issue in the near future. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Billing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Blackford, writing for Lexington Herald Leader, reports that
a A group of Kentuckians has asked a Franklin County judge to grant
class action status to a lawsuit aimed at stopping the University
of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Revenue from garnishing
people's wages for unpaid medical bills.

Lexington attorney Doug Richards has already won a separate Fayette
Circuit Court judgment, which found that UK's practice of using the
revenue department to collect unpaid bills is unlawful. UK appealed
that ruling in March, so collections have continued.

In that case, now retired Fayette Circuit Judge James Ishmael cited
previous court rulings that concluded state universities are not
directly part of the executive branch of government because they
are overseen by independent governing boards.

In the meantime, Mr. Richards said, he's been contacted by hundreds
of people who feel they've been unfairly treated by UK HealthCare
and the state. If Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate grants
class-action status to the latest lawsuit, Mr. Richards said he
thinks the lawsuit could affect as many as 10,000 people.

"It's wrong," Mr. Richards said, pointing out that the University
of Louisville does not use the state as a collections agency. "I
wonder if anyone at UK has ever thought, not just, 'can we do this,
but should we do this?'"

Mr. Richards estimates the revenue department has collected about
$48 million since the practice started in 2006, according to the
lawsuit. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law expanding the
revenue department's collection powers, which were originally only
used to collect child support and judicial fees. The department now
collects overdue payments for 18 state agencies.

The lawsuit details the cases of several plaintiffs who sought
treatment at UK HealthCare.

Several of the plaintiffs were eligible for federal Medicaid
assistance for low-income people and should not have received
bills, according to the lawsuit. Instead, the lawsuit says, they
received a bill for services without any itemization, and after
that, discovered the bill was being subtracted from their wages,
with 25 percent tacked on by the revenue department as a collection
fee.

Mr. Richards said many of the people affected are low-income and
may have frequently changing addresses that UK does not bother to
verify.

"So a lot of people said, 'I never even knew that I owed anyone
money,'" Mr. Richards said.

The lawsuit highlights the case of plaintiff Amelia Long, who went
to a UK HealthCare facility in 2012, and visited a UK emergency
room in 2013. She had health insurance through Kentucky Passport
Health Care, a company that administers Kentucky Medicaid benefits
for low-income residents.

Ms. Long received a bill that did not itemize UK's charges, but she
assumed it would be covered by her insurance. In 2016, she was
informed that her wages were being garnished by the revenue
department, and that it had added a 25 percent collection fee. This
was the first time she was informed that she owed UK any money,
according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Long called the revenue department "and was told that it was a
waste of time to dispute the bill -- essentially that she could do
whatever she wanted, but that the agent had never seen anybody's
bill adjusted over any kind of dispute," the lawsuit said. Because
she was scared of losing her job as a vet tech, M
s. Long agreed to a payment plan.

"Plaintiff Long continued to make payments on her accounts until
early February 2017, when her pregnancy compelled her to stop
working temporarily and she had no income," the lawsuit says.
"Plaintiff Long delivered her first child on February 22, 2017. On
or about February 23, 2017 -- the very next day after her baby was
born -- the Department levied against the full balance of Plaintiff
Long's bank account, apparently because she had not made a payment
to the Department from her wages."

Mr. Richards estimated that the department had collected $5,000
from Long, distributing 80 percent to UK and keeping 20 percent for
itself.

The revenue department's 25 percent collection fee "amounts to the
exercise of absolute and arbitrary power over the property of the
Plaintiffs and class members, and constitutes a taking of their
property without due process," the lawsuit claims.

Using a state agency to garnish wages gives UK a financial
advantage over its competitors, which must use private collections
agencies. Many unpaid debts that are referred to collections
agencies eventually end up in district court.

"The University has established no procedure, written or otherwise,
that grants such rights to a protesting patient, nor did it
communicate to patients what rights the patient would have at any
such hearing," the lawsuit says, thereby violating the Kentucky
Constitution.

Further muddying the waters, Mr. Richards said, is the fact that UK
HealthCare's bills are issued through its billing arm, the Kentucky
Medical Services Foundation, which UK contends is an affiliated
entity that is not subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act.

The lawsuit asks for restitution of money already paid, further
damages and a jury trial.

UK spokesman Jay Blanton said UK officials would not comment on the
lawsuit, but "it always is our goal and our mission to provide the
greatest access to patient care for all Kentuckians regardless of
their ability to pay."

Department of Revenue spokeswoman Pamela Trautner said the agency
does not comment on pending litigation. [GN]

US BANK: Beats Royal Park Investments' RMBS Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that Royal Park Investments
SA/NV can't have class action status for its suit accusing U.S.
Bank NA of fumbling its duties as trustee to nearly two dozen
residential mortgage-backed securities trusts, a New York federal
judge ruled on July 10.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said in a two-page order denying
Royal Park's class certification bid that he wasn't persuaded the
requirements for class treatment had been met.

The case is captioned Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank
National Association, Case No. 1:14-cv-02590 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case
Judge is Victor Marrero.  The case was filed April 11, 2014. [GN]

USA PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Diaz" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEDIS DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. USA PROFESSIONAL LABOR, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-06580-NJB-KWR (E.D. La., July 9, 2018) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as a general
laborer from December 2017 to January 2018.

