CAR_Public/180807.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 157

                            Headlines

1189 WEBSTER: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
861 N LA CIENEGA: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Byson Suit Says
ABBVIE INC: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Suit
ABBVIE INC: Walleye Trading Sues Over Share Price Drop
ACADIA PHARMA: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

ACADIA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ADMIRAL THEATRE: Wisniewska Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Jeb Iverson Sues over Robocalls
ALABAMA GOODWILL: Store Personnel Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN HOME: Schlamp Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

AMERICAN INSURANCE: Spinler Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
AMERIGROUP CORP: Aug. 27 Hearing in R. Pichardo's Suit
APOTEX CORP: Nasal Spray Contains Glass Particles, Thompson Says
ATLAS ROOFING: Curatolo Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
BERGEN SHIPPERS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Settlement Pending in "Mishall" Suit
BOCAS HOUSE: Ricon Hits Tip Pool, Seeks Unpaid Wages
BRIUS LLC: Violates Skilled Nursing Industry Laws, Barrett Says
BRIUS LLC: Violates Skilled Nursing Industry Laws, Milka Says
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Violates Skilled Nursing Laws, Richardson Says

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Rejuso Suit
BROOKSTONE CAPITAL: Horvath et al. Sue over Investment Program
BUSHFIRE GRILL: Pacheco Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
C.E. ENTERPRISES: Tarafdar Seeks Itemized Wage Statements
CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Sold Ineffective Bug Repellant, Suit Says

CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Orkambi Drug
CISCON SERVICES: Scheriger Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
COMMERCIAL AV: Rael Seeks Overtime Pay for 1099 Installers
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Torres Says
COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Hits Vending Machine Credit Card Charges

CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Sues over Telemarketing Calls
COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Violation of DPPA
COPESAN SERVICES: Nourollah Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Intrudes on Inmates' Privacy, Suit Says
CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Prelim. Okay of Ramos Suit Settlement

CROWN ASSET: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Mariscal Says
CULVER NARROWS: Limbrick Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
DOMINION ENERGY: To Appeal Remand of Firemen's Retirement Suit
DREISBACH ENTERPRISES: Denied Breaks, Wage Statements, "Gray" Says
ECHELON CORP: Rosenblatt Seeks to Halt Sale to Adesto Tech

EQUITY PRIME: Rossero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
EVANS HOTELS: J. Rutherford Can File SAC in ADA Suit
EVENTBLOCKS INC: McCarter Class Suit Seeks Damages
EXCITE IT: Mack Class Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Ferguson Asks to Send Notice to Class Members

EXO: Faces Class-Action Over Late, Cancelled Train Service
FAMOUS BOURBON: Ramos Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Alexander Kachmar Sues over Share Price Drop
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Smith Suit over ATM Withdrawals Moved to Ohio

FISERV INC: Francis Woodrow Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
FLEETMATICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ala. Over EDL Bill
FLOUR CORP: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in WARN Suit
FORD MOTORS: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Explorer Exhaust Suit
FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Sharkey Suit

FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Michael Kent Balks at Roche Merger Deal
FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Wang Balks at Merger Deal with Roche
GEORGE XENAKIS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
GLENCORE PLC: Gary Robison Sues over Misleading Financial Info
GLOBAL GLIMPSE: Faces Kelso Suit Alleging False Imprisonment

HENKEL CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Macaspac Suit
HUGHES NETWORK: Puckett Sues for Illegal Use of Credit Reports
HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Walker Suit 18-cv-01022 over Robocalls
HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Walker Suit 18-cv-01024 over Robocalls
ILLINOIS: Goldberg Appeals Ruling in "Kolton" to 7th Cir.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Alatortev Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
JOHNNY ROCKETS: Harris Sues over Workplace Harassment
JUNIPER PHARMA: Seedman Seeks to Block Sale to Catalent
KANSAS: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Fish, et al. v. Kobach
KT HEALTH: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Vuckovic Suit to 1st Cir.

LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Sued by Turner for Not Paying Overtime Wages
LEONARD-O'NEILL INSURANCE: Cowan Alleges Workplace Discrimination
LYFT FLORIDA: Franco Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LYONS DOUGHTY: Walker Disputes Collection Letter
MATTRESS FIRM: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Anderson Says

MDL 2842: David Samuel's Suit v. CBOE et al. Consolidated
MIDWEST RECOVERY: Michell Franklin Sues over Background Checks
MISSISSIPPI: Harkins Appeals Ruling in Stallworth Suit
MISSOURI: Foster Kids Suing for Overmedication Win Class Status
MONSANTO COMPANY: Don Jons Sues over Cotton, Soybean Xtend Seeds

MRS BPO: Jermany Sues over Debt Collections Practices
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties in "Franchi" Suit Enters Into MOU
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: T. Toland's TCPA Suit Remains in Dist. Court
OCWEN LOAN: Andrade Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island
PACKERS SANITATION: Triana Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Still Defends Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit
PDR NETWORK: Files Petitions to Sup. Ct. in Carlton & Harris Suit
PETERSON'S HARLEY: Thomas Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Suit Underway in California
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Bautista Sues Over Wage Stubs' Missing Info

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Approval of Class Settlement Partly Reversed
QUICKEN LOANS: Court Allows E. Mattson to Amend TCPA Complaint
RAZZLE DAZZLE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Romero Suit
REALPAGE INC: Accused by Colombo of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Court Says Guerrini & Yzeiraj Suits Related

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Parties to Wisconsin Securities Suit in Talks
ROSS & ASSOCIATES: Seeger Sues over Debt Collection Practices
S.A. GEAR: Court Won't Certify Class of Timing Chain Buyers
SCANA CORP: Dominion Energy Appeals Ruling in Warren Police Suit
SERVICEMASTER CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says

SHARP HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Espinoza Says
SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
SMG MANAGEMENT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Simon Suit Says

SPOTIFY USA: Watson Music Appeals Orders in "Ferrick" to 2nd Cir.
STAPLES INC: Thomas Edgar Sues over Minimum & OT Pay, Meal Breaks
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Amster Says
STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Dismiss MAO-MSO Recovery's SAC
STATE FARM: Use of Term "MMI" Not Consistent with WAC Terms

SUEBOB LIQUORS: Mejia Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
TAHOE RESOURCES: Court Grants K. Nguyen's Lead Plaintiff Bid
TAL EDUCATION: "Lea" Class Action Pending in New York
THD AT-HOME: Casey Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
TOUCHSTONE GOLF: Chase Clark Sues over Ladies' Days Promotions

UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Fitzgerald Moves to Certify Four TCPA Classes
VAN RU CREDIT: Wood Sues over Debt Collection Practices
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Merit Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Class Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger-Related Suit Still Ongoing
WARRANTECH CORP: Jett Sues Over Deceptive Marketing/Sale of ESPs

WELLS FARGO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Crooks FCRA Suit
WELLS FARGO: Cochran Appeals Ruling in Jabbari Suit to 9th Cir.
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Consolidates Wage & Hour Suits
WILLIAM J. URBAN: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
WIRELESS VISION: Carrington Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.


                            *********

1189 WEBSTER: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RODRIGUEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1189 WEBSTER CAR WASH, CORP., MOE'S
MAGIC WASH LLC, ISMAEL POPOTER, JENNELYN POPOTER and MOHAMMED
NAZZAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06238 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2018), seeks to recover full payment of all unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the applicable
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware of the
requirement to pay Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount
equal to one and one-half times their respective regular rates of
pay for all hours worked each workweek above 40, yet the Defendants
purposefully chose not to do so. Thus, Plaintiff and all FLSA
Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants' pervasive practice of
willfully refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation, in
violation of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583 7400
          E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


861 N LA CIENEGA: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Byson Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE BYSON, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. 861 N. LA CIENEGA ASSOCIATES,
LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC712861 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 5, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants failed to properly pay the Plaintiff
and the putative class members for all time worked.

La Cienega Associates is a Delaware corporation authorized to
conduct business, and is actually conducting business, in Los
Angeles County, California.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

La Cienega Associates operates a bar and restaurant named Barton
G - The Restaurant, which serves food and alcohol in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Calvin A. Marshall, Esq.
          THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
          17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A-380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          Facsimile: (310) 454-5970
          E-mail: mark@ozzellolaw.com
                  cmarshall@ozzellolaw.com


ABBVIE INC: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Lenkner LLC disclosed that a class action has been commenced
by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of AbbVie Inc.
("AbbVie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ABBV) securities on May 30, 2018
(the "Class Period").  The action was filed in the Northern
District of Illinois and is captioned Walleye Trading LLC v. AbbVie
Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05114.

The complaint charges that AbbVie and one of its officers violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements, in both press releases and filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, regarding the results of the
Company's $7.5 billion modified Dutch auction tender offer that
expired on May 29, 2018 (the "Tender Offer"). Specifically, the
complaint alleges that before the opening of trading on May 30,
2018, the Company announced that it expected to acquire 71.4
million of its shares tendered at or below $105 per share. As a
result of that news, the price of AbbVie securities significantly
increased. However, after the close of trading on May 30, 2018, the
Company surprised the market by releasing materially different
results for the Tender Offer due to certain omissions, announcing
that the Company expected to acquire only those shares tendered at
or below $103 per share. The price of the Company's shares fell
sharply on the news, harming all investors that purchased AbbVie
securities at artificially inflated prices on May 30, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than September 24, 2018, which is
the first business day on which the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois is open that is 60 days after the publication
date of July 26, 2018.  Any member of the proposed class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of AbbVie securities during the Class Period and is represented by
Keller Lenkner.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please;

         Ashley Keller, Esq.
         Keller Lenkner
         Telephone: 312-741-5220
         Website: www.kellerlenkner.com
         Email:  ack@kellerlenkner.com [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Walleye Trading Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Walleye Trading LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Abbvie Inc. and William J. Chase,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05114, (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2018), seeks
to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

AbbVie is a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company founded in
2013. It originated as a spin-off of Abbott Laboratories.

On April 26, 2018, AbbVie announced that it would repurchase up to
$7.5 billion of the Company's common stock from its stockholders
where the letter chooses the price within the range they would like
to sell at, if at all. AbbVie would acquire 71.4 million shares of
AbbVie stock at $105 per share, for an aggregate cost of $7.5
billion gross of fees and expenses, or approximately 4.5% of the
Company's shares outstanding. They, however, corrected the tender
offer statement, based on the acquisition of 72.8M shares of its
common stock at a reduced price of $103 per share, or approximately
4.6% of the shares outstanding. During the next trading day, May
31, 2018, AbbVie stock traded sharply downward between $98.50 and
$101 per share. By the end of the trading day on May 31, 2018, it
closed down almost 4% at $98.94. Purchasers of AbbVie stock on May
30, 2018, who purchased at artificially inflated prices,
collectively lost well over $100 million in under 24 hours as a
result of the Company's corrective disclosure, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom Kayes, Esq.
      Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
      Seth A. Meyer
      KELLER LENKNER LLC
      150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 741-5222
      Email: tk@kellerlenker.com
             ack@kellerlenker.com
             sam@kellerlenker.com

             - and -

      U. Seth Ottensoser
      KELLER LENKNER LLC
      1330 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 653-9715
      Email: so@kellerlenker.com

ACADIA PHARMA: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD)
("ACADIA" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 29, 2016 and July 9, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

ACADIA is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet
medical needs in central nervous system disorders. One of
ACADIA’s products is NUPLAZID (pimavanserin), which was approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in April 2016 for
the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with
Parkinson’s disease.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that ACADIA and
certain other defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period and failed to disclose material
adverse facts to investors about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Among other things, the defendants failed to
disclose: (i) that adverse events and safety concerns related to
NUPLAZID threatened the drug's initial and continuing FDA approval;
and (ii) that ACADIA engaged in business practices likely to
attract regulatory scrutiny. The complaint further alleges that, as
a result of the foregoing, investors purchased ACADIA's securities
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and
suffered significant investment losses as a result of the
defendants' conduct.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased ACADIA’s securities
during the Class Period may, no later than September 17, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the investor class. ACADIA
investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional
information about this action and/or to discuss their legal rights
and options, or to register their information with the firm at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/acadia/.

         Contact:
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: 484-258-1585
                    888-715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
                info@kaskelalaw.com [GN]

ACADIA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: ACAD) ("ACADIA") on behalf of
purchasers of ACADIA securities between April 29, 2016 and July 9,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased ACADIA securities during the Class Period
may, no later than September 17, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit www.ktmc.com/acadia-pharmaceuticals-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, ACADIA is purportedly a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of medicines to address central nervous system
disorders. The company claims its lead drug is NUPLAZID, which was
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on April
29, 2016 for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions
associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. ACADIA launched
NUPLAZID in the U.S. in May 2016.

The Class Period commences on April 29, 2016, when ACADIA issued a
press release announcing that the FDA approved NUPLAZID for the
treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with
Parkinson's disease psychosis. ACADIA further stated that "[t]he
FDA approval of NUPLAZID was based on data from the pivotal Phase
III Study-020 and other supportive studies, representing the
largest research and development program in Parkinson's disease
psychosis to date."

The complaint alleges that, on April 9, 2018, CNN reported that
"[p]hysicians, medical researchers and other experts told CNN that
they worried that [NUPLAZID] had been approved too quickly, based
on too little evidence that it was safe or effective. And given
these mounting reports of deaths, they say that more needs to be
done to assess Nuplazid's true risks." Following this news,
ACADIA's share price fell $5.03 per share, or 23.4%, to close at
$16.50 per share on April 9, 2018.

Then, on April 25, 2018, CNN reported that the FDA was re-examining
the safety of NUPLAZID. Following this news, ACADIA's share price
fell $4.27 per share, or 21.9%, to close at $15.20 per share on
April 25, 2018.

Finally, on July 9, 2018, the Southern Investigative Reporting
Foundation (the "SIRF") published a report entitled "Acadia
Pharmaceuticals: This Is Not a Pharmaceuticals Company." Therein,
the SIRF stated that "evidence is mounting that something is
horribly wrong with ACADIA's sole drug, NUPLAZID," and that "ACADIA
has accomplished its growth in ways that have attracted intense
regulatory scrutiny for other drug companies" including "dispensing
wads of cash to doctors to incentivize prescription writing and
downplaying mounting reports of patient deaths." Following this
news, ACADIA's share price fell $1.21 per share, or 6.8%, to close
at $16.63 per share on July 9, 2018.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that:  (1) adverse events and safety
concerns related to NUPLAZID threatened the drug's initial and
continuing FDA approval; (2) ACADIA engaged in business practices
likely to attract regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' statements about ACADIA's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

ACADIA investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check.

ACADIA investors may, no later than September 17, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel of their choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com
                info@ktmc.com [GN]

ADMIRAL THEATRE: Wisniewska Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled PAULINA WISNIEWSKA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
ADMIRAL THEATRE, INC. d/b/a THE ADMIRAL THEATRE and SAM A. CECOLA,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04749 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify this action as a collective action
       under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and

   (2) order that notice be issued to all exotic dancers, who
       have worked for the Admiral during the last three years.

PAULINA WISNIEWSKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ADMIRAL THEATRE, INC. d/b/a
THE ADMIRAL THEATRE and SAM A. CECOLA, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04749 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2018), alleges that Admiral has
misclassified its exotic dancers as independent contractors rather
than as employees under federal and state law.  The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and other exotic dancers
who have worked at Admiral Theatre, Inc., an adult entertainment
strip club located at 3940 West Lawrence Avenue, Chicago, Illinois,
which is owned and managed by Sam Cecola.

According to the complaint, dancers are paid only by receiving tips
from customers, which they are required to pay back in part to the
club, as well as to share with other individuals who are not
eligible to share in a tip pool. The Plaintiff brings this action
on her own behalf, and on behalf of other Admiral dancers who may
choose to opt-in to this case, for not paying minimum wage as
required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and for taking a
portion of the dancers' tips and allowing and requiring dancers to
share their tips with individuals not eligible to share in a tip
pool.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          James D. Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                  bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  jrogers@msiegellaw.com

               - and -

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


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Jeb Iverson Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------
JEB B. IVERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00867-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.,
July 11, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other relief at law
for the negligent, knowing and/or willful conduct of contacting
Plaintiff and others on their cellular telephones using
pre-recorded voice messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, by effectuating these unauthorized
pre-recorded voice message calls, Advanced Disposal caused actual
harm, not only by subjecting consumers to the aggravation that
necessarily accompanies spam calls and messages but also because
consumers frequently must pay their cell phones service providers
for the receipt of such spam, and because such messages diminish
cellular battery life, waste data storage capacity, and are an
intrusion upon seclusion.

Advanced Disposal offers waste disposal, collection and recycling
services for residential, commercial, industrial and construction
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher P. Maryineau, Esq.
          Christopher A. Johnston, Esq.
          JM LEGAL
          2233 Hamline Avenue North, Suite 102
          Roseville, MN 55113
          Telephone: (612) 767 7790
          Facsimile: (612) 379 0480
          E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com
                  cjohnston@jmlegal.com


ALABAMA GOODWILL: Store Personnel Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Kecha Steward, Toni Gipson and Loretta Cheek, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Alabama Goodwill
Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01153, (N.D. Ala., July
25, 2018), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act; compensatory and liquidated damages;
interest; attorneys' fees; costs; and all other legal and equitable
remedies.

Kecha Steward, Toni Gipson and Loretta Cheek have been employed in
hourly positions at Defendant's Goodwill store located in Boaz,
Alabama, located at 1342 US Highway 431 Boaz AL, 35957, within the
past three years. They worked in excess of forty hours a week
without being paid time and a half their regular rate of pay, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC.
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500


AMERICAN HOME: Schlamp Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER SCHLAMP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HOME PATIENT, INC.; LINCARE,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
6:18-cv-01893-TMC (D. S.C., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover actual
damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action, as an opt-in Collective Action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of a class of
individuals who were employed by Defendants at any time within the
three years prior to joining this lawsuit, who were nonexempt
employees and were not paid the proper amount for all hours worked
over 40 hours in a workweek. Schlamp alleges that Defendant
routinely modified their timecards in order to deny overtime
compensation.

American HomePatient provides a range of home healthcare services
and products, including CPAP supplies, oxygen therapy, sleep
therapy and AerMeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 579 7373
          Facsimile: (843) 614 6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com

               - and -

          Adian Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 496 7332
          Facsimile: (404) 496 7428
          E-mail:armiller@forthepeople.com


AMERICAN INSURANCE: Spinler Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shari Spinler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Insurance Organization, LLC and
Ideal Concepts, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03112, (E.D. Pa.,
July 25, 2018), seeks relief for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, attorney's
fees and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants hired Spinler as an agent to sell health insurance,
dental insurance and life insurance plans. They allegedly failed to
pay overtime premium compensation for hours worked over 40 per
week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Carley A. Doyle, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417
     Email: tmartindale@swartz-legal.com


AMERIGROUP CORP: Aug. 27 Hearing in R. Pichardo's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las
Vegas, granted the Joint Motion to Continue the Hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Continue the Deadlines in the
Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in the case captioned
RONNI PICHARDO, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-CV-00276-RFB-CWH (D. Nev.).

A sixty (60) day continuance of all deadlines included in the
Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order will assist the Parties
in receiving relevant rulings and necessary compliance
accommodations, if any, prior to upcoming deadlines.

The hearing scheduled for July 27, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., is vacated.
The hearing is rescheduled for August 27, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., in
Las Vegas Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y724xlkt from Leagle.com.

Ronni Pichardo, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci --
kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro
hac vice, Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez --
kevin@kevinhernandezlaw.com -- Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez &
Alexis M. Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron.

Amerigroup Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chad Fuller --
chad.fuller@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Chad R. Fuller --
chad.fuller@troutman.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Virginia Bell
Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro
hac vice, Anna M. Martin -- amartin@mmhllp.com -- Meserve Mumper &
Hughes LLP & Anna Jane I. Zarndt -- anna.zarndt@troutman.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP.