SA Professional Labor, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company
with address at 88 Normandy Dr., Kenner, LA 70065. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS MURRAY RECILE
          STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613-4528

               - and -

          Gloria T. Lastra, Esq.
          BRADEN GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES
          2100 Bruin Dr.
          Kenner, LA 70065
          Telephone: (504) 712-2003


VALLOUREC STAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Coller, writing for WKBN, reports that a Vallourec Star
worker from Struthers is suing the company for what he says are
unfair practices in violation of federal and state labor laws.  

According to court documents requesting class-action status,
Christoper Debozy says he is representing all manufacturing workers
at the Youngstown facility in his claims that he was not paid for
hours he and other workers put in getting ready for their shift and
wrapping up their work day.

The court filing says that all workers must prepare for their shift
by putting on protective gear mandated by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA), gather the necessary tools and
equipment to perform the job and walk to their workstation. Workers
then must take off the protective gear at the end of their shift as
required. Mr. Debozy said this process takes 30 minutes a day.

The lawsuit claims that workers were not paid for the time it took
to prepare for their shift or for the time after their shift to
take off their protective gear.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Debozy is asking for class-action
status so that all current and former employees can opt in the
lawsuit and be compensated.

Court documents estimate that at least 300 employees could be
impacted.  

Mr. Debozy is asking for the company to pay lost wages, interest
and attorney fees dating back to July 2015. [GN]

VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Lopez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CIRO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VENGROFF WILLIAMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-00340-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex., July 10, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Vengroff Williams, Inc. provides receivables management and
business process outsourcing services. The Company offers third
party recovery, insurance services, medical subrogation, revenue
cycle management, medical collections, invoice and statement
processing, payment monitoring, and legal solutions. Vengroff
Williams serves customers in the United States. [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


WAL-MART STORE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Cashiers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned NISHA BROWN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
09-cv-03339-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

In this case, a certified class of California cashiers led by
Plaintiffs Kathy Williamson and Nisha Brown sue their employer,
Defendant Wal-Mart Store, Inc., for failing to provide them with
seats while they work at checkout lanes.

Wal-Mart's motion for judgment on the pleadings seeks to terminate
the entire litigation on the ground that the Wage Order deprives
Wal-Mart of statutory and constitutional rights. On the statutory
front, Wal-Mart argues that the Wage Order is invalid because it
conflicts with the California Labor Code and the California
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

On the constitutional front, Wal-Mart contends that enforcement of
the Wage Order is unconstitutional because it violates the right to
petition the government for redress of grievances under the federal
and California Constitutions, the right to procedural due process
under the federal and California Constitutions, and the authority
of the Executive under the California Constitution.

Wal-Mart claims that the Wage Order contravenes both the California
Labor Code and the California APA. Neither argument is persuasive.

Wal-Mart first seeks to hold the Wage Order invalid based on the
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC)'s failure to comply with its
authorizing statute. Under California law, an administrative agency
may not exceed the scope of authority conferred on the agency by
the Legislature.

Wal-Mart says that the Wage Order must be declared invalid because
the IWC's defunded status prevents the agency from complying with
its continuing duty under the Labor Code and from entertaining
petitions to modify its regulations. The Court finds that Wal-Mart
cites no statutory authority or case law supporting its view.
Indeed, Wal-Mart's argument would have the effect of invalidating
not only the Wage Order, but the entirety of the wage orders issued
by the IWC. Such a result would contravene the California courts'
recognition that the IWC's wage orders remain part of California's
wage and hour scheme.  Although Wal-Mart suggests that an agency
should continually re-evaluate societal understanding of and
scientific developments in the area of employee welfare, the
Legislature has expressly set up the current system, wherein the
DIR does not have the authority to change the Wage Order.  

The Court will not override that legislative judgment, and the
Legislature remains free to change it.

California APA

Wal-Mart poses a separate, yet similar, conflict between the Wage
Order and the California APA. Under the California APA, any
interested person may petition a state agency requesting the
adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation unless the right to
petition for adoption of a regulation is restricted by statute to a
designated group or where the form of procedure for such a petition
is otherwise prescribed by statute.

Even assuming that these provisions of the California APA apply
here, the Court finds that the Wage Order is not invalid for many
of the same reasons stated in the previous section. Unsurprisingly,
Wal-Mart has failed to cite any authority finding that all of a
defunded agency's regulations are automatically invalidated even if
they were issued in compliance with the California APA. Fatally,
Wal-Mart makes no argument that the IWC failed to follow any
APA-mandated procedure at the time that it adopted the Wage Order.
Wal-Mart had the option to file a petition with the IWC from the
adoption of the Wage Order in 1976 to the IWC's defunding in 2004.


Under the current scheme established by the Legislature, Wal-Mart
has different options. Wal-Mart could ask the Legislature to make a
legislative change or to refund the IWC. Additionally, although DIR
cannot amend the Wage Order, DLSE may grant Wal-Mart an exemption
from enforcement, Wal-Mart attempts to override these legislative
judgments even though the statute that Wal-Mart relies on expressly
permits statutory proscription of the right to petition.  Like its
claim under the California Labor Code, Wal-Mart's claim under the
California APA fails.

Constitutional Arguments

Wal-Mart contends that enforcement of the Wage Order is
unconstitutional because it violates the right to petition the
government for redress of grievances under the federal and
California Constitutions, the right to procedural due process under
the federal and California Constitutions, and the authority of the
Executive under the California Constitution.

Right to Petition

Wal-Mart first challenges the Wage Order under the Petition Clauses
of the federal and California Constitutions. The First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government and the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment from abridging the right of
the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In this case, Wal-Mart contends that the continued enforcement of
the Wage Order violates its federal and state rights to petition
because Wal-Mart cannot seek recourse from the now-defunct IWC

The Court disagrees.

First, as Wal-Mart acknowledges, there is no constraint on its
ability to challenge compliance with the Wage Order in litigation.
Wal-Mart has shown no barrier to its access to the courts, where it
can file or defend against a lawsuit under the Wage Order. Both
activities have been held to be protected petitioning activity.

Second, Wal-Mart could seek relief from the California Legislature.
Specifically, Wal-Mart could ask the Legislature to modify the Wage
Order through legislation or to reinstate the IWC, as the
California Supreme Court recently corroborated.

Third, and finally, Wal-Mart has had the opportunity to pursue
relief before an executive agency.

Based on the various grievance-resolution alternatives that
Wal-Mart has available before all three branches of the government,
the Court concludes that Wal-Mart has not been deprived of its
federal or state constitutional rights to petition.

Procedural Due Process

Wal-Mart's penultimate contention that its federal and state
procedural due process rights have been violated is derivative of
its claims under the California Labor Code and California APA.

Wal-Mart states that to the extent that Wal-Mart has established a
violation of its right to petition under the California APA or the
Labor Code, as it has, Wal-Mart has likewise established a
violation of its due process rights under the United States and
California Constitutions.

Because the Court has already rejected Wal-Mart's statutory
arguments, the Court also rejects Wal-Mart's federal and state
procedural due process claims.

Executive Authority

Wal-Mart's final argument is that enforcement of the Wage Order
upsets the balance of power between the California Executive and
Legislative branches. The California Constitution vests the supreme
executive power of this State in the Governor.

It is true that the Governor is statutorily permitted to appoint,
with the consent of the Senate, the five members of the IWC.
Nevertheless, the California Constitution gives the Legislature the
authority to create the IWC and to confer any legislative,
executive, and judicial powers. More broadly, the Legislature has
the power to make decisions about appropriation of funds.  

In that regard, neither an executive administrative agency nor a
court has the power to require the Legislature to appropriate
money. The Legislature's decision to defund the IWC in 2004 appears
to fit squarely within these enumerated powers, and Wal-Mart has
not raised any reason to think otherwise.

The Court rejects Wal-Mart statutory and constitutional bases for
holding the Wage Order invalid and unenforceable. Accordingly, the
Court denies Wal-Mart's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyrjm3v from Leagle.com.

Nisha Brown & Kathy Williamson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situtated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
Aubrey Jones -- tony.jones@troutman.com -- Jones Law Firm, James F.
Clapp -- jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp Legal APC, Kevin J.
McInerney -- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones & Matthew
Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Wal-Mart Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Humphrey
Hu -- alex.hu@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP, Anthony David
Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL
Attorneys LLP, Gloria Franke Shaw -- gloria.shaw@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lisa Yumi
Mitchell -- lmitchell@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith &
Prophete LLP, Patricia Anne Kinaga --
patricia.kinaga@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Amber Jene
Sayle , GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Andrew George Klevorn --
Andrew.klevorn@kattenlaw.com -- Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP,
pro hac vice, Brian Lee Duffy -- duffyb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Chad J. Doellinger --
cdoellinger@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP,
pro hac vice, James Milton Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Katherine Shannon Paulson --
katherine.paulson@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, pro hac
vice & Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro
hac vice.

WASHINGTON: Home Health Aides File Class Action Over Union Dues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McMorris, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports that
the fallout from the Supreme Court's landmark Janus ruling
continued as Washington state workers filed suit to recover their
lost wages from forced unionism.

Several home health aides are suing Service Employees International
Union Local 775 and the state to recover money deducted from
Medicaid reimbursements designed to fund the care of disabled or
elderly people. The state government automatically sent more than 3
percent of the provider payments to the union, despite the fact
that workers never agreed to become members. The practice,
according to the suit, violates both the U.S. and state
constitutions.

"Plaintiffs and class members are not union members and never
consented for the union or the state to withdraw union dues or dues
equivalent fees from their wages, yet the state deducted such fees
from their pay," the suit says. "Defendants conspired to deprive
Plaintiffs and class members of their First Amendment rights by
deducting union fees from their wages without their clear, prior,
affirmative consent."

For years Washington state forced such providers, many of whom are
caring for relatives, to pay a portion of those reimbursements to
the union. The practice only stopped when the Supreme Court
declared a similar policy in Illinois unconstitutional. That 2014
ruling led to the Supreme Court's June decision declaring mandatory
payments to public sector unions, including SEIU, an
unconstitutional violation of free speech in Janus.