APOTEX CORP: Nasal Spray Contains Glass Particles, Thompson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRA THOMPSON, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APOTEX CORP.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC713388 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 10, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and restitutionary disgorgement caused by
Defendants' violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Breach of
Warranty, and Unfair Business Practices, arising out of Defendants'
manufacture, design, and distribution of nasal spray containing
glass particles, which have the propensity to injure users.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was prescribed
Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray manufactured by Defendant Apotex
Corp.  The lawsuit says Defendant's Nasal Spray can emit shards of
glass when used in the normal and intended course by consumers.
Because of this serious safety problem, Defendant recalled its
nasal spray, but, not as to all effected lots or batches.

Terra Thompson used Defendant's Nasal Spray, and suffered an injury
from shards of glass entering her nasal canal from Defendant's
Nasal Spray, because of the defect and/or alleged problem.

Apotex Inc. is a Canadian pharmaceutical corporation. Founded in
1974 by Barry Sherman, the company is the largest producer of
generic drugs in Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Terra Thompson and all others similarly
situated:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Benson E. Garrett, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  benson@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jimmy Hanaie, Esq.
          LEGALCLEAR
          8306 Wilshire Blvd., 5007
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Tel.: (800) 444 6962
          E-mail: legal@legalclear.com

               - and -

          Alexander Larian, Esq.
          LARIAN LAW FIRM CO
          8306 Wilshire Blvd., 2058
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 720 0505
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: alarian@larianlaw.com


ATLAS ROOFING: Curatolo Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned John and Teri Curatolo, Michael Mazza, Linda
Krehlik and Robert Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Atlas Roofing Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-04218 (N.D. Ga., August 28, 2013), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee (Nashville) on July 26, 2018, under Case No.
18-cv-00691.

Atlas allegedly manufactured, marketed, advertised and sold
defective shingles that blister and crack, leading to early granule
loss, increased moisture absorption, and otherwise do not perform
as expressly warranted and represented, causing damage to other
components of the structures on which they were installed and to
property on the interior of the structures. [BN]

Atlas Roofing Corporation is into the design and manufacture of
roofing products and is based in Meridian MS.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
      QUANTUM LEGAL, LLC -IL
      513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Tel: (847) 433-4500
      Email: ecf@Qulegal.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burke, Esq.
      QUANTUM LEGAL LLC - MO
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Tel: (847) 433-4500
      Fax: (847) 433-2500
      Email: richard@Qulegal.com

             - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Fax: (215) 238-1968
      Email: jshub@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Scott George, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 564-2300
      Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

             - and -

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: (504) 355-0086
      Fax: (504) 523-0699
      Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

Atlas Roofing Corporation is represented by:

      Henry B. Smythe, Jr., Esq.
      James E. Weatherholtz, Esq.
      Joel G. Pieper, Esq.
      W. Travis Parham, Esq.
      Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
      2700 Nashville City Center
      511 Union Street
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-6380
      Fax: (615) 244-6804
      Email: jweatherholtz@wcsr.com
             hsmythe@wcsr.com
             jpieper@wcsr.com
             travis.parham@wallerlaw.com

             - and -

      Jennifer Saffold Collins, Esq.
      William M. Ragland , Jr., Esq.
      Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
      271 17th Street, NW, Suite 2400
      Atlanta, GA 30363-1017
      Tel: (404) 879-2472
      Fax: (404) 870-4831
      Email: jennifer.collins@wbd-us.com
             Bill.Ragland@wbd-us.com

BERGEN SHIPPERS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Venegas and Jose Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bergen Shippers Corp., Fairway
Staffing Services and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
715217 (Cal. Super., July 26, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime and
minimum wages; redress for failure to authorize or permit required
meal periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment and failure to maintain time-keeping
records; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; reasonable
attorney's fees; and costs and interest under California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Venegas and Garcia worked for Bergen Shippers through Fairway
Staffing Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
      Jackson Law, APC
      2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Phone: (949)281-6857
      Fax: (949) 777-6218

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Settlement Pending in "Mishall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Tsemach Mishal et al. v. Boardwalk
Pipeline Partners, LP, are awaiting court approval of a
settlement.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on June 25, 2018,
the parties to the purported class action pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Tsemach Mishal et al.
v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the "Partnership") et al. (Del.
Ch., C.A. No. 2018-0372-JTL) entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of
the court.

The Proposed Settlement provides for the settlement of the lawsuit
if Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. ("BPHC"), the sole member of
the general partner of Boardwalk GP, LP, the general partner of the
Partnership ("Boardwalk GP"), elects to cause Boardwalk GP to
exercise its call right pursuant to Section 15.1(b) of the
Partnership's agreement of limited partnership as provided in the
Proposed Settlement.

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, if BPHC elects to cause
Boardwalk GP to exercise the call right such that the purchase
price for the common units of the Partnership to be purchased by
Boardwalk GP pursuant to the call right is calculated using the 180
trading days ending no later than June 29, 2018, all claims that
have been or could be brought in connection with such purchase
right will be released by the plaintiffs individually and on behalf
of the purported class and finally resolved, subject to court
approval, in accordance with the terms of the Proposed Settlement.

This call right has been previously described in detail in the
Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2018.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. It operates interstate natural gas and NGLs pipeline
systems, and integrated storage facilities, which are located in
the Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, Arkansas and the Midwestern states
of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The company is
based in Houston, Texas.


BOCAS HOUSE: Ricon Hits Tip Pool, Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Stephanie P. Troconis Ricon, for himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bocas House Coral Gables, LLC and Mauricio
Mantovani, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-23015, (S.D. Fla., July 25,
2018), seeks to recover compensatory overtime wage damages and an
equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, all interest allowed by law and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bocas House Coral Gables, LLC operates a restaurant in Coral
Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Ricon worked as a server.
She was required to participate in a tip pool thus rendering her
wage below mandated minimum wage rates, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 230-4884
      Fax: (305) 230-4844
      Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com


BRIUS LLC: Violates Skilled Nursing Industry Laws, Barrett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY BARRETT by and through her Successor in Interest Wanda
Barrett, on behalf of herself and similarly situated California
residents, the Plaintiff, v. SHLOMO RECHNITZ; BRIUS, LLC; OAKHURST
SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC; ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC713393 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants actively and intentionally concealed from Plaintiff and
class members that Defendants have a long history of being serial
violators of skilled nursing industry laws.

According to the complaint, the concealments by Defendants were
intended to deceive Plaintiff and members of the class into
believing that the Facility were properly operated to induce
Plaintiff and class members into becoming residents of the
Facility. That Plaintiff and members of the class, all in infirm
health, elderly, and/or in need of skilled nursing care and members
of one of the most vulnerable segments of society, were
unsophisticated and unknowledgeable in the operation of skilled
nursing Facility in the State of California and had no knowledge of
the facts concealed by Defendants and could not have discovered
those concealed facts due to, among other things, their extremely
vulnerable status. Had the concealed facts been disclosed to
Plaintiff and members of the class, they would not have become
residents of the Facility and would not have paid, or had monies
paid on their behalf, for the substandard skilled nursing care at
the Facility.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

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

               - and -

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


BRIUS LLC: Violates Skilled Nursing Industry Laws, Milka Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MILKA ZELJEZNJAK by and through her Successor in Interest Rita
Costantino, on behalf of herself and similarly situated California
residents, the Plaintiff, v., SHLOMO RECHNITZ; BRIUS, LLC; GRANITE
HILLS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC; ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC713392 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants actively and intentionally concealed from Plaintiff
and class members that Defendants have a long history of being
serial violators of skilled nursing industry laws.

According to the complaint, the concealments by Defendants were
intended to deceive Plaintiff and members of the class into
believing that the Facility were properly operated to induce
Plaintiff and class members into becoming residents of the
Facility. That Plaintiff and members of the class, all in infirm
health, elderly, and/or in need of skilled nursing care and members
of one of the most vulnerable segments of society, were
unsophisticated and unknowledgeable in the operation of skilled
nursing Facility in the State of California and had no knowledge of
the facts concealed by Defendants and could not have discovered
those concealed facts due to, among other things, their extremely
vulnerable status. Had the concealed facts been disclosed to
Plaintiff and members of the class, they would not have become
residents of the Facility and would not have paid, or had monies
paid on their behalf, for the substandard skilled nursing care at
the Facility.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

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

               - and -

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


BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Violates Skilled Nursing Laws, Richardson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STANTON RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
California residents, the Plaintiff, v. SHLOMO RECHNITZ; BRIUS
MANAGEMENT CO., INC; ASRU, LLC; NOVATO HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC;
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive the Defendants, Case No. BC713391 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
10, 2018), alleges that the Defendants actively and intentionally
concealed from Plaintiff and class members that Defendants have a
long history of being serial violators of skilled nursing industry
laws.

According to the complaint, the concealments by Defendants were
intended to deceive Plaintiff and members of the class into
believing that the Facility were properly operated to induce
Plaintiff and class members into becoming residents of the
Facility. That Plaintiff and members of the class, all in infirm
health, elderly, and/or in need of skilled nursing care and members
of one of the most vulnerable segments of society, were
unsophisticated and unknowledgeable in the operation of skilled
nursing Facility in the State of California and had no knowledge of
the facts concealed by Defendants and could not have discovered
those concealed facts due to, among other things, their extremely
vulnerable status. Had the concealed facts been disclosed to
Plaintiff and members of the class, they would not have become
residents of the Facility and would not have paid, or had monies
paid on their behalf, for the substandard skilled nursing care at
the Facility.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

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

               - and -

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


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Rejuso Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, Brookdale Living
Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., and
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Nina Rejuso v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05227-DMG-RAO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses the Defendants of failure to pay overtime, minimum and
split shift wages, among other failures.

BSLC, BSL, BLC and BKD are foreign corporations formed and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  The Defendants operate
senior living communities in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Nina Rejuso v. Brookdale Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55882, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, Brookdale
      Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living
      Communities, Inc and Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.'s
      opening brief is due on September 4, 2018;

   -- Appellee Nina Rejuso's answering brief is due on October 1,
      2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee NINA REJUSO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: nmatern@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellants BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC, a
Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, are represented by:

          John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com
                  sboyce@littler.com


BROOKSTONE CAPITAL: Horvath et al. Sue over Investment Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HORVATH, LORI PARK-GIANFRANCISCO, THERESA L. PORTELL, FRANK
G. PANTALEO, PATRICIA PANTALEO, RICHARD RUTKOWSKI, PHYLLIS
RUTKOWSKI, SHARON GIAMMANCO, SALVATORE GIAMMANCO, and on behalf of
the class members, the Plaintiffs, v. NADIM KHALIL ZA YED a/k/a
DEAN ZAYED, BROOKSTONE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, and KAIZEN ADVISORY,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018L000784 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th
Judicial, Dupage Cty., July 10, 2018), alleges breach of fiduciary
duty resulting from Defendants' mismanagement that led Plaintiffs
and the Class to lose their investments totaling millions of
dollars and incurring excessive fees along the way.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs had personal and
retirement assets in Investment Accounts with BCM between August 3,
2015 and August 26, 2015. The Plaintiffs are generally "mom and pop
investors" all residing in DuPage County with limited personal
wealth or investment experience. At all relevant times, BCM and
Zayed provided individualized, personalized, fiduciary investment
management services to their clients, including Plaintiffs and the
Class. In exchange for services rendered, BCM and Zayed received
compensation via BCM's "Wrap Program."  BCM's Wrap Program
"wrapped" both the asset management fees for advisory services and
the transactional fees for execution services into a single fee
charged to BCM's clients, including Plaintiffs (the "BCM Wrap
Program Fee").

Zayed had sole discretion to manage Plaintiffs' portfolios in the
BCM Investment Accounts, which included all trading decisions
related to Plaintiffs' holdings. In selecting investments for BCM
Investor Accounts, including Plaintiffs' accounts, BCM's policy was
to select investment vehicles based on the length and verifiability
of the track records of the investment vehicle, the tenure and/or
overall career performance of the managers of the investment
vehicle, the continuity of the investment vehicle's management, the
investment philosophy and process of the investment vehicle, the
expenses of the investment vehicle, and other factors believed to
affect performance of the investment vehicle.  As a direct and
proximate result of Zayed's breaches of fiduciary duty, the
Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Loftus, Esq.
          Ryan Moore, Esq.
          STOLTMANN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          10 S. LaSalle, 35th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312 332 4200
          Facsimile: 312.772.5396
          E-mail: alex@stoltlaw.com
                  ryan@stoltlaw.com

               - and -

          John S. Burke
          Jared M. Schneider
          HIGGINS & BURKE, P.C.
          2560 Foxfield Road, Suite 200
          Saint Charles, IL 60174


BUSHFIRE GRILL: Pacheco Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jairo Pacheco, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Bushfire
Grill, Inc. and Bushfire Beachside, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00026263, (Cal. Super.), was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on July
25, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01696.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
     MAYALL HURLEY, PC
     2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
     Stockton, CA 95207
     Tel: (209) 477-3833
     Fax: (209) 473-4818
     Email: nscardigli@mayallaw.com

Bushfire Group is represented by:

     Erik T. Johnson, Esq.
     PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN
     11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858) 755-8500
     Fax: (858) 755-8504
     Email: ejohnson@pettitkohn.com

C.E. ENTERPRISES: Tarafdar Seeks Itemized Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
BOBBACK TARAFDAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C.E. ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case
No. BC713532 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, thus violating the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the California Labor Code section
246(i) requires an employer to provide an employee with written
notice of the amount of sick leave available, either on the
employee's regular wage statement or in a separate writing provided
on each pay day. The Defendant has not complied with these
provisions for Plaintiff and other employees. Defendant has not
advised employees of the paid sick days accrued or used.
As a result of these violations, Employer is liable for civil
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 248.5 and
2699(f).

C. E. Enterprises, Inc. is a car dealer company based in CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          N. Cory Barari, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657 1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297 1770


CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Sold Ineffective Bug Repellant, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a $5
million consumer class action claims that California Natural Living
has sold millions of its "ineffective and worthless" Natural Bug
Blend Bug Repellent with false claims that it repels mosquitoes, in
L.A. Federal Court.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Joel D. Smith, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

        -- and --

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (212) 989-9113
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: scott@bursor.com

CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Orkambi Drug
--------------------------------------------
Cherise Seucharan, writing for The Sar Vancouver, reports that a
recently launched class action suit to compel the government to
provide coverage to a $250,000 per year drug has raised questions
about how Canada should fund medications for rare diseases.

Chris MacLeod, Esq. -- cmacleod@cambridgellp.com -- a Toronto
lawyer who has cystic fibrosis, has launched a class action suit to
be filed in the B.C. Supreme Court seeking $60 million in damages
on behalf of patients who were refused coverage of the drug
Orkambi. While the costly medication is available for sale and is
covered by some health plans, it was not approved for coverage by
the provincial or federal governments due to insufficient evidence
that is effective or cost-efficient.

But MacLeod and those involved in the class action said that
Orkambi can be life-changing for the patients that it does work for
-- and that they have the right to the drug under Section 7 of the
Charter, which guarantees that "everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of the person."

MacLeod is taking a sister drug called Kalydeco developed by the
same manufacturer as Orkambi, which he said improved his health
immensely.

"I went from 30 per cent lung function to not being in hospital
since 2012," he said "If I didn't do this lawsuit people would
rightly say to me, you're doing so well and you know the benefits
of this treatment -- it would be immoral if I didn't step up."

One of the patients involved in the class action, Lilia Zaharieva
from Victoria, had coverage of the drug under her employer's plan.

"I have had the taste of what life on Orkambi is like. I can't sit
by as others in B.C. wait on the sidelines to gain access," she
said in a statement.

MacLeod, says the class action is also meant to bring attention to
the way in which drugs are funded and approved. He takes issue with
the government entities in charge of reviewing and deciding which
drugs will be covered and which won't: the Canadian Agency for
Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the pan-Canadian
Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA), and the provincial and federal
governments.

First Health Canada approves a drug for sale in Canada, said Laura
Heinze, spokesperson for the Ministry of Health. Then the
manufacturer submits an application to CADTH, which reviews it and
gives a recommendation to the government if they should fund it,
and the pCPA negotiates the drug price. In B.C., the provincial
Drug Benefit Council (DBC) decides whether to include the drug as
part of Pharmacare, after examining all evidence, including the
cost.

MacLeod said this system unfairly prevents patients with rare
diseases from having access to drugs they may not be able to
afford, due to the overall expense.

He said that CADTH fails to provide transparency over their
decisions, especially with the experts they consulted when
reviewing Orkambi.

"They have created a gatekeeper system with no transparency. Who
are these experts who reviewed Orkambi?" he said.

"We need a credible transparent review process where we know what
experts were relied on. Systemically, we're not great at rare
disease strategy ... so we are after fixing the system."

But Steve Morgan a professor at the UBC School of Population and
Public Health, said that it is a much more complex issue because a
very expensive drug could mean less benefits to other patients in
the overall system.

"As much as people criticize economic evaluation, the reality is we
really do need that to understand when meeting needs is
appropriate, affordable, sustainable and consistent to equitable
access," he said. "We have to think about the greater benefit to
other patient groups."

While Heinze said that Ministry would not comment on the details of
the Orkambi she said in a statement that the manufacturing costs
are a key factor in the decision.

"Orkambi is a very expensive drug -- with Vertex setting a list
cost of about $250,000 per person per year . . . The cost for
funding Orkambi for approximately 120 patients in B.C., despite
insufficient evidence would be $85.5 million dollars over 3
years."

Heinze added that the drug is currently under review following a
submission from the manufacturer Vertex.

"CADTH's initial recommendation and the Ministry of Health's
decision to not cover Orkambi was made in early 2017, under the
previous government. Since that time, Vertex has indicated they
have new data about Orkambi that may impact previous
recommendations . . . Vertex resubmitted to CADTH earlier this
year."

Randy Allan, director of marketing and communications at CADTH,
said that the organization is made up of medical experts and also
asks for input from patients and clinicians.

"Drug reimbursement recommendations are developed by expert
committees ... It's worth noting that input from industry, patient
groups, and clinicians is requested and considered as part of our
drug review processes, and our recommendations are developed using
a standard deliberative framework that ensures consistency across
all of our reviews," he said in a statement.

He said that Orkambi is currently under review with no estimated
date because "the date is dependent on how the process
unfolds."[GN]

CISCON SERVICES: Scheriger Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCHERIGER, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER
29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. CISCON SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02379 (S.D. Tex., July 11, 2018),
alleges that Defendant had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Non-Exempt Employees for all overtime hours worked
and overtime at the legally required rate.

The Defendant provides oilfield services to its oil and gas
industry customers throughout the United States. The Defendant has
employed non-exempt workers to assist with directly and indirectly
providing services to its customers at jobsites over the past three
years. NEEs regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Defendant does not pay NEEs a guaranteed sum of money each
workweek. Rather, Defendant pays NEEs on a non-exempt basis.
Specifically, Defendant paid NEEs on an hourly basis and/or based
on the quantity of work performed, including on a per-foot-of-pipe
laid basis, per-job basis, and per-assignment basis. The Defendant
has specifically violated the FLSA by paying NEEs pursuant to its
(1) "Uncounted Hours Policy" that fails to pay an NEEs overtime
premium for all overtime hours worked; and (2) "Overtime
Miscalculation Policy" that fails to pay NEEs overtime at the rate
required by the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Siegel
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790 4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

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


COMMERCIAL AV: Rael Seeks Overtime Pay for 1099 Installers
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rael, the Plaintiff, v. Commercial AV Services LLC, an
Arizona Limited Liability Company, Thomas Cassille and Jane Doe
Cassille, a married couple, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02193-ESW (D. Ariz., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated current and former 1099 Installers of Defendants
who were compensated at a straight-time hourly rate for all hours
worked, regardless of whether those hours exceeded 40 hours in any
given workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b) on their own behalves and as representatives of individuals
similarly situated who are current or former 1099 Installers of
Defendants. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Collective
Members at flat weekly or fixed hourly rates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382 5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304 3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Torres Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA TORRES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY
HEALTH ALLIANCE OF PASADENA, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC713396 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 11, 2018), alleges that Defendants required
Plaintiff and the other class members to work over 8 hours per day
and/or over 40 hours per week and failed to pay the legally
required overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the other class
members.

As a result of Defendants' violations of California law, the
Plaintiff and the other class members have been personally injured
and continue to be injured by Defendants' unlawful business acts
and practices as alleged herein, including, but not necessarily
limited to, the loss of money and/or property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glehdale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Hits Vending Machine Credit Card Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Oliver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
2018CH09355 (Ill. Cir., July 25, 2018), seeks actual or
compensatory damages and such further and other relief for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Compass is a food service company that sells snacks, meals, and
beverages through vending machines. Oliver claims being assessed an
unauthorized credit card surcharge on products purchased at their
vending machines. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Sues over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY JACKSON, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER INC., d/b/a
PREMIER STUDENT LOAN CENTER, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01378-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 11, 2018), alleges that Defendant
engaged in an illegal telemarketing, targeting individuals
nationwide, without prior express consent and with little regard
for their privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant purportedly sells student
loan services nationwide. To drum-up new business, however,
Defendant engages in intrusive and unlawful telemarketing
campaigns.

Consumer Advocacy is a private law firm headquartered in Chicago
devoted to protecting consumer rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564 1721
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Violation of DPPA
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in
Chicago federal court claims the clerk of the Cook County Circuit
Court did not redact personal information from motor vehicle
records that can be accessed by anyone at courthouse computer
terminals.

Plaintiff, Mary Nisi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, brings this action under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721 et seq., for a finding that
the Defendant is improperly disclosing personal information
contained in motor vehicle records and for injunctive relief.

The case is MARY NISI, On behalf of herself and the class,
Plaintiff, v. DOROTHY BROWN, in her official capacity as Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
Case No.: 18-cv-4861 (N.D. Ill.).

COPESAN SERVICES: Nourollah Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW NOUROLLAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COPESAN SERVICES, INC., W175 N5711
Technology Drive Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051; and WIL-KIL PEST
CONTROL COMPANY, INC., W175 N5711 Technology Drive
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01060 (E.D. Wisc., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operated (and continue
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current
and former Service Technician employees of their wages earned for
all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, by improperly classifying these Service Technicians as
"exempt" for compensation purposes under the FLSA and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Copesan Services, Inc. provides commercial pest control solutions
for food processing, logistics and warehousing, foodservice,
lodging and hospitality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780 1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565 6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
                  mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Intrudes on Inmates' Privacy, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports thata
prison inmate claims in a proposed class action that the Canadian
government systematically records privileged communications between
prisoners and their lawyers in federal institutions.

Adrian Philip filed the action against the Attorney General of
Canada in Federal Court, claiming the Canadian government breached
inmates' privacy rights and rights under the country's
constitution. He's imprisoned at Collins Bay Institution, a federal
prison in Kingston, Ontario.

Philip claims the Correctional Service of Canada intrudes upon
inmates' privacy rights "by listening to, recording, and divulging
to their parties the contents of private telephone conversations
between inmates and their respective lawyers."

"Nothing is more likely to have a 'chilling' effect  upon the frank
and free exchange and disclosure of confidences, which should
characterize the relationship between inmate and counsel, than
knowledge that what has been said will be listened to or recorded
by some third person, divulged to other parties, or used against
the inmate," the claim states.

Philip claims he was charged with more crimes while already in
jail, which limited his access to the institution's telephone
system "exclusively for the purposes" of privileged conversations
with his lawyers. He claims he learned that staff at the prison had
listened to and recorded his calls in August 2017, and used the
information to prosecute him for additional offences.

In a phone interview with Courthouse News, Philip's lawyer
RajinderSahota, Esq. --rsahota@awslaw.ca -- with Acheson Sweeney
Foley Sahota, was reluctant to elaborate on the lawsuit's
specifics, such as how his client found out about the recordings.

"At this stage we're in the early days. The pleadings themselves
set out the crux of the factual argument that we're making. We
didn't really hold back," he said. "What I can tell you is that the
concerns that are raised are systemic, they're widespread, and they
exist from coast-to-coast in all federal correctional
institutions."

Sahota said he didn't have numbers to estimate the potential size
of the class, but said it's "going to be a substantial number"
given the scope of the case and time frame because as far as his
firm knows, "it's never been any other way."

"It struck us as something that attacks the very core of our legal
system and the integrity of our legal system is put into question
when this type of conduct occurs," Sahota said. "But the fact that
solicitor-client conversations are being recorded, particularly
when the government is aware that those kind of conversations are
occurring given the way the process has been set up by the
government to record all conversations and have inmates indicate
who they are calling and for what purpose, that's what strikes this
as particularly egregious."

Philip seeks class certification and a declaration that the
Canadian government breached its duties of care and fiduciary
duties to inmates as well as their privacy rights and rights under
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and damages exceeding
$50,000.

The Correctional Service of Canada did not respond to Courthouse
News' request for comment July 23. According to the agency's
policy, "calls between inmates and privileged correspondents are
normally confidential. They may however be subject to interception"
if certain conditions under corrections regulations and directives
are met.

CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Prelim. Okay of Ramos Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan M. Azrack grants preliminary approval to the class
settlement agreement between the parties in the lawsuit entitled
HENRY A. RAMOS and ROXANN RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri
Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH
10, Case No. 2:16-cv-04098-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.).

The "Settlement Class" is defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of New York to whom
     Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter between
     July 25, 2015, and October 5, 2017, to collect a debt on
     behalf of Kohls Department Stores, Inc., which debt was
     charged-off by the creditor prior to the date the letter was
     sent to the consumer, and the letter either:

      (i) stated, "[b]ecause of interest, late charges and other
          charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary
          from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may
          be greater;" or

     (ii) offered to settle the debt when the debt was in default
          for more than three years prior to the date of the
          letter and did not disclose the debt may be barred by
          the statute of limitations.

The "Class Claims" is defined as those claims arising under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from Credit Control's collection
letters.

Judge Azrack appoints (i) the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives, (ii) their counsel as Class Counsel, and Heffler
Claims Group LLC as the Settlement Administrator to administer
notice to the class and the settlement.

The Settlement Administrator shall cause the Class Notice to be
mailed to Class Members on or before August 17, 2018.  Class
Members shall have until October 1, 2018, to return a claim form,
exclude themselves from, or object to, the Settlement.  Objection
to the Settlement is due on October 1, 2018.

The Court will commence a final hearing on October 29, 2018, at
5:15 p.m., to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the
Settlement.




CROWN ASSET: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Mariscal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Mariscal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company, and Levy & Associates, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-02083-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., July
9, 2018), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
for a finding that the Defendants' form debt collection letter
violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for this violation.

Crown Asset Management, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company
that acts as a debt collector.  Levy & Associates, LLC, is an Ohio
limited liability company and law firm that acts as a debt
collector.

The Defendants operate nationwide debt collection businesses and
attempt to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the state of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com
                  carissa@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


CULVER NARROWS: Limbrick Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymon Limbrick and Luis Detres-Moreno, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members Plaintiffs, v.
Culver Narrows Beer Distributors Inc., Trash for Cash, Inc., Andre
Pantaleo and Vincent Pantaleo, in their individual capacity,,
Defendants, Case No. 515168/2018, (N.Y. Sup., July 25, 2018), to
recover unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to
New York Labor Laws.

Culver Narrows Beer Distributors Inc. operates a "Thrifty
Beverage," a can and bottle redemption center and beer distributor.
Trash for Cash operates as a can and bottle redemption center.
Plaintiffs worked as warehouse workers in their facilities.

Defendants allegedly failed to provide overtime wages,
spread-of-hours compensation, wage statements and wage notices and
time-keeping facilities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Simi Bhutani, Esq.
      AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
      45 Broadway, Suite 1420
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 825-1400
      Email: simi@akinlaws.com


DOMINION ENERGY: To Appeal Remand of Firemen's Retirement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. filed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit a petition
for leave to appeal a remand order under the Class Action Fairness
Act in the lawsuit titled FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS,
derivatively on behalf ofSCANA Corporation and individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
JIMMY E. ADDISON, D. MAYBANK HAGOOD, LYNNE M. MILLER, JAMES A.
BENNETT, MACEO K. SLOAN, SHARON A. DECKER, JAMES W. ROQUEMORE,
ALFREDO TRUJILLO, JOHN F.A.V. CECIL, GREGORY E. ALIFF, KEVIN B.
MARSH, STEPHEN A. BYRNE, JAMES M. MICALI, and HAROLD C. STOWE,
Defendants, DOMINION ENERGY, INC., and SEDONA CORP.,
Defendants-Petitioners, and SCANA CORPORATION, a South Carolina
corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. Case No. 3:18-cv-501-MBS,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The case involves the abandonment and proposed acquisition of a
$9.8 billion project to build two nuclear reactors at the V.C.
Summer site in Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

SCANA, a South Carolina-based company that engages in electric and
natural gas utility operations, abandoned a partially constructed
nuclear reactor facility in 2017.  SCANA's stock price decreased
almost 40 percent to $30.21 per share, and government
investigations and shareholder litigation surrounding SCANA's role
in the nuclear project ensued.  That shareholder litigation
included this lawsuit, in which the Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the abandonment of the nuclear project.

The questions presented by the Petitioners are:

   -- Does CAFA provide jurisdiction over these classic state-law
      tort claims, as Himmel held and as the Second Circuit's
      seminal CAFA exception jurisprudence requires? or

   -- Do CAFA's narrow securities-based exceptions deprive the
      federal courts of jurisdiction, as other district courts
      have held?

The Petitioners contend that the Appeals Court should grant
permission to appeal because the district courts are split on the
frequently arising question whether these merger-related lawsuits
with aiding and abetting claims belong in federal court.  The
Petitioners argue that the district court's decision in Himmel v.
Bucyrus International, Inc., 2011 WL 13216971 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 23,
2011), is directly on point.  That court upheld the removal of a
functionally identical state court case alleging that the acquired
company's directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with a
proposed merger.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:

          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN LAW OFFICE
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

Defendants-Petitioners Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. are
represented by:

          William W. Wilkins, Esq.
          Burl F. Williams, Esq.
          Andrew A. Mathias, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
          55 East Camperdown Way, Suite 400
          Post Office Box 10648
          Greenville, SC 29603-0648
          Telephone: (864) 370-2211
          Facsimile: (864) 282-1177
          E-mail: BWilkins@nexsenpruet.com
                  BWilliams@nexsenpruet.com
                  AMathias@nexsenpruet.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
          Brian D. Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4746
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2304
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
                  bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com

Defendants Hagood, Miller, Bennett, Sloan, Decker, Roquemore,
Trujillo, Cecil, Aliff, Micali, Stowe, and SCANA Corporation are
represented by:

          Benjamin Palmer Carlton, Esq.
          Steven J. Pugh, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA
          PO Drawer 7788
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 771-4400
          E-mail: bcarlton@richardsonplowden.com
                  spugh@richardsonplowden.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4824
          E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com

               - and -

          George Craig Johnson, Esq.
          IS Leevy Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON, TOAL & BATTISTE, PA
          1615 Barnwell Street
          P. O. Box 1431
          Columbia, SC 29202-0000
          Telephone: (803) 252-9700
          E-mail: george@jtbpa.com
                  islj@jtbpa.com

Defendants Addison, Marsh, and Byrne are represented by:

          William Alexander Coates, Esq.
          ROE, CASSIDY, COATES & PRICE, PA
          1052 North Church Street
          P. O. Box 10529
          Greenville, SC 29603-0000
          Telephone: (864) 349-2600
          E-mail: wac@roecassidy.com

               - and -

          John Allen Jordak, Jr., Esq.
          Meredith Jones Kingsley, Esq.
          William R. Mitchelson, Jr., Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 W Peachtree Street, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7868
          E-mail: John.Jordak@alston.com
                  Meredith.Kingsley@alston.com
                  Mitch.Mitchelson@alston.com


DREISBACH ENTERPRISES: Denied Breaks, Wage Statements, "Gray" Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gray and Edwin Victoriano, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dreisbach Enterprises,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. RG18914259 (Cal.
Super., July 25, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Dreisbach operates a cold storage facility in Oakland where
Plaintiffs worked as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees from June
2016 to approximately January 2017, the complaint relates. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021

             - and -

      Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
      Heather Davis
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
      136 Main Street, Suite A
      El Segundo, CA, 90245
      Tel: (844) 294-3095
      Email: amir@ protectionlawgroup.com


ECHELON CORP: Rosenblatt Seeks to Halt Sale to Adesto Tech
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Echelon Corporation, Ron Sege,
Armas Clifford Markkula, Jr., Robert J. Finocchio, Jr., Robert R.
Maxfield and Betsy Rafael, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01103 (D.
Del., July 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Echelon Corporation by Adesto
Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Circuit
Acquisition Corporation, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the
merger.

The Plaintiff also seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the acquisition, Echelon's stockholders will receive $8.50 in
cash for each share of the Echelon common stock they hold.

The complaint says Echelon's proxy statement omitted the Company's
financial projections, as well as the analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Piper Jaffray & Co., particularly, discounted
cash flow analysis, projected unlevered free cash flows from May
31, 2018 to December 31, 2022 and all constituent line items, the
projected terminal value at December 31, 2022, inputs and
assumptions underlying the discount rates and long-term earnings
growth rates applied by Piper Jaffray and Echelon's projected tax
savings from utilizing the net operating losses.

Echelon has pioneered the development of open-standard networking
platforms for connecting, monitoring, and controlling devices in
commercial and industrial applications with more than 140 million
connected devices installed worldwide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


EQUITY PRIME: Rossero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Rossero, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Equity Prime Mortgage LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01202, (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2018), seeks
to recover overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a mortgage lending company where Rossero was
employed as a mortgage processor. She claims to be denied payment
of time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty within a work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      Orlando, FL 33602
      Telephone: (407) 418-2079
      Fax: (407) 245-3390
      Email: ahall@forthepeople.com

EVANS HOTELS: J. Rutherford Can File SAC in ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint in the case captioned JAMES RUTHERFORD, and THE
ASSOCIATION 4 EQUAL ACCESS, Plaintiffs, v. EVANS HOTELS, LLC, and
DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-435-JLS (BGS)(S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendant under the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant's websites
contain access barriers preventing the Plaintiffs, and other
mobility-impaired individuals, from gaining full and equal access
to the reservations services offered by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint. the
Plaintiffs state their amended pleading will further explain the
Plaintiffs' contentions and add class allegations.
The Defendant responds that the Plaintiffs' amendments are futile,
untimely, in bad faith, and prejudicial.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs; the argument that the
Plaintiffs have not pled an appropriate class is more appropriately
analyzed at the class certification stage.   

However, because Plaintiff Rutherford has not asserted that he is
blind, the Court finds it is more appropriate for him to seek to
represent all legally handicapped individuals rather than all blind
individuals. The Court permits the Plaintiffs to make this change
in their second amended complaint.

Next, the Defendant argues the Plaintiffs have failed to assert
class action allegations until now and thus their proposal is
untimely, in bad faith, and prejudicial.  

The Plaintiffs argue their amendment is not untimely because the
Scheduling Order allows the Parties to amend the pleadings until
July 9, 2018, and the Plaintiffs moved to do so before this date.


The Court finds the Plaintiffs did not unduly delay in attempting
to amend their complaint because this case is still early in
litigation. Contra McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809
(9th Cir. 1988), finding undue delay when the plaintiffs should
have been aware of the additional claim when they filed their
original complaint but waited until the trial date had been vacated
to attempt to amend their complaint). Further, given the early
procedural posture, the Court finds no bad faith in Plaintiffs'
request to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y73c75qn from Leagle.com.

James Rutherford, an individual & The Association 4 Equal Access,
Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth Ann Wagner --
elizabeth@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Joseph R. Manning,
Jr. -- joe@manninglawoffice.com -- The Law Offices of Joseph R.
Manning Jr. & Matthew M. Loker -- ml@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law
Group, APC.

Evans Hotels, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Nadia Parra Bermudez --
nbermudez@klinedinstlaw.com -- KLINEDINST PC & Charles E.H. Gulley,
III -- CGuilley@Klinedinst.com -- Klinedinst PC.

EVENTBLOCKS INC: McCarter Class Suit Seeks Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Brian McCarter, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Eventblocks, Inc. and Expedia, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH09417, (Ill. Cir., July 25, 2018), seeks
actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and
other relief resulting from breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Defendants operate the website eventblocks.com, a hotel booking
website that provides its users with the service of finding,
comparing and booking hotel rooms for scheduled events. Defendants
frequently provide inaccurate event dates that do not match an
event's actual start and end dates, causing users to purchase
travel and lodging accommodations for dates that cause them to miss
the event they were planning to attend. Hotel room reservations
purchased through Defendants' service are non-refundable. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Paul T. Geske, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             pgeske@mcgpc.com


EXCITE IT: Mack Class Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALESSA MORGAN MACK, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. EXCITE IT PARTNERS LLC d/b/a EXCITE HEALTH
PARTNERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-02080-ELH (D. Md., July 9, 2018), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, seeking
payment of back wages, including unpaid overtime wages.

Excite IT Partners LLC, doing business as Excite Health Partners,
is a Maryland limited liability company providing information
technology educational services for the healthcare industry across
the country.  EHP maintains its principal office in Towson,
Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Ferguson Asks to Send Notice to Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DEBORAH FERGUSON, ANDREW
CLEMEN, JEFF NOLTING, and all others similarly situated v. EXIDE
TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 6:18-cv-02044-CJW (N.D. Iowa), move for an
order:

   1. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send their proposed notice
      and consent form to the proposed class of potential
      plaintiffs;

   2. requiring Exide Technologies to provide the Plaintiffs with
      the name, last-known address and dates of employment worked
      during the past three years for each individual (potential
      class members);

   3. tolling the statute of limitation from July 27, 2018 until
      Exide Technologies provides the names and last-known
      addresses of potential plaintiffs; and

   4. setting an opt-in period of not less than three months for
      class members.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nate Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C.
          115 First Avenue SE, Suite 201
          P.O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637
          Telephone (319) 363-5209
          Facsimile (319) 363-6664
          E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory M. Lederer, Esq.
          LEDERER WESTON CRAIG PLC
          118 Third Avenue SE, Suite 700
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 365-1184
          E-mail: GLederer@LWCLawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Lotsoff, Esq.
          Brenna M. Woodley, Esq.
          Vera M. Iwankiw, Esq.
          SlDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-4602
          E-mail: jlotsoff@sidley.com
                  bwoodley@sidley.com
                  viwankiw@sidley.com


EXO: Faces Class-Action Over Late, Cancelled Train Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lapierre, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
request for a class-action lawsuit filed at the Montreal courthouse
on July 23 argues that Exo should compensate commuters affected by
late or cancelled trains.

The request contends that the commuter train service provider
(formerly known as the AMT and the RTM) failed to provide adequate
service to people who purchased tickets and passes in the past
three years, causing them and their families "stress and
inconvenience, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and loss of
opportunity for advancement."

The class-action request was filed by lawyer James Duggan, Esq. --
info@dugganavocats.ca -- who knows the service issues on Exo's
Deux-Montagnes line firsthand.

Duggan takes the train to work each morning from the Roxboro
station. He has been frustrated by cancelled trains at rush hour
and has seen people waiting in the cold, unable to get on trains
that are filled.

"I've been on that train like a hostage for what felt like hours,"
he said. "One morning, what normally takes half an hour took two
hours."

On July 17, Exo announced that it could no longer guarantee the
punctuality of its trains on the Deux-Montagnes and Mascouche
lines. The organization said that since June 25, because of
construction of the REM light rail project, trains travelling in
both directions on the Deux-Montagnes line were only able to use a
single track between Montpellier station and the Mont-Royal tunnel
entrance.

Furthermore, the MR-90 cars that run on the line are due to be
upgraded, but because of high demand, cars that need repairs are
often kept in service on the network.

The class-action request maintains that Exo's inability to
adequately service and maintain the Deux-Montagnes line shows
disregard for its clientele.

Duggan said one of the main goals of the class action would be to
improve service so people can get to work on time.

"We've asked for the court to order Exo to take all necessary
action to remedy the service problem," he said. "It's not just
about compensation. It's compensation plus remedial action."

Exo spokesperson Elaine Arsenault acknowledged that there are
delays on the Deux-Montagnes line, but she said they're improving.
She refused to comment on the class- action request.