The caregivers are receiving pro bono representation from the
Freedom Foundation, a pro-free market think tank in the state.
Foundation labor expert Maxford Nelson said the policy was
exploitive and "wrong on every level."

"Any business that tried to charge customers without their
permission would have the state attorney general trying to shut
them down," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "We believe
extracting union dues from caregivers' Medicaid checks without
permission is not only unfair, but violates caregivers First
Amendment rights."

The home health providers are asking for "punitive damages against
defendants . . . because their conduct, described above, was and is
motivated by evil motive or intent, or involves reckless or callous
indifference to the federal and state rights of plaintiffs and
class members." They also are asking the judge to force the union
and state to pay for legal fees. The Washington aides are not the
first to demand that unions refund forced unions dues and fees.
Former government workers have filed class action suits in seven
states, including Washington, to repay past deductions.

Mr. Nelson said the Janus decision has settled the question of
forced fee payments and "made it clear that unions can't take money
out of public employees' pay without their affirmative consent." He
said the onus should be on the unions to win the support of public
sector workers or personal medical aides and that both groups are
motivated by political support, rather than care for the aides.

"We believe the same principle protects these caregivers against
being exploited by unions like SEIU 775 and politicians like Gov.
Inslee," Mr. Nelson said. "SEIU 775 wants to fill its own coffers
and Gov. Inslee wants union campaign contributions, so they assume
silence means consent and take caregivers' money until and unless
the caregiver objects."

Local 775 is an influential player in Washington. It has spent
nearly $9.5 million on political contributions since 2002 at the
state level, according to the National Institute on Money in
Politics. Local 775 gave Inslee $7,400 in his 2012 and 2014
gubernatorial campaigns, while the national union contributed
$10,000.

A spokesman for Gov. Inslee declined comment on the lawsuit, but
reiterated the governor's opposition to Janus. Inslee issued a
statement after the Janus decision was released, criticizing it as
a "ruling designed to undermine public sector unions."

"All workers benefit from strong unions and their bargaining
activities. Washington has been and will remain a state that
believes in and supports the rights of all workers to organize, in
both the public and private sector," he said. "We are confident
organized labor will come through this fight stronger than
before."

Local 775 did not return request for comment. [GN]

WHITESTONE MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME VICTORIANO SIGUENZA RODRIGUEZ and REYNALDO MUNOZ FLORES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
WHITESTONE MARBLE & GRANITE CORP. (D/B/A WHITESTONE MARBLE &
GRANITE), CRISTOBAL MORENO, and OSVALDO MORENO, Case No.
1:18-cv-04223 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation.

Whitestone Marble & Granite Corp. is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York.
The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 25 Montauk Av., in Brooklyn, New York, under the name
"Whitestone Marble & Granite."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com



WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Doesn't Pay OT to Supervisors, Contreras Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06036-PSG-SS
(C.D. Cal., July 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Contreras was employed by the Defendants as supervisor.

Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. offers aviation and aircraft ground
support services such as cargo handling, technical contracting, and
ramp and passenger services primarily to passenger airlines,
air-cargo carriers, and airports. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.
was formerly known as AMR Services Corporation and changed its name
to Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. in March, 1999. The company was
incorporated in 1983 and is based in Irving, Texas. Worldwide
Flight Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of WFS Global SAS.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


YOUFIT HEALTH: Sued by Halperin Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYDNEY HALPERIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YOUFIT HEALTH CLUBS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23016-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018),
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted text messages, which violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, to promote memberships to its
fitness clubs.

Youfit is a Florida limited liability company whose principal
office is located in Deerfield Beach, Florida.  Youfit is one of
the largest fitness clubs in the U.S. operating over 100 locations
in 14 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


ZICAM LLC: Nov. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC,
as Settlement Administrator, on behalf of Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Melgar v. Zicam LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGAL NOTICE
WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT?

A Proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
(the "Action") that may affect your rights. The Plaintiff claims
that Zicam LLC and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. ("Zicam"), made false
and misleading statements about the effectiveness of certain Zicam
products in violation of state and federal law. Zicam denies this
claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiff or Zicam.
Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the
expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit.

AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS?

The class is defined as all residents of the United States of
America who purchased any of the following Zicam products in the
United States from February 15, 2011 through June 5, 2018:
RapidMelts Original, RapidMelts Ultra, Oral Mist, Ultra Crystals,
Liqui-Lozenges, Lozenges Ultra, Soft Chews, Medicated Fruit Drops,
and Chewables (the "Products").

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement
under which Zicam will pay $16 million in cash. In addition to
paying class member claims, the $16 million settlement fund will be
used to pay notice and administration costs, Plaintiff's attorneys'
fees, Plaintiff's costs and expenses, and an incentive award to the
Class Representative.
To recover a cash payment as part of this Settlement you must
submit a Claim Form, available at http://www.ZicamClassAction.com,
for the Products you purchased during the class period. Claims
based on purchases of up to five units of the Products will be paid
without requiring proof of purchase. Claims based on purchases of
six or more of the Products will require proof of purchase. Your
payment will be adjusted based on the number of claims submitted.
This adjustment may increase or decrease your recovery.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS?

You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you
must decide this now. If you stay, you will be legally bound by all
orders and judgments of the Court, and you won't be able to sue, or
continue to sue, Zicam as part of any other lawsuit involving the
same claims that are in this lawsuit. This is true even if you do
nothing.

1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive
a cash recovery must submit claims by October 3, 2018. You can get
a Claim Form on the Internet at http://www.ZicamClassAction.com.
Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, and submit it
online on or before October 3, 2018. Alternatively, you may also
submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Zicam
Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59479,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479. It must be postmarked no later than
October 3, 2018. If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by
the Settlement but will not receive any cash.

2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe any part of the
Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may file a written objection with
the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of California and
send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and
Zicam:

          Plaintiff's Counsel
          L. Timothy Fisher
          Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd, Ste 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596

          Zicam's Counsel
          Robyn E. Bladow
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          333 South Hope St
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

Objections to the Settlement will be considered by the Court, but
only if such objections are filed in writing with the Court and
sent to Plaintiffs' and Zicam's counsel by October 3. 2018.

3. You Can "Opt Out" of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself
from the Class -- which is sometimes called "opting-out" of the
Class -- you won't get any cash recovery from the Proposed
Settlement. To exclude yourself, mail notice including your name,
current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be
excluded from Melgar v. Zicam LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC,
to Zicam Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box
59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479. Such notice must be postmarked
no later than October 3, 2018.

THE FAIRNESS HEARING

On November 15, 2018, at 2:00 pm, the Court will hold a hearing in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval;
and (2) whether the application for Plaintiff's attorneys' fees of
up to one-third of the total $16 million settlement fund, plus
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted.
Objections to the Settlement will be considered by the Court, but
only if such objections are filed as explained above. You may hire
your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however,
you will be responsible for paying that lawyer.

HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents
about this lawsuit and your rights, visit the website at
http://www.ZicamClassAction.com.You may also contact the
Settlement Administrator by email at info(at)rg2claims.com, or by
writing to: Zicam Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration,
P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479.

By order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District. [GN]

[*] Class Action Securities Fraud Filings At Near Record Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Adviser reports that federal class action securities fraud
filings continued at near record levels in the first half of this
year, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research,
"Securities Class Action Filings: 2018 Midyear Assessment." Since
midyear 2016, plaintiffs have filed more than 750 federal
securities class actions, the most prolific 24-month period since
enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

After a sharp decline in the second half of 2017, core filings
increased 28%. Nine mega disclosure dollar loss (DDL) filings
(those with at least $5 billion) and 11 mega maximum dollar loss
(MDL) filings (at least $10 billion) lifted market capitalization
losses to levels not seen since 2002.

In the first half of this year, plaintiffs filed 204 new federal
class action securities fraud cases, twice the 1997-2017 semiannual
historical average. Core filings, those excluding mergers and
acquisitions (M&A) claims, increased 28% in the first half of 2018.
M&A claims decreased nearly 9%.

DDL was $157 billion, 162% higher than the historical average. MDL
was $643 billion, more than double the historical average.

In the U.S., 4.6% of exchange-listed companies were the subject of
core filings in the first half of the year. Core filings against
S&P 500 firms in the first half of the year occurred at an
annualized rate of 9.6%, the highest since 2002.[GN]

[*] Five-Partner Team Joins Akin Gump's Class Actions Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akin Gump disclosed that a five-partner national class action
litigation team: Seamus C. Duffy, Michael W. McTigue Jr., Meredith
C. Slawe, Kathryn E. Deal and Michael J. Stortz have joined Akin
Gump from Drinker Biddle & Reath, where they practiced together for
more than a decade. Mr. Stortz will be resident in the firm's San
Francisco office, while the remaining four will reside in its
Philadelphia office.

At Akin Gump, this experienced group of litigators will expand the
firm's national class actions and complex commercial litigation
capabilities in key areas, including privacy, advertising and
marketing, consumer protection and life sciences; bolster its
leadership in the retail litigation space; and strengthen the
firm's presence in Philadelphia and San Francisco.

"This is a terrific group of lawyers whose outstanding work will
complement what we are already doing so well across the United
States," said Akin Gump chairperson Kim Koopersmith. "Their arrival
further underscores the true nationwide scope of our class action
work, and I am very excited to have them here."

This powerhouse team has a national practice focused on consumer
class actions and complex commercial litigation and related
compliance counseling. They represent leading companies in the
communications, retail, energy, technology, insurance, and
pharmaceutical and life sciences industries in their most
challenging and high-exposure cases, and are at the forefront of
anticipating the next waves of consumer class action litigation and
proactively advising clients on how to mitigate risk. This group
has successfully led efforts among the defense bar to combat
abusive class action litigation brought by professional
plaintiffs.

"This group is an ideal fit for our team," stated Stephen M.
Baldini, head of Akin Gump's firmwide litigation practice. "They
bring a significant track record handling crucial, high-profile
matters for global companies, as well as experience in key
industries where we have historically been strong. I am thrilled to
welcome the five of them to Akin Gump."