Duggan added that since the application was filed, he has received
support from many people and advocacy groups for train users who
are happy that someone is taking legal action against Exo.

One such organization, a Facebook Group page called Mouvement/Rally
train Deux-Montagnes, has more than 1,000 members.

Group administrator Yves Racine said the small compensation that
Exo has provided to train users wasn't enough. Users received 30
per cent off of one monthly pass to make up for late and cancelled
trains.

"I don't think it's enough," he said. "When you pay up to $200 a
month for your monthly pass, you expect good service."

The suit was filed on behalf of anyone who traveled on the Exo
network (formerly the AMT and RTM) in the past three years and
their families. If approved, it will probaby take years to wind its
way through the courts. [GN]

FAMOUS BOURBON: Ramos Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE RAMOS AND TAYLOR JONES v. FAMOUS BOURBON MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC., 327 BOURBON STREET, INC. (AKA "TEMPTATIONS"), TEMPTATIONS,
INC. (AKA "STILETTOS"), PLATINUM BOURBON, INC. (AKA "LIPSTICKS"),
SILVER BOURBON, INC. (AKA "MANSION ON BOURBON " OR "SCORES"), BRASS
BOURBON, INC. (AKA "BOURBON BAD BOYS" AKA "FISHBOWLS SOLD HERE"),
LA BEAUTI, INC. (AKA "BEERFEST"), JAXX'S HOUSE, INC. (AKA "JAZZ
CAFE"), MANHATTAN FASHION, LLC (AKA "SCORES WEST"), FAIS
DEAUX-DEAUX, INC. (AKA "LAST CALL"), FIORELLA'S ON DECATUR, INC.
(AKA "FIORELLA'S CAFE"), BOURBON BURLESQUE CLUB, INC., (AKA
"TEMPTATIONS"), N'AWLINS ENTERTAINMENT OF LOUISIANA, INC. D/B/A
N'AWLINS ENTERTAINMENT GROUP; GUY OLANO, III, GUY OLANO, JR. AND
JOSEPH ASCANI, Case No. 2:18-cv-06573-LMA-KWR (E.D. La., July 9,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated pursuant to the
collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Corporate Defendants are Louisiana corporations authorized to
and doing business in the Parish of Orleans, state of Louisiana.
The Individual Defendants are owners, operators or managers of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a series of bars, restaurants and
clubs in the New Orleans French Quarter under the "umbrella" of
Defendant Famous Bourbon Management Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

               - and -

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308-1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Alexander Kachmar Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER KACHMAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC., PAUL
A. PITTMAN, and LUCA FABBRI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01771
(D. Colo., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Farmland Partners securities between May 9, 2017
through July 10, 2018, both dates inclusive. Farmland Partners is
an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to
acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to
farmers secured by farm real estate. Farmland purports to own or
have under contract over 166,000 acres in 17 states. Farmland
Partners is based in Denver, Colorado. Its common stock trades on
the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FPI".
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Farmland
Partners artificially increased its revenues by marking loans to
related party tenants; (ii) as a results of the foregoing, Farmland
Partners' Class Period revenues were overstated; and (iii) as a
result, Farmland Partners' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 11, 2018, Rota Fortunae published an online report alleging
that Farmland artificially increased revenues "by making loans to
related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent."
According to the report, 310% of Farmland's 2017 earnings could be
fabricated. The report further stated that "[w]e found evidence
that strongly supports FPI has significantly overpaid for
properties; under normal circumstances, we estimate FPI is worth
$4.85/share, but we think the shares are un-investible."

On this news, the price of Farmland Partners common stock fell
$3.37, or 38.96%, to close at $5.28 on July 11, 2018, and the price
of Farmland Partners Series B preferred stock fell $6.08, or
24.75%, to close at $18.49 on July 11, 2018. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed, publicly traded
(NYSE: FPI) real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire
high-quality farmland.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Farmland Partners Inc. (NYSE:FPI)
Class Period: May 9, 2017 - July 10, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018
Join the action:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/farmland-partners-inc?wire=3

Allegations: Farmland Partners Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Farmland
artificially increased its revenues by marking loans to related
party tenants; (ii) as a results of the foregoing, Farmland's Class
Period revenues were overstated; and (iii) as a result, Farmland's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

To learn more about the FPI class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

         Contact:
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]

FIFTH THIRD: Smith Suit over ATM Withdrawals Moved to Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carnell Smith, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third
Bank, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00476, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati)
on July 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-00464-SJD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Susan J. Dlott.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class
of all similarly situated consumers against Defendant, arising from
its unfair and unconscionable assessment of two out-of-network ATM
fees on out network ATM withdrawals preceded by a balance inquiry;
and its assessment of a 3% foreign transaction fee on amounts
greater than the "transaction" amount and for which no FTF should
apply.

Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is
the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW, PLLC
          62 W Colonial St Ste 209
          Orlando, FL 32801-1365
          Telephone: (407) 603 6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob@ednormand.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
          Robert Sowell, Esq.
          Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Ste 2300
          PO Box 112
          Orlando, FL 32802-0112
          Telephone: (407) 649 4000
          Facsimile: (407) 841 0168
          E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com
                  rsowell@bakerlaw.com
                  ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com


FISERV INC: Francis Woodrow Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS WOODROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FISERV, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01054-JPS (E.D. Wisc., July 10, 2018), alleges that
Defendant, acting on behalf of various financial institutions and
other entities, made automated calls and/or using prerecorded
messages to individuals who have no connection with Fiserv or the
entities employing Fiserv, in plain violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Fiserv made calls to Plaintiff and
Class Members on their cellular telephones using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" and/or an "artificial or prerecorded
voice" as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), without
Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior express consent within the
meaning of the TCPA.

Fiserv, Inc., is a US provider of financial services technology.
The company's clients include banks, thrifts, credit unions,
securities broker dealers, leasing and finance companies, and
retailers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224 6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com


FLEETMATICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ala. Over EDL Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
trucking companies say in a federal class action that
Fleetmaticsdba Verizon Connect Fleet USA charged them tens of
thousands of dollars to install and maintain electronic logging
devices, failed to do it in time to comply with a federal deadline,
but is still billing them anyway.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated entities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
Ala. Code Section 6-5-101 and other state tort claims. The
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated companies contracted with
the Defendants to become compliant with US required DOT standards
under the "MovingAhead for Progress
in the 21st Century" bill, or, more commonly referred to as MAP-21
("EDL Bill").

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberly R. Dodson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KIMBERLY R. DODSON, LLC
     25 County Road 262
     Hanceville, AL 35077
     Telephone (205) 252-2500
     Email: DODSONLAW@OUTLOOK.COM

FLOUR CORP: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in WARN Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Rock Hill Division, denied Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned Harry Pennington
III and Timothy Lorentz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fluor Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc., Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc., SCANA
Corporation, and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 0:17-cv-02094-JMC (D.S.C.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the
Defendants alleging that the termination of their employment, was
in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act (WARN Act).

In their Motion, the Fluor Defendants first argue that they are
entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on the Plaintiffs'
counsel's statements at the February 14, 2018 motion hearing. More
specifically, they argue that the Plaintiffs' counsel's statements
are party admissions proving that Fluor Defendants did not order
the plant closing which relieves Fluor Defendants from liability
under the WARN Act.

Secondly, the Fluor Defendants argue that they should be dismissed
from the action because the Plaintiffs' counsel's admissions also
support the applicability of the unforeseeable business
circumstances (UBC) exception. The Fluor Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs' counsel's admissions demonstrate that SCANA's sudden
and unexpected shutdown of the V.C. Summer project left the the
Fluor Defendants with zero independence' to provide WARN notices.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Fluor Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings arguing that the statements of the Plaintiffs'
counsel at the February 14, 2018 motion hearing were "not
stipulations averring that Fluor did not order a plant closing" but
are simply inferences Fluor draws from words that do not state the
conclusions Fluor wants. The Plaintiffs further argue that all
Fluor can do is ask the Court to draw an inference in its favor,
i.e., that Fluor did not order a 'plant closing' because counsel
said SCANA did.

Upon conducting a plain reading of the Plaintiffs' counsel's
statements from the February 14, 2018 motion hearing, the court is
not persuaded that they are deliberate, clear, and unambiguous
admissions by the Plaintiffs' counsel that the Fluor Defendants
failed to order the shutdown of the VC Summer project. As support,
the court observes that several of the statements contain legal
thoughts or theories which do not generally operate as judicial
admissions.

The court further observes that the statements factually
referencing the SCANA Defendants do not evince an intent to
deliberately waive the right to present evidence regarding the
Fluor Defendants' alleged role in the VC Summer shutdown. Moreover,
the factual references to the SCANA Defendants in the Plaintiffs'
counsel's statements also do not appear to contradict the
allegations of the Amended Complaint wherein the Plaintiffs allege
that the SCANA Defendants were the single employer together with
the Fluor Defendants and/or WEC of all individuals working at VC
Summer.   

In view of the preceding observations, the court finds that the
statements of the Plaintiffs' counsel do not constitute judicial
admissions entitling the Fluor Defendants to judgment on the
pleadings.

The Fluor Defendants also contend that they are entitled to
judgment on the pleadings because the UBC exception applies to the
shutdown of the VC Summer project.

The Court finds that the Fluor Defendants have not met their burden
of demonstrating the applicability of the UBC exception. First, the
court does not perceive any support in the pleadings or documents
incorporated in the pleadings for finding that the Fluor Defendants
provided statutorily compliant notice when they eventually did
inform their employees that they were being terminated. Second, the
pleadings and their incorporated documents do not clearly identify
the unforeseeable business circumstances that caused the shutdown
of the VC Summer project. Based on this, the Fluor Defendants are
not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on the UBC
exception.

The court, accordingly, denies the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
filed by Fluor Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., and Fluor
Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9kxsrt2 from
Leagle.com.

Harry Pennington, III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated & Timothy Lorentz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucy Clark
Sanders , Bloodgood and Sanders, Jack A. Raisner , Outten and
Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Nancy Bloodgood , Bloodgood and Sanders &
Rene S. Roupinian , Outten and Golden LLP,  pro hac vice.

Fluor Corporation & Fluor Enterprises Inc, Defendants, represented
by John Hagood Tighe -- htighe@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and
Phillips, David Kresser -- dkresser@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher
and Phillips LLP, pro hac vice & Kathleen McLeod Caminiti --
kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP, pro hac
vice.

SCANA Corporation & South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
Defendants, represented by Charles T. Speth, II --
ted.speth@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
PC, D. Michael Henthorne -- michael.henthorne@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, James H. Fowles, III --
james.fowles@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC & Christopher Ray Thomas --
christopher.thomas@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC.

Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services Inc, Defendant, represented by
John Hagood Tighe , Fisher and Phillips.

FORD MOTORS: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Explorer Exhaust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News service, reports that
Three Ford Explorer owners who sued over an alleged defect that
allows exhaust fumes to seep into the SUV's cabin can proceed with
their claims after a federal judge on July 16  rejected the motor
company's motion to dismiss.

In the class action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan
court, the owners of Ford Explorer models from 2016 and 2017 sued
Ford Motor Company in August 2017 alleging that dangerous carbon
monoxide had leaked into passenger cabins causing headaches, nausea
and dizziness. The odorlessness gas is potentially fatal.

Lead plaintiff and Atlanta, Georgia retiree Suresh Persad, 67, said
that he had bought a 2016 Ford Explorer and soon realized exhaust
fumes were accumulating in the compartment when he was driving. He
claimed that after he took the vehicle to the dealer for a road
test, it said there was no problem and refused to repair the
defect.

Ford countered that its Explorers are safe to drive but offered
customers free service to address the issue. The company asked U.S.
District Judge Terrence Berg to throw out the lawsuit on procedural
grounds arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently
state claims of fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and other counts.

Berg denied the motion in its entirety rejecting the notion that
the owners were on notice because of publicly known issues with
earlier Explorer models. The vehicle owners had made clear that
they had no way of knowing that the same defect existed in their
later models, the judge said.

"Indeed, a plausible inference could be drawn in the opposite
direction – that because older Ford Explorers suffered from
well-publicized exhaust fume defects, a reasonably prudent consumer
might expect that Ford had rectified this issue in the newer
models," Berg wrote in the 23-page opinion.

Berg rejected Ford's contention that the lawsuit only alleged a
design defect, not covered under the Dearborn, Michigan company's
warranties.  The judge said the court needs to see more evidence to
establish whether the fault is caused by a flaw in materials used
in the exhaust and air conditioning and heating systems or
manufacturing.

"At this stage of the litigation, plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to sustain that the exhaust fume defect is covered by
the applicable warranties," the judge wrote, adding that the
owners' claims fall within the warranty period of 3 years or 36,000
miles.

Berg gave Ford two weeks to file an answer in court.

Since 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
been investigating the claims that Explorers models from 2011 to
2017 were exposing drivers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

According to The Center for Auto Safety, Ford has failed to fix the
defect, and the agency has yet to complete its investigation.
Earlier this month, the advocacy group sent a letter to Ford CEO
Jim Hackett demanding that it recall 1.3 million vehicles. Though
Ford has offered customers free service, drivers have still
complained that they have felt nauseous, dizzy and suffered from
headaches while driving, the group says.

Berg rejected Ford's contention that the lawsuit only alleged a
design defect, not covered under the Dearborn, Michigan company's
warranties.  The judge said the court needs to see more evidence to
establish whether the fault is caused by a flaw in materials used
in the exhaust and air conditioning and heating systems or
manufacturing.

"At this stage of the litigation, plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to sustain that the exhaust fume defect is covered by
the applicable warranties," the judge wrote, adding that the
owners' claims fall within the warranty period of 3 years or 36,000
miles.

Berg gave Ford two weeks to file an answer in court.

Since 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
been investigating the claims that Explorers models from 2011 to
2017 were exposing drivers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

According to The Center for Auto Safety, Ford has failed to fix the
defect, and the agency has yet to complete its investigation.
Earlier this month, the advocacy group sent a letter to Ford CEO
Jim Hackett demanding that it recall 1.3 million vehicles. Though
Ford has offered customers free service, drivers have still
complained that they have felt nauseous, dizzy and suffered from
headaches while driving, the group says.

FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Sharkey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine E. Sharkey asks the Court to conditionally certify her
lawsuit captioned CATHERINE E. SHARKEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FORTRESS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., d/b/a FORTRESS MOBILE; and ZHONG SU, individually, Case No.
3:18-cv-00019-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), as a collective action and to
facilitate notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Sharkey seeks payment of alleged unpaid regular
and overtime wages owed to her and other similarly situated
misclassified employees due to violations of the FLSA.  She seeks
authorization to send initial and subsequent Court-supervised
Notices to all current and former independent contractors, who were
employed by Fortress beginning January 10, 2015, to the present.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Frederick M. Thurman, Jr.
          SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK LLP
          101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2200
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 375-0057
          E-mail: fthurman@slk-law.com



FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Michael Kent Balks at Roche Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC., MICHAEL J.
PELLINI, ALEXIS BORISY, TROY COX, MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY, SANDRA
HORNING, EVAN JONES, DANIEL O'DAY, MICHAEL D. VARNEY, KRISHNA
YESHWANT, ROCHE HOLDINGS, INC., and MERGER SUBSIDIARY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01028-UNA (D. Del., July 11, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed
transaction, and in the event Defendants consummate the Proposed
Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 19,
2018, pursuant to which Foundation Medicine, Inc. will be acquired
by Roche Holdings, Inc. and Merger Subsidiary, Inc. On June 18,
2018, Foundation Medicine's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Roche. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Roche commenced a tender
offer, set to expire on July 30, 2018. If the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, Foundation Medicine stockholders will receive
$137.00 in cash for each share of Foundation Medicine.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.

Foundation Medicine, Inc. is a public American company based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts which develops, manufactures and sells
genomic analysis diagnostics for solid and circulating
cancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Wang Balks at Merger Deal with Roche
---------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE WANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC., ALEXIS
BORISY, TROY COX, MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY, SANDRA HORNING M.D., EVAN
JONES, DANIEL O'DAY, MICHAEL J. PELLINI M.D., MICHAEL D. VARNEY
Ph.D., and KRISHNA YESHWANT M.D., the Defendants, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11435 (D. Mass., July 10, 2018), is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other ordinary
stockholders of Foundation Medicine, Inc., against the Company and
the members Foundation Medicine's board of directors for their
violations of Section 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Foundation Medicine by certain affiliates of Roche Holdings,
Inc., which already owns roughly 57% of the Company.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 to be filed on July 2, 2018 with the SEC and
disseminated to Company stockholders. The 14D-9 recommends that
Company stockholders tender their shares for the Tender Offer
price. The Tender Offer was set to expire on July 30, 2018, whereby
Foundation Medicine would merge with and into 062018 Merger
Subsidiary, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Roche, with the
Company continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Roche.

The Tender Offer is structured as a two-step tender offer. Pursuant
to the terms of the definitive agreement and plan of merger the
companies entered into each Foundation Medicine common share issued
and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive $137.00
in cash.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain
material internal financial information about the Company, relied
on by the financial advisor of the Company's Special Committee,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC to render an opinion that the Tender Offer
is fair to Foundation Medicine shareholders, and certain material
information regarding the sales process leading up to the Tender
Offer, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and/or
misleading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin St., Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02100
          Telephone: (617) 936 2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: melwani@whafh.com


GEORGE XENAKIS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeon Ho Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. George Xenakis Support Services LLC;
United Dental Fullerton Corp; George Xenakis, DDS, P.C.; UDream
Dental, a California Business Entity Form Unknown, DBA George
Xenakis, DDS, P.C.; and Does One through Ten the Defendants, Case
No. BC713397 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate dental offices.
According to Defendants' website, Defendants operate nine locations
in California. The Plaintiff worked at two of Defendants'
locations. Plaintiff was paid hourly. At their locations,
Defendants employ non-exempt workers to attend to customers. The
Plaintiff and Defendants' other employees were subject to identical
or nearly identical policies and procedures related to employee
compensation. These systematic and companywide policies caused the
illegal pay practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLENCORE PLC: Gary Robison Sues over Misleading Financial Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ROBISON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLENCORE PLC and IVAN GLASENBERG, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06286 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2018), seeks
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Glencore securities
from September 30, 2016 and July 2, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Glencore engages in the production, refinement, processing,
storage, transport and marketing of metals and minerals, energy
products, and agricultural products worldwide.  According to the
complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Glencore's conduct would foreseeably subject it
to heightened scrutiny by U.S. and foreign government bodies with
respect to the Company's compliance with money laundering and
bribery laws and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and (ii)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Glencore's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


GLOBAL GLIMPSE: Faces Kelso Suit Alleging False Imprisonment
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMA KELSO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
GLOBAL GLIMPSE, A California Non-Profit Corporation, ELIZA PESUIT,
an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
RG18911578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 5, 2018), is
brought over several claims under the Business and Professions
Code, including negligent misrepresentation, false imprisonment,
intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross negligence.

Global Glimpse is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of California with its principal office
located in Berkeley, California, in Alameda County.  Eliza Pesuit
is Global Glimpse's chief executive officer.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phyl van Ammers, Esq.
          1211 Shakespeare Drive
          Concord, CA 94521
          Telephone: (650) 867-8241
          E-mail: phylvanammers@gmail.com


HENKEL CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Macaspac Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Claudine Macaspac filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Claudine Macaspac v. Henkel
Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-01755-H-BLM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
and assigned Case No. 37-02017-00027801-CU-FR-CTL.  The lawsuit was
later removed to the District Court.

Henkel is a German chemical and consumer goods company
headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany.  The Company is a
multinational company active both in the consumer and industrial
sector.

The appellate case is captioned as Claudine Macaspac v. Henkel
Corporation, Case No. 18-55880, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 1, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on August 31, 2018;

   -- Appellant Claudine Macaspac's opening brief is due on
      October 10, 2018;

   -- Appellee Henkel Corporation's answering brief is due on
      November 13, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CLAUDINE MACASPAC, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

Defendant-Appellee HENKEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Kai S. Bartolomeo, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5258
          E-mail: kbartolomeo@mofo.com

               - and -

          William Tarantino, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: wtarantino@mofo.com


HUGHES NETWORK: Puckett Sues for Illegal Use of Credit Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
DON PUCKETT, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01216-HZ (D. Ore., July 9, 2018), seeks relief against
Hughes for its alleged unlawful business practice of obtaining and
using consumer credit reports when the consumer is merely inquiring
about potential service, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Hughes is a corporation that regularly conducts business in Oregon
with its principal place of business located in Germantown,
Maryland.

Hughes provides broadband satellite network services and systems to
the consumer and enterprise markets in North America and
internationally.  The Company delivers services using small
aperture terminal satellite, digital subscriber line, and wireless
transport platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carrie Majors-Staab, Esq.
          MAJORS LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 3160
          Clackamas, OR 97015
          Telephone: (503) 919-1332
          E-mail: Carrie@majors-law.com


HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Walker Suit 18-cv-01022 over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUMANA PHARMACY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01022-UNA (D. Del., July 11, 2018),
alleges that Defendant has placed numerous autodialed calls to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, despite not having such a policy or
conducting this training, as required by law prior to making
telemarketing calls.

According to the complaint, this action arises out of Defendant's
practice of placing autodialed telemarketing calls to individuals
in the absence of prior express written consent, and in the absence
of any "do not call" policy or training, in violation of two
separate provisions Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Humana Pharmacy makes managing prescriptions easier. Explore our
prescription mail delivery, specialty pharmacy services, on-site
pharmacies and more.[BN]

Counsel to Plaintiff:

          Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          Wilmington, DE
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777 4200
          Facsimile: (302) 777 4224
          E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455 9737
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Walker Suit 18-cv-01024 over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUMANA PHARMACY, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01024-UNA (D. Del., July 11, 2018),
arises out of Defendant's practice of placing autodialed
telemarketing calls to individuals in the absence of prior express
written consent, and in the absence of any "do not call" policy or
training, in violation of two separate provisions Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Humana Pharmacy makes managing prescriptions easier. Explore our
prescription mail delivery, specialty pharmacy services, on-site
pharmacies and more.[BN]

Counsel to Plaintiff:

          Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          Wilmington, DE
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777 4200
          Facsimile: (302) 777 4224
          E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455 9737
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


ILLINOIS: Goldberg Appeals Ruling in "Kolton" to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
S. David Goldberg filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled ANTHONY D. KOLTON, S. DAVID GOLDBERG, and JEFFREY S.
SCULLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State
of Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-03792, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring the class action against Mr. Frerichs, challenging the
constitutionality of a provision of the Illinois Uniform
Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act ("UPA").  Their
Amended Complaint challenges the constitutionality of the UPA,
claiming that the Act authorizes the State to take certain private
property for public use without just compensation.  They sue the
Treasurer of the State Illinois, Mr. Frerichs, in his official
capacity.

The appellate case is captioned as S. David Goldberg v. Michael
Frerichs, Case No. 18-2432, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before August 13, 2018, for S. David
Goldberg.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant S. DAVID GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf
of classes of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          THOMAS A. DOYLE, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

Defendant-Appellee MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, is represented by:

          Nadine J. Wichern, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph Street
          State of Illinois Center
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 814-5659
          E-mail: nwichern@atg.state.il.us


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Alatortev Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Igor A. Alatortev filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Igor Alatortev v. Jetblue Airways Corp., Case
No. 3:17-cv-04859-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in June 2015,
JetBlue instituted a new policy to charge a passenger traveling on
a domestic flight a fee of $25 for his first bag checked (or $20
under certain conditions), $35 for the second bag, and $100 for a
third bag.  The baggage fee is charged in a transaction separate
and apart from the customer's purchase of the airline ticket.

On May 12, 2017, Mr. Alatortev and his wife were charged a fee of
$25 for JetBlue to deliver his wife's bag from Boston,
Massachusetts, to Sacramento, California.  According to Mr.
Alatortev, he and his wife were "advised that their flight would be
diverted to San Francisco, California."  Once they arrived in San
Francisco, they discovered, and it was confirmed, that their bag
had been lost.  Mr. Alatortev alleges that JetBlue did not
ultimately deliver the bag until May 15, 2017, when he had to
return to the airport and pick it up.  JetBlue did not refund the
baggage fee, but instead offered them a credit that would require
them to do business with JetBlue in the future.

The Plaintiff alleges that JetBlue took the deliberate self-imposed
undertaking to create a baggage fee, set the baggage fee, and
require its passengers to pay the baggage fee.  He brought claims
on behalf of a putative class against JetBlue purportedly based on
JetBlue's Contract of Carriage ("COC") for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The appellate case is captioned as Igor Alatortev v. Jetblue
Airways Corp., Case No. 18-16225, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant IGOR A. ALATORTEV, individually, and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David R. Ongaro, Esq.
          ONGARO PC
          50 California Street, Suite 3325
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3900
          E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com

Defendant-Appellee JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Shelley Gershon Hurwitz, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2040
          Telephone: (213) 896-2476
          E-mail: Shelley.Hurwitz@hklaw.com


JOHNNY ROCKETS: Harris Sues over Workplace Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY HARRIS, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY ROCKETS OF LAWRENCE; GEETA
CHOPRA, and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No.
MER-L-001469-18 (N.J. Sup. Ct., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable reinstatement,
equitable back pay, equitable front pay and any other relief the
Court deems equitable and just.

According to the complaint, the case is opened to the Court
pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's prohibition
on workplace harassment predicated upon race and/or ethnicity and
upon sexual orientation. The complaint further alleges that
plaintiff was retaliatory discharged for engaging in protected
conduct under the LAD, to wit, making complaint about the above
harassment. Individual liability is sought against Owner Geeta
Chopra on the grounds that all persons who undertake acts of
reprisal are liable for same, on the grounds that she is the
corporate alter ego of the defendant, and on the grounds that she
aided and abetted the company in undertaking wrongful conduct.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court order the defendants to cease and
desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made going forward,
both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals
similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


JUNIPER PHARMA: Seedman Seeks to Block Sale to Catalent
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Seedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cristina
Csimma, James A. Geraghty, Jennifer Good, Mary Ann Gray, Ann
Merrifield, Richard Messina, Nikin Patel and Alicia Secor,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11584 (D. Mass., July 26, 2018), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Juniper Catalent Pharma Solutions, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff also seeks costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Catalent Boston, Inc. will
purchase all outstanding shares of Juniper for $11.50 in cash per
share of Juniper’s common stock.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's proxy statement omitted
the Company's financial projections, as well as the analyses
performed by its financial advisor, Rothschild Inc.  Juniper's
financial projections, data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Rothschild and the background process leading to the merger are
also missing, he says.

Juniper is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 33 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. It
is a diversified healthcare company into pharmaceutical development
and manufacturing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

KANSAS: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Fish, et al. v. Kobach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kris W. Kobach filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No. 2:16-CV-02105-JAR,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Kansas
City.

Kris W. Kobach is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of
State for the state of Kansas.

The appellate case is captioned as Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No.
18-3133, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 5, 2018, Mr.
Kobach filed an appeal from the District Court's decision.  That
appellate case is entitled Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No.
18-3094.

The Plaintiffs have sought to represent two classes:

     (1) all eligible Kansas motor-voter registrants who do not
         currently appear on the active voter registration list
         due to purported failure to submit documentary proof of
         citizenship under Kan. Stat. Ann.; and

     (2) Kansas residents eligible to vote who have submitted a
         registration application but do not currently appear on
         the active voter registration list due to purported
         failure to submit documentary proof of citizenship
         under Kan. Stat. Ann. and who do not have documentary
         proof of citizenship records under their current name
         on file with State agencies in Kansas.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN WAYNE FISH, on behalf of themself and
all others similarly situated; DONNA BUCCI, on behalf of themself
and all others similarly situated; CHARLES STRICKER, on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated; THOMAS J. BOYNTON, on
behalf of themself and all others similarly situated; DOUGLAS
HUTCHINSON, on behalf of themself and all other similarly situated;
and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KANSAS are represented by:

          Stephen Douglas Bonney, Esq.
          BONNEY ARBITRATION & MEDIATION
          PO Box 32102
          Kansas City, MO 64171
          Telephone: (816) 221-2868

               - and -

          Rodkangyil Orion Danjuma, Esq.
          Dale Ho, Esq.
          Sophia Lin Lakin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2563
          E-mail: odanjuma@aclu.org
                  dale.ho@aclu.org
                  slakin@aclu.org

Plaintiff-Appellee PARKER BEDNASEK is represented by:

          Mark T. Emert, Esq.
          FAGAN EMERT & DAVIS, LLC
          730 New Hampshire, Suite 210
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 331-0300
          E-mail: memert@fed-firm.com

               - and -

          Jennifer M. Walrath, Esq.
          DENTONS
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 496-7118
          E-mail: jennifer.walrath@dentons.com

               - and -

          Samantha Wenger, Esq.
          Curtis E. Woods, Esq.
          DENTONS
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 460-2400
          E-mail: samantha.wenger@dentons.com
                  curtis.woods@dentons.com

Defendant-Appellant KRIS W. KOBACH, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, is represented by:

          Sue Becker, Esq.
          Kris William Kobach, Esq.
          KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE
          120 SW 10th Avenue, 1st Floor
          Topeka, KS 66612-1594
          Telephone: (785) 296-4564
          E-mail: sue.becker@ks.gov
                  Kris.Kobach@sos.ks.gov


KT HEALTH: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Vuckovic Suit to 1st Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Alexander Vuckovic, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KT Health Holdings, Inc.
d/b/a KT Health, Inc., KT Holdings, LLC and KT Health, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-13696-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' mislabeling
of their athletic tapes in violations of G. L. c. 93A and
injunctive relief directing KT Health to cease its false and
misleading labeling and advertising, retrieve existing false and
misleading labeling, advertising and promotional materials and
publish corrective advertising.

KT Health has been alleged of deceptively imparting that by simply
applying their athletic strips onto the skin above an injured area,
consumers can obtain relief from pain, recover faster and receive
treatment from a myriad of common injuries such as Achilles
tendonitis, tennis elbow, plantar fasciitis, rib pain, runner's
knee and shin splints.

The appellate case is captioned as Sweeney v. KT Health Holdings
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1638, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

Movant-Appellant Pamela Sweeney, of Madison, Wisconsin, appears pro
se.[BN]

Plaintiff ALEXANDER VUCKOVIC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          63 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 329-1291
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Ave., 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1640 Town Center Cir., Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees KT HEALTH HOLDINGS INC., d/b/a KT Health,
Inc.; KT HOLDINGS, LLC; and KT HEALTH, LLC, are represented by:

          William G. Cosmas, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen Clark Reilly, Esq.
          FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP
          1 Beacon St., 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108-0000
          Telephone: (617) 542-5542
          E-mail: wgc@fitchlp.com
                  scr@fitchlp.com

               - and -

          Tyson K. Hottinger, Esq.
          MASCHOFF BRENNAN LAYCOCK GILMORE ISRAELSEN
          & WRIGHT, PLLC
          201 S Main St., Suite 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 297-1850
          E-mail: thottinger@mabr.com

Defendants-Appellees KT HOLDINGS, LLC, and KT HEALTH, LLC, are
represented by:

          Larry R. Laycock, Esq.
          MASCHOFF BRENNAN LAYCOCK GILMORE ISRAELSEN
          & WRIGHT, PLLC
          201 S Main Street, Suite 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (435) 575-1388
          E-mail: llaycock@mabr.com


LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Sued by Turner for Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JODY TURNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LANCASTER HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC712854
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 5, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of failing to, among other things, pay overtime wages.

Lancaster is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of California.  Lancaster conducts business as the health
care services company, Palmdale Regional Medical Center.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

Lancaster is a private for-profit hospital located in Palmdale,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310)590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


LEONARD-O'NEILL INSURANCE: Cowan Alleges Workplace Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA COWAN, the Plaintiff, v. LEONARD-O'NEILL INSURANCE GROUP;
ROGER LEONARD, and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No.
CAM-L-002593-1 (N.J. Super. Ct., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, non-economic compensatory damages, punitive
damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced
attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable
reinstatement and any other relief the Court deems equitable and
just.

According to the complaint, the matter is opened to the Court under
the Conscientious Employee Protection Act alleging that plaintiff
was terminated for objecting to conduct which she reasonably
believed to be unlawful and fraudulent.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court order the defendants to cease and
desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made going forward,
both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals
similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


LYFT FLORIDA: Franco Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moises Franco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lyft Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-23022 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act.

LYFT provides a transport service that allows drivers to sign up as
drivers using their privately owned cars, to pick up and drive
passengers for a fee using a mobile technology. Plaintiff was
employed as a driver, working in excess of 40 hours per week
without overtime compensation says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Lyft Florida is represented by:

      Christine Fuqua Gay
      Holland & Knight, LLP
      701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 789-7447
      Email: christine.gay@hklaw.com


LYONS DOUGHTY: Walker Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------
Tanisha Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C. and John
Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00513, (S.D. Ohio,
July 25, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

Some time prior to September 15, 2017, an obligation was allegedly
incurred by Walker out of a transaction involving an alleged debt
with Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.  Defendant, a law firm, sent
Walker a collection letter that falsely threatened that interest
and costs may be accruing on her account when Defendant knew that
they were not. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amichai Zukowsky, Esq.
      ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC
      23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 800-5529
      Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com

MATTRESS FIRM: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Anderson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v.
MATTRESS FIRM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18912026 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 10, 2018), contends that the Defendants knew or should
have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and other
members of the class, and that Defendants had the financial ability
to pay compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and other
class members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to
increase Defendants' profits.

The Defendants operate retail mattress stores in various locations
throughout the State of California.  The Defendants employed
Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee, in its multiple
California retail stores through approximately July of 2017.  The
Defendants continue to employ non-exempt, hourly-paid employees at
multiple retail locations throughout California.

Mattress Firm is an American retailing company and mattress store
chain founded on July 4, 1986. The headquarters of the company is
located in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 922 1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844 7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


MDL 2842: David Samuel's Suit v. CBOE et al. Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DAVID SAMUEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN
DOES, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. and Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01593, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
July 11, 2018. The District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-04173 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah

The Samuel case is being consolidated with MDL 2842 in re: Chicago
Board Options Exchange Volatility Index Manipulation Antitrust
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 14, 2018. The
actions concern alleged manipulation of a financial indicator known
as the Cboe Volatility Index (commonly referred to as the VIX) and
VIX-linked financial instruments. The defendants are unknown John
Doe entities, described as financial institutions and firms that
trade anonymously on the Cboe exchanges; nine firms identified as
participants in the alleged conspiracy; and the Cboe entities,
which allegedly established the VIX and oversee markets in
VIX-linked futures and option.

In its July 14, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel concludes that the
Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. The Cboe defendants have their headquarters in
Chicago, and given their alleged role in creating, marketing, and
regulating VIX futures and options and conducting the underlying
special auctions, much of the common evidence likely will be
located there. The majority of the other defendants named thus far
also have their headquarters in Chicago. Additionally, the MDL
Panel held that this district is the first choice of plaintiffs in
10 actions and the second choice of plaintiffs in two Southern
District of New York actions, and the Cboe defendants agree that it
will serve the convenience of all parties. The lead case is
1:18-cv-04171.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Samuel and the Proposed Class:

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

Attorneys for Atlantic Trading USA, LLC:

          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine St. No. 14
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838 7797
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Attorneys for Cboe Global Markets, Inc.:

          Brian Jason Fischer, Esq.
          Gregory M. Boyle, Esq.
          Reid J Schar, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP (NYC)
          919 Third Avenue, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 891 1629
          E-mail: bfischer@jenner.com
                  gboyle@jenner.com
                  rschar@jenner.com


MIDWEST RECOVERY: Michell Franklin Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELL T. FRANKLIN, on behalf of herself and all persons
similarly, the Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and
Does 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
30-2018-01004396-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., July 11, 2018), seeks
to enjoin Defendants from threatening to report debt information,
and to require it to notify all consumer reporting agencies to
remove debt information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant furnishes false
information to the consumer reporting agencies claiming that the
Plaintiff and class members owed money to subject lenders even
though all of the loans were void. The Defendant's purpose for
furnishing the false debt information to the consumer reporting
agencies was to coerce Plaintiff and the class members to make
payments on the illegal loans.

Midwest Recovery is a diverse financial institution consisting of
everything from accounts receivable management to call center
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 928864
          Telephone: 714 854 7205
          Facsimile: 714 854 7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          Venture, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240 8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240 8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


MISSISSIPPI: Harkins Appeals Ruling in Stallworth Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Josh Harkins, Dean Kirby, Phillip Moran, Chris Caughman, Nickey
Browning, John A. Polk, Mark Baker and Alex Monsour filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled JEFFERY A. STALLWORTH
v. GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; MISSISSIPPI
LEGISLATURE; EAST METRO PARKWAY; and MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, Defendants, and JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY; MAYOR TONY T. YARBER; MELVIN V. PRIESTER, JR.; ASHBY
FOOTE; KENNETH I. STOKES; DE'KEITHER STAMPS; CHARLES TILLMAN;
TYRONE HENDRIX; MARGARET BARRETT-SIMON; DR. ROSIE L.T. PRIDGEN;
REV. JAMES L. HENLEY, JR.; LAWANDA D. HARRIS; VERNON W. HARTLEY,
SR.; and EVELYN O. REED, all in their official capacities,
individual capacities, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Movants, Case No. 3:16-CV-246, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on April 6,
2016, Jeffery A. Stallworth filed the lawsuit to challenge Senate
Bill 2162, a proposed law that at the time was working its way
through the Mississippi Legislature.  His suit claims that SB 2162
will, among other things, violate his rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Mr.
Stallworth seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffery Stallworth v. Dewey
Bryant, et al., Case No. 18-60487, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Respondents-Appellants JOSH HARKINS, DEAN KIRBY, PHILLIP MORAN,
CHRIS CAUGHMAN, NICKEY BROWNING, JOHN A. POLK, MARK BAKER AND ALEX
MONSOUR are represented by:

          Michael Brunson Wallace, Esq.
          WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A.
          401 E. Capitol Street
          Heritage Building
          Jackson, MS 39201-2688
          Telephone: (601) 968-5500
          E-mail: mbw@wisecarter.com

Intervenors-Appellees JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, each in
his or her official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of
Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; ROSIE L.
T. PRIDGEN, in her official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board
of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority;
REVEREND JAMES L. HENLEY, JR., in his official capacity as a
Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal
Airport Authority; LAWANDA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as a
Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal
Airport Authority; VERNON W. HARTLEY, SR., in his official capacity
as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson
Municipal Airport Authority; and EVELYN O. REED, in her official
capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, are represented by:

          Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esq.
          Nicholas Francis Morisani, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
          4270 I-55, N.
          Jackson, MS 39211-6391
          Telephone: (601) 352-2300
          E-mail: fred.banks@phelps.com
                  nick.morisani@phelps.com

Intervenors-Appellees ROSIE L. T. PRIDGEN, individually as citizens
of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; LAWANDA D. HARRIS, individually as citizens of
the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; VERNON W. HARTLEY, SR., individually as
citizens of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; EVELYN O. REED, individually as
citizens of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; and JAMES L. HENLEY, JR.,
individually as citizens of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Tylvester O. Goss, Esq.
          GOSS & WILLIAMS, P.L.L.C.
          1441 Lakeover Road
          Jackson, MS 39213
          Telephone: (601) 981-2800
          E-mail: tgoss@dgwlaw.com


MISSOURI: Foster Kids Suing for Overmedication Win Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
three children earned class-action status on July 19 in a lawsuit
claiming Missouri overprescribed psychotropic medications to
thousands of kids in foster care.

In what has been called a landmark case, advocacy groups Children's
Rights, National Center for Youth Law, and St. Louis University
School of Law Legal Clinics sued Missouri on behalf of three foster
children in June 2017, alleging the state was unlawfully
prescribing drugs without regard to the harms they can cause, in
violation of the children's civil rights.

Administrators failed to properly maintain and review medical
records and prescription data and gave the drugs to foster children
to sedate them rather than for a valid medical purpose, the groups
say.

In January, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey refused to throw
out the plaintiffs' substantive due process claims under the 14th
Amendment while dismissing other allegations.