Added Seamus Duffy, "Akin Gump offers our team an exceptionally
high-quality and sophisticated platform built over time and run by
great people. The firm's strengths in a number of key areas,
including regulatory issues involving the FCC and FTC, intellectual
property, labor and employment, data protection and privacy, and
marketing and advertising will be extremely beneficial for our
clients. We are very happy to be here and look forward to many
successful years ahead."

Messrs. Duffy and McTigue have served in senior leadership roles at
Drinker Biddle: Mr. Duffy as one of the managing partners of the
firm and chair of the class actions team, and Mr. McTigue as chair
of the firm's litigation group, one of the executive partners and a
member of the senior management team. In addition, Ms. Slawe served
as chair of the firm's retail industry group and vice chair of the
class actions team, Ms. Deal served as chair of the summer
associate committee, and Mr. Stortz served as vice chair of the
class actions team. This group also launched and led a California
retail class actions group and a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) team, which they intend to continue at Akin Gump.

                     About Seamus C. Duffy

Mr. Duffy has more than 30 years of experience representing leading
businesses in their most significant class action and complex
litigation matters and is a trusted advisor to Fortune 100
companies in the communications and energy industries.  A
sought-after speaker and writer on class action defense, he is a
nationally recognized thought leader on privacy law and litigation.
Mr. Duffy has been recognized by Chambers USAand as a "Litigation
Star" by Benchmark Litigation.

Mr. Duffy received his J.D., summa cum laude, from Villanova
University School of Law and his B.A. from Villanova University.

                  About Michael W. McTigue Jr.

Mr. McTigue is trusted by global companies across a broad range of
industries to be lead counsel in their most sophisticated and
important disputes. He has nearly 25 years of experience
representing companies in class actions, business disputes,
intellectual property litigation and domestic and international
arbitration proceedings, and also serves as national coordinating
litigation counsel for a leading global life sciences company. Mr.
McTigue has been recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a
"Litigation Star" and by BTI, which noted that in-house corporate
counsel praised him for "unsurpassed excellence in client
service."

Mr. McTigue received his J.D., cum laude, from Boston University
School of Law and his B.A., cum laude, from the University of
Pennsylvania.

                   About Meredith C. Slawe

Ms. Slawe defends companies in class actions and commercial
litigation matters in courts and arbitration proceedings across the
country. She has earned a reputation as an emerging leader in the
national class action bar and as an advocate for, and trusted
advisor to, the retail industry.  Ms. Slawe has been recognized as
a "Rising Star" by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, as a
"Top Woman in the Law" by The American Lawyer, as a "Lawyer on the
Fast Track" by TheLegal Intelligencer, and as one of the "40 Under
40" professionals by Philadelphia Business Journal. She was also
named to the "Under 40 Hot List" by Benchmark Litigation for 2017
and 2018.

Ms. Slawe received her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law
School and her A.B. from Dartmouth College.  She earned a
Certificate from Harvard Business School's Executive Education
Program for Senior Leaders in Retail.

                     About Kathryn E. Deal

Ms. Deal focuses her practice on defending companies at complex
civil trials and in class action litigation. She defends leading
businesses in the retail, energy and pharmaceutical industries, and
manages concurrent class, mass and individual proceedings in a
national counsel role. Ms. Deal's class action experience includes
defending claims under consumer protection statutes, privacy laws,
anti-discrimination legislation and federal and state RICO
statutes. She is also a first chair trial lawyer with an
outstanding record of success. Ms. Deal has been recognized as a
"Lawyer on the Fast Track" by the Legal Intelligencer and as a
"Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation.

Ms. Deal received her J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University
Law Center and her B.A., magna cum laude, from Cornell University.

                    About Michael J. Stortz

Mr. Stortz has 30 years of experience representing companies
against claims of unfair competition, false advertising, consumer
fraud, breach of warranty and product defect, as well as claims
arising under the TCPA and related federal and state statutes. He
also advises companies as to compliance with these statutes. In
addition to his extensive work defending class actions, Mr. Stortz
also represents clients in the technology, pharmaceutical and
consumer product industries in a wide range of commercial disputes,
including antitrust and intellectual property matters.

Mr. Stortz received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School
and his B.A, summa cum laude, from Dartmouth College.

             About Akin Gump's Litigation Practice

Akin Gump's commercial litigation representations include
nationwide class actions, parallel civil and administrative
proceedings, and multidistrict and multistate litigation. The
firm's lawyers have the capabilities, experience and skills to
successfully guide clients through nationwide disputes, while, at
the same time, understanding the unique aspects of local court
systems. Many on the Akin Gump team have served with the Department
of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal
Trade Commission and other federal agencies.

Founded in 1945, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is a leading
international law firm with more than 900 lawyers in offices
throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
[GN]

[*] IADC Calls for Class Action Reform in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------
Amanda Jerome, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports the
International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has thrown its
hat into the ring for class action reform in Ontario after the Law
Commission of Ontario (LCO) released a call for consultation in its
review of the Class Proceedings Act.

The LCO's review, which was launched in October 2017, is the first
independent, evidence-based evaluation of the Act since it was
enacted in 1993. When the law commission's call for consultation
went out in March 2018, the IADC sent in a list of recommendations
in support of reform.