On July 19, the judge gave the foster children another boost by
granting their motion for class certification.

In a mostly procedural ruling, Laughrey noted that as of December
last year the Missouri Department of Social Services has more than
13,500 children under its care, and that about 3,100 foster
children are being medicated with psychotropic drugs.

The judge ruled that the class shall consist of all minors in the
department's Children's Division who are prescribed psychotropic
drugs while in foster care.

A 12-year-old girl identified as a "K.C." in the lawsuit was
prescribed as many as five psychotropic medications without
informed consent, according to court records. The girl suffered
from shakes after allegedly being given a combination of
medications that included the antipsychotic Abilify, the ADHD drug
Strattera and the powerful psychotropic drug Seroquel.

She frequently got into fights at her residential facility but
became less aggressive after she stopped taking Seroquel, the
complaint states. She is still angry and sad, according to court
records, and has gained more than 15 pounds over three months of
being on cocktail of drugs.

Jennifer Tidball, interim director of the Missouri Department of
Social Services, and Tim Decker, director of the department's
Children's Division, are parties to the lawsuit.

Mary Compton, a spokeswoman with Attorney General Josh Hawley's
office, did not comment specifically on the court's ruling,
referring instead to an April filing that asked the court to deny
certification.

Missouri acknowledged problems with medical recordkeeping and
prescription drug data in a 2016 report to the federal government.

"Many foster care children are prescribed multiple psychotropic
medications without clear evidence of benefit and with inadequate
safety data. The use of multiple medications (psychotropic or
otherwise) creates the potential for serious drug interactions,"
the report states.

The case is scheduled for a bench trial on June 17, 2019.

MONSANTO COMPANY: Don Jons Sues over Cotton, Soybean Xtend Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAY DON JONS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-03010-RAL (D. S.Dak., July 11, 2018), is a class action
on behalf of individuals across the country whose crops have been
wiped out due to Defendant Monsanto Company's marketing of its
genetically modified cotton and soybean Xtend seeds without a
corollary EPA-approved herbicide.  The decision to offer a GMO seed
without an EPA-approved herbicide flies in the face of standard
agrochemical corporate practice, the lawsuit claims.  The
incomplete system, a dangerously defective product, was sold to
unsuspecting farmers causing widespread damage to Class members'
property and crops throughout the United States.

Instead of waiting to market its Xtend seeds until a safe herbicide
was available to farmers, Monsanto pushed ahead, and made millions
of dollars telling unsuspecting farmers that a "safe" and "lower
volatility" dicamba herbicide was forthcoming. Without this
herbicide, the foreseeable and realized outcome was not so
profitable for many farmers. Those that purchased the incomplete
and defective system predictably applied a volatile dicamba ("old
dicamba"), the only herbicide that would protect their new seeds,
damaging or wiping out entire swaths of vegetation (i.e. Class
members' crops) that were not the intended target of the herbicide
due to drift. Monsanto actively promoted the illicit use of the
highly volatile and potent herbicide with knowledge that crops
without its new genetic traits would be damaged due to
volatilization and drift.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Johnson, Esq.
          Shannon R. Falon, Esq.
          JOHNSON, JANKLOW ABDDALAH & REITER, L.L.P.
          PO Box 2348
          Siuox Falls, SD 57101-2348
          Telephone: (605) 338 4304
          E-mail: steven@janklowabddalah.com
                  shannon@janklowabddalah.com


MRS BPO: Jermany Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
MALIKA JERMANY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MRS BPO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03982-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.  The Plaintiff brings this class action
on behalf of a class of New York consumers seeking redress for
Defendant's actions of using a misleading, deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

MRS BPO, a debt collection agency, provides accounts receivables
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza W, 12th floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575 4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Dan@cml.legal


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties in "Franchi" Suit Enters Into MOU
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 26, 2018,
that the parties in the case Franchi v. Nationstar Mortgage
Holdings Inc., et al., have entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU).

As disclosed in the proxy statement/prospectus, on May 8, 2018, a
purported class action lawsuit, styled as Franchi v. Nationstar
Mortgage Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01170-B (the
"Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas naming Nationstar, WMIH, Wand Merger
Corporation and the individual members of the Nationstar board of
directors as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). The
complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by disseminating a false
and misleading registration statement.

The lawsuit seeks a variety of equitable and injunctive relief
including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the
merger, rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented,
directing the Defendants to disseminate a registration statement
that does not contain any untrue statement of material fact,
declaring the Defendants violated the Exchange Act, and awarding
the Plaintiff and the putative class costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to resolve the claims
asserted by the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the MOU, the Parties agreed
that the Defendants would cause to be made the supplemental
disclosures. The MOU further specifies that, within five (5)
business days of the closing of Merger, the Parties will file a
stipulation of dismissal of the Action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a). That stipulation will dismiss Plaintiff's
individual claims with prejudice, and dismiss the claims
purportedly asserted on behalf of a putative class of Nationstar
shareholders without prejudice.

The MOU will not affect the timing of the special meeting of
Nationstar shareholders, the timing of the Merger or the amount or
form of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

The Defendants believe that the Action is without merit and that no
supplemental disclosure is required to the proxy
statement/prospectus under any applicable rule, statute, regulation
or law. However, in order to, among other things, eliminate the
burden, inconvenience, expense, risk, and disruption of continuing
litigation, Nationstar has determined that it will make the
supplemental disclosures.

The Nationstar board of directors continues to recommend
unanimously, following the unanimous recommendation of a special
committee of the Nationstar board of directors, that you vote "FOR"
the proposals being considered at the special meeting of Nationstar
shareholders.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/RfGxFi.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination,
and transaction based services primarily to single-family
residences in the United States. It operates in three segments:
Servicing, Originations, and Xome. The company is based in Coppell,
Texas.

WMIH Corp., through its subsidiary, WM Mortgage Reinsurance
Company, Inc., engages in legacy reinsurance business with respect
to mortgage insurance operated in runoff mode. The company was
formerly known as WMI Holdings Corp. and changed its name to WMIH
Corp. in May 2015. WMIH Corp. was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: T. Toland's TCPA Suit Remains in Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned
TAQUELIA WASHINGTON TOLAND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02575-JD (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in California state
court alleging that defendants' debt collection and debt reporting
practices violate California law. Defendants removed to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  The Plaintiffs
challenge removal on the ground that the defendants cannot
establish the $5,000,000 minimum amount in controversy that CAFA
requires.

Because Nationstar cannot identify potential class members without
manually reviewing its files, it surveyed the 6,882 loans to
estimate what proportion of those loans were purchase-money loans
charged off as a result of foreclosure on a senior lien.
Nationstar selected 105 files at random after excluding a subset of
loans charged off before Nationstar acquired those servicing
rights, since it was less likely that Nationstar had all the
necessary records related to those loans. For 52 loan files,
Nationstar was unable to determine the purpose of the loan at all.
For the remaining 53 loan files, Nationstar found that 10 were
purchase-money loans charged off as a result of a foreclosure on a
senior lien. Extrapolating to the 6,882 loans as a whole,
Nationstar estimates that there are around 1,300 putative class
members.

Consequently, the Court finds that Nationstar has satisfied its
burden of proof and shown that at least $5,000,000 is in
controversy.

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

Taquelia Washington Toland & Georgia Toland, individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Bryan Kemnitzer -- bryan@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg,
LLP, Kristin A. Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer
Barron & Krieg, Arthur David Levy -- aa_levy@yahoo.com -- Law
Office of Arthur D. Levy & Noah Zinner -- nzinner@heraca.org --
Housing & Economic Rights Advocates.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware limited liability company &
Veripro Solutions Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Erik Wayne Kemp -- ek@severson.com -- Severson &
Werson A Professional Corporation, John B. Sullivan --
jbs@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Laszlo Ladi, Jr. --
ll@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & Mary Catherine Kamka --
mkk@severson.com -- Severson and Werson, PC.

OCWEN LOAN: Andrade Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Artur Andrade and Julia Andrade, On
behalf of themselves and all other so similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as
Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-HL1, the
Defendants, Case No. PC-18-03964, was removed from the Providence
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island (Providence) on July 11, 2018. The District of Rhode Island
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00385-WES-LDA to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William E.
Smith.

Ocwen is one of the leading mortgage servicing companies in
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION
          628 Park Avenue, Suite 2C
          Cranston, RI 02910
          Telephone: (401) 965 4131
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Samuel C. Bodurtha, Esq.
          Ethan Z. Tieger, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          321 South Main Street, Suite 301
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 751 0842
          Facsimile: (401) 751 0072
          E-mail: sbodurtha@hinshawlaw.com
                  etieger@hinshawlaw.com


PACKERS SANITATION: Triana Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Laketha Triana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Packers Sanitation Services, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-04109, (W.D. Ark., July 25, 2018), seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay lawful minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Packers Sanitation Services provides sanitation services for the
food industry where Triana worked as a sanitation worker at their
DeQueens facility. She claims that Defendant did not include her
discretionary bonuses when calculating her overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean Short, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
            sean@sanfordlawfirm.com


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Still Defends Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 28, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself
in a consolidated Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and
exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors. On
February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions
filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims against
defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

Patterson Companies said "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action
complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending
ourselves in this litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. is a value-added specialty distributor
serving the U.S. and Canadian dental supply markets and the U.S.,
Canadian and U.K. animal health supply markets. Patterson operates
through its two strategic business units, Patterson Dental and
Patterson Animal Health, offering similar products and services to
different customer bases. The company is based in St. Paul,
Minnesota.

PDR NETWORK: Files Petitions to Sup. Ct. in Carlton & Harris Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants PDR NETWORK, LLC, et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of the United States petitions for a writ of certiorari in their
lawsuit styled PDR NETWORK, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. CARLTON &
HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Respondent, Case No. 17-1705.

Responses to the petitions were due July 26, 2018.

The Lower Court Case is titled CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC.,
a West Virginia Corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. PDR NETWORK, LLC; PDR
DISTRIBUTION, LLC; PDR EQUITY, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
16-2185, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The District Court case is captioned CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC,
INC., a West Virginia Corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. PDR
NETWORK, LLC; PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC; PDR EQUITY, LLC; JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-14887, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Carlton seeks
to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., is
represented by:

          Glenn Lorne Hara, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: GHara@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          David Harley Carriger, Esq.
          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE PLLC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302-0000
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Telephone: (304) 304-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
          E-mail: dcarriger@calwelllaw.com
                  chedges@calwelllaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners PDR NETWORK, LLC, et al., are represented
by:

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          130 N. 18th St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553
          E-mail: Rosenthal-j@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          E-mail: Atagvoryan@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Williams, Esq.
          Robert L. Massie, Esq.
          NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          949 Third Ave., Suite 200
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 526-3501
          E-mail: Marc.Williams@nelsonmullins.com
                  Bob.Massie@nelsonmullins.com


PETERSON'S HARLEY: Thomas Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Peterson's Harley Davidson of Miami, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-61723, (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2018), seeks
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Peterson is a dealer of Harley Davidson motorcycles, apparel, and
other merchandise. It sends unsolicited text messages to consumers
promoting its products and services, often resulting in
aggravation, nuisance, loss of time and invasion of privacy, lost
value of cellular services paid for, including wear and tear to
their phones' data, memory, software, hardware and battery, says
the complaint.

Thomas seeks an injunction requiring Peterson's to cease sending
unsolicited text messages to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26TH Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Suit Underway in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit filed by Trevor Mild in the U.S. District Court
for the District for the Central District of California.

On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers.

This action, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael
H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, asserts
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the Company
during various time periods between April 24, 2017 and May 10,
2018. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly
false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the Company's business, operations and prospects.
This action remains pending.

The Company believes this action is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Bautista Sues Over Wage Stubs' Missing Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE BAUTISTA, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA;
PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC712860 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 5, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants have violated the Labor Code by failing
to include the name and address of the legal entity that is the
employer on the itemized wage statements they issue to all members
of the proposed class of employees.

Providence Health System-Southern California is a California
corporation operating within the state of California.  The
Company's corporate address is in Renton, Washington.  Providence
Health & Services is a Washington corporation operating within the
state of California and with its corporate address located in
Renton.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

According to its Web site, Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic
health care ministry committed to providing for the needs of the
communities it serves -- especially the poor and vulnerable.  The
region serves the South Bay, Westside and the Greater San Fernando
Valley Area, operating six award-winning medical centers, a
comprehensive network of physician offices, long-term care, home
care and hospice, urgent care centers and Providence High
School.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Approval of Class Settlement Partly Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed
in part and reversed in part the trial court's judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Class Certification and Approving Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned SEAN J. GRIFFITH,
Appellant, v. QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC.; GARY R. ENZOR; THOMAS R.
MIKLICH; RICHARD B. MARCHESE; ALAN H. SCHUMACHER; ANNETTE M.
SANDBERG; APAX PARTNERS LLP; APAX VII-A L.P.; APAX VII-B L.P.; APAX
VIII-I L.P.; APAX VIII-2 L.P.; GRUDEN ACQUISITION, INC.; GRUDEN
MERGER SUB, INC.; and RICHARD DELMAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Appellees, Case No. 2D17-3160 (Fla.
App.).

Sean J. Griffith appeals an order certifying a class and approving
a class action settlement in a case brought by shareholders of
Quality Distribution, Inc., against the corporation for breach of
fiduciary duty and failure to disclose relevant information
relating to a proposed acquisition by Apax Partners, LLC.

Richard Delman, a shareholder of Quality, filed a class action
complaint against Quality, its board members, and Apax. Delman
alleged a count against the board members for breach of fiduciary
duties, a count against Quality and the board members for failure
to disclose, and a count against Apax for aiding and abetting in
the breaches of fiduciary duties. Delman alleged that Quality and
its board members engaged in a flawed sale process and agreed to an
inadequate sale price. Delman also alleged that Quality and its
board members failed to include in the proxy statement information
that is material to the shareholders' decisions on whether to
approve the merger.

On appeal, Griffith argues (1) that the trial court erred in
approving the settlement without applying the standard set forth in
In re Trulia, (2) that the trial court erred in certifying the
class without considering whether class counsel provided the class
with adequate representation, and (3) that the trial court erred in
denying his request for fees.  

Where the parties, as here, seek certification of the class and
approval of their settlement simultaneously, the trial court is
required to apply heightened scrutiny and to take a more active
role as a guardian of the interests of the absent class members.
Griffith contends that the trial court erred in failing to either
apply the full Grosso test or in failing to adopt the full In re
Trulia standard, which he argues is consistent with the Grosso
test. He claims that the trial court improperly used a
single-factor test in ruling that a settlement may be approved as
long as the proposed release is commensurate with the claims raised
in the case.

In In re Trulia, the Delaware Court of Chancery discussed the
proliferation of disclosure settlements and the problems associated
with a request to approve such a settlement.  The court was asked
to approve a proposed settlement of a class action brought by
shareholders of Trulia, Inc., for breach of fiduciary duty relating
to a proposed merger with Zillow, Inc. The parties engaged in
limited discovery, and within four months after the complaint was
filed, the shareholders entered into an agreement to settle.

The court concluded that in light of the concerns expressed,
disclosure settlements should be met with disfavor unless the
supplemental disclosures address a plainly material
misrepresentation or omission and the subject matter of the
proposed release is narrowly circumscribed to encompass nothing
more than disclosure claims and fiduciary duty claims concerning
the sale process, if the record shows that such claims have been
investigated sufficiently.

The supplemental information will be considered plainly material if
there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder
would consider it important in deciding how to vote or, in other
words, if from the perspective of a reasonable stockholder, there
is a substantial likelihood that it significantly alters the total
mix of information made available.

In order for the settlement to be approved, those supplemental
disclosures must have contained information that corrected a
misrepresentation or omission in the original disclosures and that
information must have been of such a nature that a reasonable
shareholder would likely have considered it important in deciding
how to vote on the merger. Because we now hold that the In re
Trulia standard is applicable and because the trial court's ruling
is based, at least in part, on an incorrect legal standard, we
reverse the trial court's approval of the settlement and remand for
the trial court to apply the proper standard.  

In light of the Court's reversal on this issue, it also reverses
the denial of Griffith's request for fees and remand for
reconsideration of that request after the trial court determines
whether to approve the settlement under the proper standard.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 13, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ybzg2yu5 from Leagle.com.

Adam M. Schachter -- aschachter@gsgpa.com -- and Christian G.
Montelione -- cmontelione@gsgpa.com -- of Gelber Schachter &
Greenberg, P.A., Miami; and Anthony A. Rickey --
arickey@margravelaw.com -- of Margrave Law LLC, Georgetown,
Delaware, for Appellant.

Ernest J. Marquart -- emarquart@slk-law.com -- of Schumaker, Loop &
Kendrick, LLP, Tampa; and Peter L. Simmons --
peter.simmons@friedfrank.com -- of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees Qualify
Distribution, Inc.; Gary R. Enzor; Thomas R. Miklich; Richard B.
Marchese; Alan H. Schumacher; and Annette M. Sandberg.

Bryan D. Hull -- bhull@bushross.com -- and J. Carter Anderson --
canderson@bushross.com -- of Bush Ross, P.A., Tampa; and Edward P.
Welch -- edward.welch@skadden.com -- and Jenness E. Parker --
jenness.parker@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees Apax Partners LLP;
Apax VIII-A L.P.; Apax VIII-B L.P.; Apax VIII-I L.P.; Apax VIII-2
L.P.; Gruden Acquisition, Inc.; and Gruden Merger Sub, Inc.

John F. Keating, Jr. -- jkeating@brualdilawfirm.com -- of The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., New York, New York; and Kenneth J. Vianale
-- kvianale@vianalelaw.com -- and Julie Prag Vianale --
jvianale@vianalelaw.com -- Vianale & Vianale LLP, Boca Raton, for
Appellee Richard Delman.

QUICKEN LOANS: Court Allows E. Mattson to Amend TCPA Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Initial
Complaint in the case captioned ERIK MATTSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN
LOANS, INC.; NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC.; VISION QUEST LENDING; and
UNITED MORTGAGE, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01840-YY (D.
Ore.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 (TCPA). Mattson seeks leave to amend his initial complaint
pursuant to FRCP 15(a)(2), and has included a proposed First
Amended Complaint (FAC) with his motion as required. The FAC
alleges that, within a twelve-month period, each defendant made two
or more calls and/or text messages to Mattson, a registrant of the
national do not call registry, in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227(c) and
47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c).

Taking the facts alleged in the FAC as true, Mattson has
sufficiently alleged a claim under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c).
Accordingly, the motion seeking leave to amend is granted and the
motion to dismiss, previously held in abeyance, is denied as moot.

The FAC does not state a claim under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(d) or 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).  The FAC alleges that each defendant
violated 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for
telemarketing purposes to residential and wireless telephone
subscribers without instituting procedures that comply with the
regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons who
request not to receive telemarketing calls from them.
However, in his reply in support of the motion for leave to amend,
Mattson specifically disclaims seeking relief for this alleged
violation:

The single claim plaintiff alleges against all defendants is this:
they violated the TCPA by calling plaintiff and the proposed class
members two or more times during a 12-month period while their
numbers were registered on the National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry.
He alleges nothing else.

Mattson reiterated the same during oral argument on this motion.

On the basis of this representation, and its own observation that
the FAC does not plead facts to support a claim under 47 USC
Section 227(d) or implementing regulation 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(d), this court notes, for purposes of clarity, that the FAC
states only a single claim under 47 U.S.C. 227(c).

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxkcm98 from
Leagle.com.

Erik Mattson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Zeuthen , Gregory K.
Zeuthen, Attorney at Law PC, by Gregory K. Zeuthen , Gregory K.
Zeuthen, Jarrett L. Ellzey , Hughes Ellzey LLP, pro hac vice & John
P. Kristensen -- john@kristensenlaw.com -- Kristensen Weisberg,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Quicken Loans, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooks R. Brown --
bbrown@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
James P. Laurick -- jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com -- Kilmer Voorhees &
Laurick, PC & W. Kyle Tayman -- ktayman@goodwinprocter.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

New Penn Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Damon W. Suden
-- dsuden@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice,
James B. Saylor -- jsaylor@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey G. Bradford -- jeff.bradford@tonkon.com
-- Tonkon Torp LLP & Parna A. Mehrbani --
parna.mehrbani@tonkon.com -- Tonkon Torp LLP.

RAZZLE DAZZLE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Romero Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rosa Romero and Luis Mateo filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Rosa Romero, et al. v. Razzle
Dazzle Barbershop, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-24873-AOR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

RAZZLEDAZZLE is an old-fashioned barbershop specializing in
haircuts, hot lather shaves and shoe shines.

The appellate case is captioned as Rosa Romero, et al. v. Razzle
Dazzle Barbershop, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-12689, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROSA ROMERO, and other similarly situated
individuals, and LUIS MATEO, and other similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          CHARTWELL LAW
          Miami Tower
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-9044
          E-mail: apetisco@chartwelllaw.com

Defendants-Appellees RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation; RAZZLEDAZZLE BARBERSHOP II, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation; RAZZLEDAZZLE BARBERSHOP MIDTOWN, LLC, a Florida
Profit Corporation; RAZZLEDAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOBE, LLC, a Florida
Profit Corporation; and RAZZLEDAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOMI, LLC, a
Florida Profit Corporation, are represented by:

          Andrew Michael Kassier, Esq.
          ANDREW M. KASSIER, PA
          4500 Le Jeune Rd.
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 661-1866
          E-mail: kassiera@aol.com


REALPAGE INC: Accused by Colombo of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA J. COLOMBO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. BC712855 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., July 5, 2018), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
straight time, minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked.

RealPage, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and the owner and
operator of an industry, business and/or facility licensed to do
business and actually doing business in the state of California.
The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
          SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
          Telephone: (323) 677-0200
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Leonard@law-slg.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975-5525
          E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Court Says Guerrini & Yzeiraj Suits Related
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila on July 24 signed an order holding that the
two cases against Restoration Robotics, Inc., are related:

     1. Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., Case No.
18-3712-EJD (Bankr. N.D. Cal.); and

     2. Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., Case No. 18-3883-BLF
(Bankr. N.D. Cal.).

Restoration Robotics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on June 21, 2018, a
securities class action complaint captioned Edgardo Guerrini v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-CV-03712, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against Restoration Robotics, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, certain investors in
the Company prior to its initial public offering and certain
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company"s initial public
offering.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.

Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini is represented by:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     Levi & Korsinsky LLP
     Tel: 415-291-2420
     E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

Restoration Robotics is represented in the case by:

     Hilary Hellmuth Mattis, Esq.
     Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins LLP
     Tel: 650-328-4600
     E-mail: hilary.mattis@lw.com
             matt.rawlinson@lw.com

Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Parties to Wisconsin Securities Suit in Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in the
case, In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, are currently in mediation.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and
its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster.

On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive.

The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii)
Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company's former Chairman Scott
Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P.
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to
be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding:

     (a) the accuracy of the Company's financial statements;

     (b) the Company's true earnings and expenses;

     (c) the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
controls over financial reporting;

     (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk associated
with the Company's tractor lease guaranty program;

     (e) the Company's leverage ratios and compliance with its
credit facilities; and

     (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried on its
balance sheet.

The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload Logistics (TL),
Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics. The company
is based in Downers Grove, Illinois.


ROSS & ASSOCIATES: Seeger Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna M. Seeger, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ross & Associates, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-03969-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a
debt. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and is therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
1692a(5). Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell
behind on payments owed. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to
Defendant, the Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to
Defendant for collection. In its efforts to collect the debt,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter dated July 10, 2017. The
Letter fails to indicate the minimum amount Plaintiff owed at the
time of receipt of the Letter; fails to provide information that
would allow Plaintiff to determine what Plaintiff will need to pay
to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future; fails to
provide information that would allow the least sophisticated
consumer to determine what he or she will need to pay to resolve
the debt at any given moment in the future; and fails to provide
information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to
determine the amount of interest owed.

Ross & Associates was founded in 1986 by Dan Ross. Originally, Ross
& Associates, Ltd. focused primarily on hard-bid projects for
commercial and industrial clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


S.A. GEAR: Court Won't Certify Class of Timing Chain Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned STEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA CHRISTINE LEMASTER, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC., AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE PARTS, INC.,
and AUTOZONE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-365-SMY-DGW
(S.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs filed a 15-Count Amended Class Action Complaint
against Defendants S.A. Gear Company, Inc. (S.A. Gear), Autozone,
Inc., Autozone Parts, Inc., and Autozone Stores, Inc. (Autozone
Defendants), alleging Defendants manufactured, distributed,
advertised, and/or sold defective timing chain tensioners.  The
Plaintiffs move for class certification under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and seek to
represent classes defined as follows:

   Nationwide Class:

   All persons in the United States who purchased from AutoZone
Defendants' timing chain tensioner for use in the Chrysler 2.7L V-6
engine (also known as the Chrysler LH engine) at any time prior to
the date of class certification. Excluded from the Class are any
Defendant, any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest or which has a controlling interest in any Defendant, and
any Defendant's legal representatives, assigns and successors. Also
excluded are the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member
of the judge's immediate family.

   Illinois Class:

   All domiciliary citizens of the state of Illinois who purchased
from AutoZone Defendants' timing chain tensioner for use in the
Chrysler 2.7L V-6 engine (also known as the Chrysler LH engine) at
any time prior to the date of class certification. Excluded from
the Class are any Defendant, any entity in which any Defendant has
a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in any
Defendant, and any Defendant's legal representatives, assigns and
successors. Also excluded are the judge to whom this case is
assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family.

Numerosity

The Plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide and Illinois classes
consisting of all citizens who purchased Part 9422 from Autozone
for usage in the Chrysler 2.7L V-6 engine. S.A. Gear sold Autozone
over 40,000 units of the Part. Autozone, in turn, sold over 30,000
units of Part 9422 to consumers. As such, numerosity is satisfied.

Commonality

The Defendants argue that commonality does not derive from the fact
that the Part has a universal purpose or universal technical
specifications and suitability issues. They maintain that the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish commonality because the
uncontroverted evidence establishes that any alleged failure of the
Part could be caused by multiple or unrelated factors, including,
but not limited to, engine age and wear, and improper installation
or failure to replace other wear parts such as the timing chain and
gears. In support, they point to Williamson's testimony that the
two tensioners he purchased failed in different ways.  Weighing
individual issues, such as those identified by the Defendants, is
an appropriate approach to analyzing predominance under Rule
23(b)(3). By contrast, a single common question is sufficient to
satisfy the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement. Whether the
Part's packaging was false or misleading is relevant to the
asserted claims and is capable of class-wide resolution.  Thus, the
commonality requirement is satisfied.

Typicality

Typicality is satisfied if the named representative's claim arises
from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives
rise to the claims of other class members and the claims are based
on the same legal theory. As such, typicality and adequacy
inquiries often overlap. In this case, the Plaintiffs have failed
to demonstrate that they meet the typicality requirement.
Specifically, Plaintiffs have not shown and based on the facts in
the record, cannot show that their claims arise out of the same
event or course of conduct as all putative class members.

Adequacy

The adequacy requirement is satisfied when the named
representatives have a sufficient interest in the outcome of the
case to ensure vigorous advocacy and do not have interests
antagonistic to those of the class. A person whose claim is
idiosyncratic or possibly unique is an unsuitable class
representative. Because the record suggests that few, if any other
potential class members share the Plaintiffs' grievances about the
Part, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims are idiosyncratic
to the class. Thus, they are not proper class representatives.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yacwkoc5 from
Leagle.com.

Steve Williamson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated & Rhonda Christine LeMaster, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory J. Pals , Driscoll Firm, P.C. & John J. Driscoll , Driscoll
Firm, P.C.

S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H.
Garside -- jgarside@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale, P.C.

AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc. & AutoZone Parts, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Jay -- jjay@hjlawfirm.com --
Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com --
Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC &Michael R. Cashman --
mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC.

SCANA CORP: Dominion Energy Appeals Ruling in Warren Police Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SCANA Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-509-MBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on January 23, 2018, against SCANA Corporation, Dominion
Energy, Inc., Sedona Corp., Jimmy E. Addison, Gregory E. Aliff,
James A. Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A. Decker, D. Maybank
Hagood, Lynne M. Miller, James W. Roquemore, Maceo K. Sloan, and
Alfredo Trujillo, in the Court of Common Pleas for the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, County of Lexington, State of South Carolina
(Case No. 2018-CP-32-0268).  The lawsuit was removed on February
21, 2018, to the District Court.

The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a
merger agreement that would unfairly deprive the Plaintiff of the
true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy and
Sedona aided and abetted these actions.

Among other remedies, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind
the proposed merger, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and any other relief the court deems
proper.

The appellate case is captioned as Dominion Energy, Inc. v. Warren
Police & Fire Retirement System, Case No. 18-276, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, is represented by:

          Richard Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners DOMINION ENERGY, INC., and SEDONA CORP. are
represented by:

          Andrew A. Mathias, Esq.
          William Walter Wilkins, Esq.
          Burl F. Williams, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
          55 East Camperdown Way
          P. O. Box 10648
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Telephone: (864) 282-1195
          Facsimile: (864) 282-1177
          E-mail: AMathias@nexsenpruet.com
                  BWilkins@nexsenpruet.com
                  BWilliams@nexsenpruet.com

               - and -

          Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq.
          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-7745
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2018
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
                  bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com


SERVICEMASTER CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC d/b/a MERRY
MAIDS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06291 (S.D.N.Y., July 11,
2018), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

According to the complaint, Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and
legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read
website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited
vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

ServiceMaster is a public Fortune 1000 company that provides
residential and commercial services. Its headquarters are located
in Memphis, Tennessee after moving there from Downers Grove,
Illinois, in early 2007. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SHARP HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Espinoza Says
-------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA ESPINOZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. SHARP
HEALTHCARE, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00034031-CU-OE-CTL (, July 10,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons and due to Defendants' uniform payroll
practices, deprived Plaintiff and the Class of proper premium
overtime, failed to schedule Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class in such
a manner that allowed Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class to receive
and/or take their meal and/or rest breaks, Plaintiff and Plaintiff
Class were not provided and/or denied work free meal and rest
breaks. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class
proper premium overtime, as Defendants failed to include certain
remuneration that must be included in employees' regular rate,
including without limitation, nondiscretionary bonuses, shift
differentials, on call pay, and call back pay into the employees'
regular rate and failed to pay due and owed wages upon ending of
employment for employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Carney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393 0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393 0471
          E-mail: JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          Emanuel M. Starr, Esq.
          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd., No. 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914 3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914 3433
          E-mail: Robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                  theodore@frontierlawcenter.com


SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL WASILEWSKI, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. SILVERSTAR
DELIVERY LTD, an Illinois for-profit company, GOLD STANDARD
TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Illinois for-profit company, and
AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware for-profit company, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-12167-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 11, 2018), seeks
to recover benefits from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay at least the minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime wages to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com


SMG MANAGEMENT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrick Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SMG Management I, LLC and SMG Long Beach
Convention & Entertainment Center and Does 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. BC715127 (Cal. Super., July 26, 2018), seeks
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, redress for failure to authorize
or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendants provide entertainment management services at the Long
Beach Convention Center where Miller worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 553-3600
      Fax: (310) 553-3603

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Battles, Lerome Thomas and Steven Spencer, on behalf of
themslves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Southwest Airlines Co. and Kronos, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2018CH09376 (Ill. Cir., July 25, 2018), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major United States airline
headquartered and incorporated under the laws of Texas. Kronos
provides biometric timekeeping devices to Southwest. Southwest
improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to Kronos without
informed consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


SPECIALIST STAFFING: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Simon Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Simon, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Specialist Staffing Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00211, (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2018), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Specialist Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a staffing company that
provides workers to multiple industries, including the oil and gas
industry. It operates in the United States under the business name
"Progressive Global Energy" where Plaintiff worked as an HSE
Consultant from approximately June of 2017 to June of 2018. Simon
worked more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation and was misclassified as exempt from overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

             - and -

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8630
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


SPOTIFY USA: Watson Music Appeals Orders in "Ferrick" to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Music Group, LLC, DM Records, Inc., Kingfish Music Group,
Inc., filed an appeal from court rulings in the lawsuit styled
Melissa Ferrick, et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 18-1872, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Among the records filed in the Appellate Court are: District Court
order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of settlement, dated June 29, 2017; District Court
corrected [proposed] order awarding fees and expenses, dated May
22, 2018; District Court memorandum opinion & order, dated May 22,
2018; and District Court corrected order and final judgment
approving class action settlement, dated May 22, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Ferrick, et al. v.
Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-8412, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 16,
2018, Tamara Dearing and Kristin Diable filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled as
Melissa Ferrick, et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 18-1702.

In early August 2017, Spotify settled the class action lawsuit to
the tune of $43.5 million.  Plaintiffs Melissa Ferrick and David
Lowery filed the lawsuit on behalf of songwriters and publishers
everywhere alleging that the music streaming site had made
thousands of songs available to stream without the proper
license.[BN]

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

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

Appellants Watson Music Group, LLC, DM Records, Inc., and Kingfish
Music Group, Inc., are represented by:

          Seth Peter Robert, Esq.
          BROWN ROBERT, LLP
          150 North Federal Highway
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 832-9400
          E-mail: srobert@brownrobert.com

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

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


STAPLES INC: Thomas Edgar Sues over Minimum & OT Pay, Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS EDGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STAPLES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No. BC713753
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 11, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
provide meal periods, allow rest periods, pay minimum wages, and
pay overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

Staples, Inc. is an American multinational office supply retailing
corporation. It currently comprises over 1,500 stores in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Amster Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYNA AMSTER, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC713390 (Cal Super. Ct., July 10, 2018), wants Starbucks to
fully compensate a California Class for their losses caused by
Defendant's failure to lawfully compensate employees for all their
overtime worked in violation of the California Labor Code.

Starbucks Corporation is an American coffee company and coffeehouse
chain. Starbucks was founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971. As of
2018, the company operates 28,218 locations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Dismiss MAO-MSO Recovery's SAC
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois, Peoria Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned MAO-MSO RECOVERY II,
LLC, MSP RECOVERY LLC, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA
CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-cv-01537-JBM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiffs in this case are not MAOs. Rather, they allege they
have been assigned rights of recovery under the MSP provisions by
numerous MAOs, first-tier entities and downstream entities. The
Medicare beneficiaries were involved in car accidents that required
medical services.  The Plaintiffs contend that State Farm, as the
primary payer, failed to pay for the medical services, so the
assignor-MAOs issued conditional payment. The Plaintiffs aver that
State Farm has failed to reimburse the assignor-MAOs for
conditional payments made, giving rise to liability under Section
1395y(b)(3)(A). The Plaintiffs also bring one count for breach of
contract under 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e).

Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)
provisions provides for a private cause of action against primary
payers who do not reimburse secondary payers for conditional
payments made to Medicare beneficiaries.

State Farm's Challenge to Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under
12(b)(1)

The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.

State Farm brings a factual challenge to standing, arguing that
Plaintiffs do not in fact hold valid assignments from MAOs.

Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Shown They Hold a Valid Assignment

State Farm argues that the Plaintiffs do not hold valid assignments
to pursue rights of recovery under the MSP provisions.

The Plaintiffs provided a document titled Recovery Agreement
entered into between SummaCare and Plaintiff MSP Recovery, LLC. The
Plaintiffs also provided a document titled La Ley Recovery Systems
Agreement (LLR Agreement) entered into between FHP and La Ley
Recovery on April 15, 2014. State Farm argues that the LLR
Agreement is not an assignment, but just a contingency-fee
agreement.

State Farm contends that the allegations concerning approval are
vague and insufficient to survive dismissal.

The Court disagrees; allegations of approval are enough to
plausibly infer that MSPA Claims 1, LLC, holds a valid assignment
at this stage.

The Plaintiffs attached a document titled Settlement Agreement
entered into on June 1, 2016, between La Ley Recovery and MSPA
Claims 1, LLC (and two of the other Plaintiffs) on the one side and
FHP's receiver on the other side. The Settlement Agreement refers
to the LLR Agreement stating: on April 15, 2014, La Ley entered
into a Cost Recovery Agreement with FHP under which FHP assigned
all rights, title and interest held by FHCP to certain recoveries
related to accidents or incidents recoverable pursuant to the MSP
Provisions and other state/federal laws.

The Settlement Agreement also appears to approve the subsequent
MSPA Assignment: the Assigned Claims may be assigned by and among
any of the companies collectively referred herein as La Ley and the
Receiver acknowledges that any assignment of the rights described
hereunder by or among those companies collectively referred to as
La Ley occurring prior to the execution of this Settlement
Agreement shall be valid and enforceable. La Ley as used throughout
the Settlement Agreement referred to La Ley Recovery, MSPA Claims
1, LLC, MSP Recovery LLC, and MSP Recovery Services, LLC.

Thus, the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient documentation at this
juncture to show that MSPA Claims 1, LLC, holds a valid
assignment.

Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Shown That MSPA Claims 1, LLC,
Sustained an Injury Through Exemplar Beneficiary O.D.

State Farm argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
because, even if Plaintiffs have valid assignments, they have
suffered no injury with regards to the exemplar beneficiaries.

The ultimate question in this case is whether State Farm failed to
reimburse the Plaintiffs' assignors for conditional payments made.
The Plaintiffs allege that MSPA Claims 1, LLC's assignor paid for
O.D.'s expenses as well, but was not reimbursed. If that is true,
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, is entitled to reimbursement, regardless of
whether State Farm also paid. Indeed, 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(i)
states that the primary payer must reimburse Medicare even though
it has already reimbursed the beneficiary or other party. The
Richardson declaration does not create a factual dispute about
jurisdiction warranting the Plaintiffs to provide more evidence at
this juncture.

State Farm's Challenge to Plaintiffs' Allegations Under Rule
12(b)(6)

State Farm argues that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's complaint must
contain sufficient detail to give defendant notice of the claim,
and the allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a
right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative
level.

Count I: Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Alleged Claims Under Section
1395y(b)(3)(A)

State Farm argues that the Second Amended Complaint must allege
that State Farm was notified of its failure to pay, but does not
cite to any persuasive authority for that proposition. In any
event, the Second Amended Complaint does allege that the Plaintiffs
have notified the Defendant of instances wherein the Defendant, as
a primary payer, failed to reimburse the Assignors for payments
made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for medical items and
services.

Furthermore, it bears noting that Richardson stated in his
declaration that MSP Recovery sent a letter directly to State Farm
and demanded information regarding the OD claim in order to avoid
litigation. Richardson further declared that State Farm responded
that O.D.'s benefits were exhausted. Thus, it is questionable
whether State Farm can claim a lack of notice. Other district
courts have held that similar allegations to the ones here are
sufficient to state a claim for relief. The level of factual
particularity demanded by State Farm at the pleading stage all but
asks Plaintiffs to prove their case, rather than simply plead their
claims.

Count II: 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e) Can Be Enforced

Count II of the Second Amended Complaint is a stand-alone breach of
contract claim pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e). The
Plaintiffs allege that their assignors are subrogated the right to
recover primary payment from State Farm for State Farm's breach of
contract with their insured, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 411.26.

Here, there is no doubt that Section 411.24, titled Recovery of
conditional payments, effectuates the private cause of action under
the MSP. Subsections (a) and (b) explain that the filing of a
Medicare claim constitutes an express authorization for any entity
that possesses information pertinent to the claim to release that
information to CMS and the time frame for recovering conditional
payments. Section 411.24(a)-(b). Subsection (c) explains the amount
of recovery CMS is entitled to when legal action is and is not
required in order to recover.

Furthermore, subsection (f) delineates specific claim-filing
requirements, and subsection (i) provides for special rules in
cases dealing with insurance settlements and disputed claims under
insurance plans.  

As such, the Court declines to dismiss Count II of the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint.
State Farm's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb6o6snh from
Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, a Florida entity &
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN &
COFFIN LLP, Robert Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com --
BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, Adam M. Foster --
AFoster@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN,
Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidman@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN &
COFFIN LLP & David M. Hundley , HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher L. Coffin , PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, David M.
Hundley , HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner , BAUM
HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com --
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT P.A., Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. --
jcancila@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Patrick
D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN,
Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN
BURT P.A. & James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- RILEY
SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP.