"We're committed to positive reform of the civil justice system,"
said Gordon McKee -- gordon.mckee@blakes.com -- an IADC board
member and a partner at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto.

Mr. McKee explained that the IADC identified the "Class Actions:
Objectives, Experiences and Reforms" project as an opportunity to
"level the playing field" as well as modifications that would "more
fairly achieve the objectives of class action legislation."

The IADC created a task force to consider the issues and McKee was
named as chair of the Canadian class action section. According to
Mr. McKee, the task force included lawyers with experience
defending businesses, not only in Ontario and Canada, but also
Australia and the U.S.

The draft recommendations were thoroughly discussed in meetings and
gained support from: the Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Defense
Research Institute, the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel,
the Canadian Defence Lawyers and the Product Liability Advisory
Council.

The IADC's recommendations include: adding a merits analysis prior
to or at certification, and giving the court more ability to
critically review evidence, to weed out class actions with little
or no merit, and to narrow overly broad class actions at an early
stage; requiring the court to consider co-ordinated case management
and discovery as an alternative to a class action where there are a
small number of cases, to allow more timely and proportionate
resolution of the claims of the putative class members; allowing
plaintiffs and defendants equal opportunities to appeal
certification decisions; and discouraging wasted resources and
costs caused by material changes to the class
claims/issues/definition on appeal.

As well as, codifying transparency and other requirements for
third-party litigation funding to prevent unfairness to the parties
or the class members and to remove incentives to fund claims with
little or no merit; and adopting provisions to address overlapping
class proceedings in multiple provinces, including requiring a
certification judge to consider whether he or she should defer to
an overlapping class action in another jurisdiction.

McKee noted that the recommendations regarding the merits analysis
and the appeal process are of particular importance. He said that
reforming the appeal process is important in order to get
defendants the same rights of appeal as plaintiffs, but also to
discourage plaintiffs from "using the appeal process to recast
their cost definitions and common issues in order to get a case
certified where they took a more unfocused or broad approach on the
original motion." McKee explained that this practice results in
excessive costs for all parties and wastes resources.

The merits analysis, he added, was recommended by the Law Reform
Commission in 1982, but wasn't adopted when class actions were
brought into force. Instead a 'loser pays costs' rule has been the
norm.

"Both of these, whether it's the merits assessment or 'loser pays
cost' rule, was intended to discourage frivolous class actions
because there are significant potential downsides to class actions.
When the legislature later looked at it in the secondary market
misrepresentation context they added the merits assessment in
addition to the 'loser pays costs rule,'" he explained.

"The merits analysis, along with a recommendation we made on more
power in the court to weigh the evidence, would help to ensure
access to justice and access to just outcomes based on assessment
of the merits," McKee added, noting that class actions potentially
impose pressures from unproven allegations that can impact a
company's reputation, business and share value.

Peter Pliszka -- ppliszka@fasken.com -- a partner with Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto and a member of the IADC's
Canadian Class Actions Task Force, said in a statement that the
IADC's corporate defence perception is that "class action
procedures in Ontario currently are unbalanced and unduly tilted in
favour of plaintiffs, and a more level procedural playing field
between plaintiffs and defendants is required to achieve fairness
and judicial economy."

"We want to help ensure access to just outcomes that are not driven
by matters extraneous to the merits of a case," he added.

The IADC has been contacted by LCO researchers about its
recommendations and McKee said a draft report from the LCO should
be available for comment this fall.

"We will obviously be engaged in commenting after we see that and
then a final report either late in the year or early next year," he
added. The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has
thrown its hat into the ring for class action reform in Ontario
after the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) released a call for
consultation in its review of the Class Proceedings Act.

The LCO's review, which was launched in October 2017, is the first
independent, evidence-based evaluation of the Act since it was
enacted in 1993. When the law commission's call for consultation
went out in March 2018, the IADC sent in a list of recommendations
in support of reform. [GN]

[*] Kavanaugh' Class Action Record Few, But Rulings Pro-Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. Supreme
Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has a limited record on class actions
and mass torts, but many of his rulings favor businesses, lawyers
say, raising the likelihood that he would favor the defense in such
cases.

As a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,
Kavanaugh has had few dealings with class actions or mass torts.
His rulings have focused largely on regulatory matters. But he's
sided mostly with parties fighting regulatory action and, in some
circumstances, provided a glimpse of how he would rule in class
actions.

"He would likely favor a restrictive view of class actions," said
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law.  "His opinions in the regulatory area tend to favor the
regulated interests, which are frequent defendants in class action
matters. Thus, it is possible to extrapolate from that area to
class actions."

Thomas Dupree -- tdupree@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher in Washington, D.C., predicted Kavanaugh would interpret
the federal rule governing class actions "as written."

"From this perspective, the law cannot be stretched to facilitate
class actions, particularly when doing so may violate the rights of
defendants and in some cases the rights of class members as well,"
he said.

Kavanaugh's strongest view on class actions comes in a case called
Cohen v. United States, in which 10 taxpayers challenged the
Internal Revenue Service's refund procedure involving taxes on
phone calls. In a 2011 ruling, the majority allowed the case to go
forward, but Kavanaugh dissented with a strong critique of the
plaintiffs.

"Plaintiffs' ultimate objectives are class certification and a
court order that the U.S. government pay billions of dollars in
additional refunds to millions of as-yet-unnamed individuals who
never sought refunds from the IRS or filed tax refund suits," he
wrote. "And class certification is a necessary prerequisite to the
class-wide jackpot plaintiffs are seeking here."

Kavanaugh ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs failed to go
through alternative remedies before suing. But his thoughts about
the plaintiffs could portend how he would rule in class actions.

"He basically goes on a minor diatribe against class actions," said
Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. "He just
put it in there for color. And why would you do that unless you
have some hostility?"

Kavanaugh has dismissed some class actions. In a class action
brought on behalf of lactose-intolerant plaintiffs, for example, he
tossed failure-to-warn claims against milk producers, concluding "a
bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the
courthouse." And in a securities class action, he found an
investment fund that lost money on mortgage-backed securities had
not made material misrepresentations in its public offering.

"Some of his opinions, in this area, however reflect a view that
plaintiffs are better off pursuing individual challenges or taking
advantage of alternative procedures, instead of proceeding with a
system-wide challenge to government misconduct," said Adam
Zimmerman, a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. "These
decisions may have some relevance to a burgeoning area of class
action jurisprudence, where some judges have declined to certify
class actions because they believe class action is not 'superior'
to other kinds of more individualized alternative dispute
resolution."

Kavanaugh has a politically conservative resume. Before becoming a
judge, he was associate counsel in the Office of Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr during the investigation of President Bill
Clinton, a defense lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis and assistant to
President George W. Bush, who appointed him to the D.C. Circuit.

Advocacy groups immediately mentioned Kavanaugh's favoritism toward
business.

A joint statement from the American Association for Justice's
current president, Kathleen Nastri, and incoming president, Elise
Sanguinetti, said: "Judge Kavanaugh has time and again sided with
corporations, even when it meant risking the safety of families on
our nation's roadways or denying workers their right to band
together to hold employers accountable in court for unfair labor
practices. We urge the Senate to make workers, investors,
consumers, and families a priority when they debate Judge
Kavanaugh's nomination."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president of media and external
communications Blair Holmes said his group looks "forward to
reviewing his record on legal issues important to the business
community."

One of those is a 2007 ruling in a tort case called John Doe v.
Exxon Mobil. Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion written by
Ronald Reagan appointee David Sentelle that refused to grant
dismissal of a case brought by 11 Indonesian villagers under the
Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act and other
common-law torts, like murder and sexual assault. Exxon had hired
Indonesian security officials to guard a natural gas facility.

Exxon argued for dismissal due to a "non-justiciable political
question," citing letters from the U.S. State Department that
cautioned the lawsuit could negatively affect U.S. relations with
the Indonesian government. Sentelle agreed but allowed the
common-law tort claims to go forward. Kavanaugh found that the
panel should dismiss the entire case.

"That's a nice case where Republicans were divided, and, dare I
say, conservative Republicans, and Kavanaugh took the more
conservative view," Fitzpatrick said.

But Kavanaugh has primarily ruled on administrative appeals and
regulatory matters.

In a 2014 opinion, Kavanaugh dissented in favor of SeaWorld in a
case challenging a citation the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration leveled after an orca whale killed one of its
trainers in Florida.

Kavanaugh called it a "new regulatory arena" for the U.S.
Department of Labor, which doesn't oversee dangerous sports like
football or NASCAR racing.

"Why isn't close contact between trainers and whales as intrinsic
to SeaWorld's aquatic entertainment enterprise as tackling is to
football or speeding is to auto racing?" he asked. "The department
offers no answer at all."

He ruled against the Federal Communications Commission in a case
addressing whether an agency rule requiring opt-out notices on
solicited faxes was lawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. "It is the Judiciary's job to respect the line drawn by
Congress, not redraw it as we might think best," he wrote in a 2017
decision in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC.

On 2016, Kavanaugh found in PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional because
it focused power on a single director rather than multiple members
of the agency (an en banc panel overturned that decision earlier
this year).

"What it demonstrates is that he's somebody who's very concerned
about concentrating too much power in an administrative agency,
like the CFPB," said Alan Kaplinsky, co-practice leader of Ballard
Spahr's consumer financial services group. "He's going to take a
closer look at federal government agency action than maybe some
other judges might, and not provide as much leeway for agencies as
they might otherwise get from a different judge. He's going to
scrutinize their activities more closely."

But does his CFPB ruling give any indication of how Kavanaugh would
rule on consumer class actions?

"No," Kaplinsky said. "I don't think it provides any peek into how
judge Kavanaugh would view consumer class actions." [GN]

[*] Pioneering Judges Beginning to Track Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that in a nascent trend
that could impact a range of class actions in the employment,
securities, consumer protection and product liability spheres, some
diligent judges are beginning to track settlements after granting
final approval -- adding a so-called third phase of review to
ensure class members get the relief they are due.

One recent example is U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria's work
overseeing Wells Fargo's $142 million settlement with an estimated
3.5 million customers who were charged fees for accounts they never
authorized. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***