STATE FARM: Use of Term "MMI" Not Consistent with WAC Terms
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, answered in the
affirmative and in the negative two certified questions of law in
the case captioned CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON IN BRETT DURANT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
automobile insurance company, Defendant, No. 94771-6 (Wash.).

The federal district court has asked this court to answer two
certified questions concerning whether an insurer's use of a
maximum medical improvement (MMI) provision violates WAC
284-30-395(1).

This case began with an auto policy claim by plaintiff Brett
Durant. Durant has been a policyholder with State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company since 1995 and carried $35,000 in
personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. On July 21, 2012, Durant
was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He opened a PIP claim with
State Farm. State Farm then sent him a coverage letter that stated:
"The policy provides coverage for reasonable and necessary medical
expenses that are incurred within three (3) years of the accident.
Medical services must also be essential in achieving maximum
medical improvement for the injury you sustained in the accident."

The district court granted Durant's motion to certify the following
two questions to the state Supreme Court:

   1. Does an insurer violate WAC 284-30-395(1)(a) or (b) if that
insurer denies, limits, or terminates an insured's medical or
hospital benefits claim based on a finding of maximum medical
improvement?

   2. Is the term maximum medical improvement consistent with the
definition of reasonable or necessary as those terms appear in WAC
284-30-395(1)?

First Certified Question: Does State Farm's limitation of medical
claims based on its MMI provision violate WAC 284-30-395(1)(a) or
(b)?

The Court agrees.

The Court begins with the plain language of the regulation. WAC
284-30-395(1) provides in relevant part: "(1) Within a reasonable
time after receipt of actual notice of an insured's intent to file
a personal injury protection medical and hospital benefits claim,
and in every case prior to denying, limiting, or terminating an
insured's medical and hospital benefits, and insurer shall provide
an insured with a written explanation of the coverage provided by
the policy, including a notice that the insurer may deny, limit, or
terminate benefits if the insurer determines that the medical and
hospital services: (a) Are not reasonable; (b) Are not necessary;
(c) Are not related to the accident; or (d) Are not incurred within
three years of the automobile accident."

These are the only grounds for denial, limitation, or termination
of medical and hospital services permitted pursuant to RCW
48.22.005(7), 48.22.095, or 48.22.100.

As presented, Reasonable Medical Expenses are defined as fees
incurred for necessary medical services that are rendered by a
medical provider and are essential in achieving maximum medical
improvement for the bodily injury sustained in the accident.

Because the MMI provision is stated conjunctively, it is not a
definition of necessary but is instead a separate and additional
prerequisite under the policy for payment of medical expenses.
Moreover, the policy's introductory provisions explain that defined
words and phrases contained in the policy are printed in boldface
italics.

In the reasonable medical expenses quoted passage, necessary is not
so designated. Thus, the plain language of the auto insurance
policy does not support State Farm's assertion that its MMI
provision defines the term necessary.

Second Certified Question: Is the term maximum medical improvement
(mmi) consistent with the definition of reasonable or necessary as
those terms appear in WAC 284-30-395(1)?

The Court answers this certified question no.

Maximum Medical Improvement in workers' compensation under state
law is closely related to the concept of cure in the maintenance
and cure doctrine applicable to injured seamen under federal
maritime law. State Farm agrees that the maximum medical cure
standard in maritime law is the equivalent of MMI, and states that
under the 'maximum medical cure' standard, a ship owner's
obligation to pay an injured seaman's medical bills ends when he or
she has reached a point where future treatment will merely relieve
pain and suffering but not otherwise improve the seaman's physical
condition. But State Farm points to nothing in Washington's PIP
statutes and regulations, or the underlying public policy, that
suggests that required payment for medical services will not
include treatment that will merely relieve pain and suffering but
not otherwise improve a patient's physical condition.

In sum, State Farm's analogizing to workers' compensation and
maritime law is unconvincing.

For these reasons, State Farm's use of the term MMI is not
consistent with the common meaning of reasonable and necessary as
those terms appear in WAC 284-30-395(1), and the state Supreme
Court answers the second certified question no.

The Court answers the first certified question yes. An insurer
violates WAC 284-30-395(1)(a) or (b) if that insurer denies,
limits, or terminates an insured's medical or hospital benefits
claim based on a finding of MMI.

The answer the second certified question as follows: under the
circumstances of this case, the term MMI is not consistent with the
terms reasonable or necessary as those terms appear in WAC
284-30-395(1).

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's June 7, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yccpwy6r from Leagle.com.

Tyler K. Firkins , Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins, David Alan Nauheim
, David Nauheim Attorney at Law, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Frank Falzetta , Shephard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, Gregory S.
Worden , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jennifer Hoffman ,
Shephard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, Laura Hawes Young , Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, David Dworsky , Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton, Counsel for Defendant.

Thomas Michael Adkins , ADKINS LAW PLLC, Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Washington Society of Interventional Pain Physicians.

Marta Uballe Deleon , Office of the Attorney General, Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Wash. State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler.

Daniel Edward Huntington , Richter-Wimberley PS, Valerie Davis
McOmie , Attorney at Law, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington
State Association for Justice Foundation.

SUEBOB LIQUORS: Mejia Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUEBOB LIQUORS INC. d/b/a Philippe
Liquors; ALGA WINES & SPIRITS LTD. d/b/a London Terrace Liquor
Store; and 1158 LIQUOR CORP. d/b/a Cork & Bottle, the Defendants,
Case No. 514133/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 11, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and
his similarly situated co-workers -- non-exempt store clerks,
cashiers, and helpers -- who work or have worked for Defendants in
New York, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Suebob Liquors, Inc. owns and operates Philippe Liquors located at
312 West 23rd Street, New York, New York 10011; Defendant 1158
Liquor Corp. owns and operates, Cork & Bottle located at 1158 1st
Avenue, New York, New York 10065, and Defendant Alga Wines &
Spirits Ltd. owns and operates London Terrace located at 221 9th
Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

Suebob Liquors was founded in 1990. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of packaged alcoholic beverages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Mark E. Spund, Esq.
          DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP
          605 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10158
          E-mail: MES@dhclegal.com


TAHOE RESOURCES: Court Grants K. Nguyen's Lead Plaintiff Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted
Movant Kevin Nguyen's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned OUSSAMA
ATTIGUI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, v. TAHOE RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
2:17-cv-01868-RFB-NJK. (D. Nev.)

Plaintiff Oussama Attigui (Attigui) filed a class action Complaint
with Jury Demand against the Defendants, alleging (1) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, against all the Defendants.

The Court finds that Nguyen is the presumptively most adequate
plaintiff. In his Motion, he contends that he lost $1,822,156.30 as
a result of the Defendants' alleged securities violations. He
further argues that his claims are typical of the class because he
suffered losses on his investment in Tahoe Resources as a result of
the allegedly false and misleading statements described in the
Complaint, and that he will adequately protect the interests of the
class given his significant stake in the litigation and his conduct
to date in prosecuting the litigation.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4htczn from Leagle.com.

Oussama Attigui, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas I. Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- pro hac vice, Sean P. Connell --
sean@mlolegal.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP, Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice & Andrew R.
Muehlbauer , Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd.

Frederick Berliner, Movant, represented by John P. Aldrich ,
Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.

Kevin Nguyen, Movant, represented by Martin A. Muckleroy ,
Muckleroy Lunt, Megan Sullivan -- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi
& Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice &
Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro
hac vice.

Tahoe Resources, Inc, Elizabeth McGregor, Mark Sadler, Ronald W
Clayton & C. Kevin McArthur, Defendants, represented by Leslie
Bryan Hart , Fennemore Craig, P.C.,  Scott Jared Fisher --
sfisher@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, pro hac vice,
Veronica A. Peterson -- mvpeterson@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig,
P.C. & Karl Barnickol -- kbarnickol@nge.com -- Neal Gerber &
Eisenberg LLP, pro hac vice.

TAL EDUCATION: "Lea" Class Action Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
TAL Education Group said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2017, that the company is facing a
putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Lea v. TAL
Education Group, et al.

On June 18, 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain officers of the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
putative class action lawsuit is captioned Lea v. TAL Education
Group, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05480-RWS (S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to
the company's ADSs from April 26 to June 13, 2018. The plaintiff
alleges that certain press releases and financial statements made
by the company during the alleged class period contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of the federal securities
laws, and advances claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5 (2013).

TAL Education said "The actions remain in its preliminary stages.
We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the
action vigorously."

TAL Education Group, through its subsidiaries, provides K-12
after-school tutoring services in the People’s Republic of China.
It offers tutoring services to K-12 students covering various
academic subjects, including mathematics, physics, chemistry,
biology, history, geography, political science, English, and
Chinese.


THD AT-HOME: Casey Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amy Casey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Amy Casey v. THD At-Home Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-02069-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserted, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, 12
wage-and-hour-related causes of action against the Defendants
arising out of her employment: (1) failure to pay wages and related
overtime compensation; (2) failure to pay commissions; (3) unlawful
provision of compensation time; (4) failure to provide meal
periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6) failure to
provide itemized statements; (7) failure to maintain accurate pay
records; (8) failure to pay wages upon termination; (9) failure to
reimburse lawful business expenses; (10) violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; (11) failure to comply with
records request; and (12) violation of the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The appellate case is captioned as Amy Casey v. THD At-Home
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55905, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 6, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on September 4, 2018;

   -- Appellant Amy Casey's opening brief is due on October 15,
      2018;

   -- Appellees THD At-Home Services, Inc. and US Remodelers'
      answering brief is due on November 13, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant AMY CASEY, an individual, on behalf of herself,
and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, DBA Home Depot; and US REMODELERS, a Delaware
Corporation, DBA Home Depot Interiors, are represented by:

          Liz Bertko, Esq.
          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          E-mail: lbertko@akingump.com
                  dmezias@akingump.com

               - and -

          Joel Mark Cohn, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-4000
          E-mail: Jcohn@akingump.com


TOUCHSTONE GOLF: Chase Clark Sues over Ladies' Days Promotions
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE B. CLARK, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOUCHSTONE GOLF, LLC, d/b/a
RIVERWALK GOLF CLUB; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00034480-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 11, 2018), seeks statutory damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable and injunctive
relief to stop Defendant from engaging in further unequal treatment
of its patrons based on gender.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has held Ladies' Days
promotions several times per month during the period of at least
January 2015 through at least November 2016. Riverwalk's Ladies'
Days promotions were held on either Wednesdays and/or Thursdays and
offered accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or
services based on gender, thus treating male and female individuals
unequally based solely on their gender. During the Ladies' Days
promotions, only female patrons were offered and able to take
advantage of specific preferable tee times; merchandise, food and
beverage discounts; reduced golf cart fees; and contests and
prizes. Accordingly, based on their gender, male patrons were
denied certain tee times, golf cart discounts, food and beverage
discounts, savings on merchandise and the opportunity to
participate in contests and receive prizes. By discriminating
against certain individuals based on gender, and denying them equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services,
Defendant has violated California law.

Touchstone Golf provides management and advisory services to golf
course owners.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Gregory L. Cartwright, Esq.
          James R. Robertson, Esq.
          BRAVO LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          4025 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (858) 300 1900
          Facsimile: (858) 300 1910
          E-mail: greg.cartwright@bravolawgroup.com


UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Fitzgerald Moves to Certify Four TCPA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHARLIE FITZGERALD III,
OPHELIA PARKER, and JOSEPH NASO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES, a division of
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, LLC, LEGEND PICTURES, LLC, LEGENDARY
PICTURES FUNDING, LLC, LEGENDARY ANALYTICS, LLC, AND HANDSTACK,
P.B.C., Case No. 6:16-cv-01193-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), renews their
motion for certification of classes under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Classes are:

   (1) ATDS Class:

       "All persons within the United States to whom Defendants
        or Defendants' agent(s) sent one or more text messages
        pursuant to a scheme substantially similar or identical
        to the text messaging scheme described in the Third
        Amended Complaint between June 24, 2012, and the
        certification of this class."

   (2) "Do-Not-Call" Class:

       "All persons within the United States to whom (a)
        Defendants or Defendants' agent(s) sent more than one
        text message to their phone number, pursuant to a scheme
        substantially similar or identical to the scheme
        described in the Third Amended Complaint; (b) in a
        12-month period; (c) more than 30 days after the
        placement of their number on the National Do-Not-Call
        Registry; (e) between June 24, 2012, and the
        certification of this class."

   (3) "Out of Time" Class:

       "All persons within the United States to whom (a)
        Defendants or Defendants' agent(s) placed more than one
        text message to their phone number, pursuant to a scheme
        substantially similar or identical to the scheme
        described in the Third Amended Complaint; (b) before
        8 A.M. or after 9 P.M. local time; (e) between June 24,
        2012, and the certification of this class."

   (4) "Internal Procedures" Class:

       "All persons within the United States to whom Defendants
        or Defendants' agent(s) sent (a) more than one text
        message pursuant to a telemarketing scheme identical or
        substantially similar to the scheme described in the
        Third Amended Complaint; (b) in a 12-month period; (c)
        between June 24, 2012, and the certification of this
        class."

The Plaintiffs also seek an order (1) certifying the "ATDS" Class
with Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms. Parker and Mr. Naso as class
representatives; (2) certifying the "Do-Not-Call" class with Ms.
Parker and Mr. Naso as class representatives; (3) certifying the
"Out-of-Time" class with Mr. Naso as class representative; (4)
certifying the "Internal Procedures" class with Ms. Parker and Mr.
Naso as class representatives; and (5) designating Edmund Normand,
Esq., Alex Couch, Esq., and William Gray Esq. as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Alex Couch, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          62 West Colonial Drive, Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: alex@ednormand.com
                  ed@ednormand.com

               - and -

          William Gray, Esq.
          GRAY LLC
          17 N. State St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 278-7900
          E-mail: bgray@grayllclaw.com

Defendants UNIVERSAL PICTURES and LEGENDARY PICTURES FUNDING, LLC,
are represented by:

          Gregory W. Herbert, Esq.
          Rob Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          450 South Orange Ave., Suite 650
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1000
          E-mail: herbertg@gtlaw.com
                  herringtonr@gtlaw.com

Defendant LEGENDARY PICTURES FUNDING, LLC, is represented by:

          Steven A. Marenberg, Esq.
          Stephen M. Payne, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 203-7547
          E-mail: smarenberg@irell.com
                  spayne@irell.com

Defendant HANDSTACK, P.B.C., is represented by:

          E. Colin Thompson, Esq.
          Michael Joseph Labbee, Esq.
          SMOLKER, BARTLETT, LOEB, HINDS & SHEPPARD, P.A.
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2050
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-3888
          E-mail: ColinT@smolkerbartlett.com
                  MichaelL@smolkerbartlett.com


VAN RU CREDIT: Wood Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH WOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION, COLONY
BRANDS INC., and SILVER STAR BRANDS INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01056-DEJ (E.D. Wisc., July 10, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendant's debt collection practices that violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to complaint, on or about December 12, 2017, Van Ru
mailed a debt collection letter to Wood regarding alleged debt owed
to "Easy Comforts."  The debt that Defendant Van Ru attempted to
collect, sent on or about December 12, 2017, is $105.84 but, mailed
on or about December 4, 2017, informed Plaintiff that the "Minimum
Payment Due" was $79.92, with a "Payment Due Date" of December 31,
2017. Looking together, the unsophisticated consumer would be
confused as to the amount Van Ru was collecting: the minimum
payment due, $79.92, or the entire balance of the account,
$105.84.

Van Ru considers itself a leader in the accounts receivable
industry for more than 60 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Merit Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2018, that merit discovery is ongoing in the
securities class action suit filed in the Northern District of
Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a
response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and
defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5,
2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants
filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016 and
filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 21,
2017.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on March 29, 2018.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger-Related Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a merger related suit initiated by purported
Rite Aid stockholders.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative class
action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against
Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots Alliance and
Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of the
transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement (prior
to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions, the "Rite
Aid Transactions").

One Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania
action"), and one action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal
action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an unfair
and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that
preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for
Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly material
information concerning the proposed merger, and also alleged that
Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid
shareholder vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion
was denied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after
the Rite Aid Transactions closed.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay to allow
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On August 4, 2017, that
motion was granted for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs
to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint in light of
the termination of the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs filed such a
motion on September 22, 2017. The Company filed its response on
October 6, 2017.

The Court granted the motion on November 27, 2017, ordering the
plaintiffs to file their amended complaint within 10 business days.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on December 11, 2017.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule set by the Court, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss on February 16, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their
response brief on May 1, 2018 and reply briefs were filed on June
7, 2018.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.

WARRANTECH CORP: Jett Sues Over Deceptive Marketing/Sale of ESPs
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY JETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WARRANTECH CORPORATION and AMT WARRANTY CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01366 (S.D. Ill., July 9, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sales of
warranty plans known as extended service plans ("ESPs").

Despite the express representations, promises and contractual
obligations, the Defendants routinely and uniformly fail to provide
purchasers any benefits or service under the plans when products
fail during the original manufacturer's warranty, the Plaintiff
alleges.

Warrantech Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bedford, Texas.  Warrantech provides extended
service plans (ESPs) and warranty programs for retailers, dealers,
distributors, and manufacturers in numerous consumer and automotive
markets.  Warrantech is a subsidiary of AmTrust Financial Services,
a multinational property and casualty holding company.

AMT Warranty Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.  AMT provides
extended service plans, original equipment manufacturers'
warranties, and warranty card programs for businesses and consumers
in the United States.  AMT operates as a subsidiary of AmTrust
Financial Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          Natasha Singh, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com
                  ns@sweetnamllc.com


WELLS FARGO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Crooks FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Taneesha Crooks filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled as Taneesha Crooks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00219-DMS-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks special, general, compensatory, punitive and statutory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
the Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In or around 2006, the Plaintiff purchased a vehicle via financing.
The Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy on October 20, 2016, where said
debt was included where Crooks received a discharge order.  Wells
Fargo did not file any proceedings to declare its debt
"non-dischargeable" and also did not request relief from the
"automatic stay" while the Plaintiff's Bankruptcy was pending to
pursue the Plaintiff on any personal liability for any of the
underlying debt.

Two months after the discharge, the Defendant submitted an
unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to a credit
reporting agency despite having no justifiable reason to pull
Crooks' credit report, says the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Taneesha Crooks v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-55885, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Taneesha Crooks' opening brief is due on
      August 31, 2018;

   -- Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      October 1, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant TANEESHA CROOKS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com
                  Josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FKA Wachovia Bank, N.A.,
is represented by:

          Donald H. Cram, III, Esq.
          Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq.
          Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON APC
          One Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 677-5536
          E-mail: dhc@severson.com
                  mdl@severson.com
                  rss@severson.com

               - and -

          Scott J. Hyman, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON APC
          19100 Von Karman Avenue
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 442-7110
          E-mail: sjh@severson.com


WELLS FARGO: Cochran Appeals Ruling in Jabbari Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Barbara Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Shahriar Jabbari, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02159-VC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Wells Fargo
will pay $142 million to settle class action claims that it
secretly opened credit cards and unauthorized accounts in
customers' names going back to 2002.

The bank was hit hard by the discovery that its staff opened
millions of bank accounts and credit cards for customers without
their consent in an effort to meet internal sales goals.

Lead Plaintiff Shahriar Jabbari sued Wells Fargo in May 2015,
claiming it encouraged employees to use fraudulent and deceptive
tactics to persuade customers to open fee-generating accounts by
misrepresenting them or not informing them at all.

The appellate case is captioned as Shahriar Jabbari, et al. v.
Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 18-16223, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 30, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on August 30, 2018;

   -- Appellant Barbara Cochran's opening brief is due on
      October 9, 2018;

   -- Appellees Kaylee Heffelfinger, Shahriar Jabbari, Wells
      Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s answering
      brief is due on November 9, 2018; and

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

Objector-Appellant BARBARA COCHRAN, of Oxnard, California, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAHRIAR JABBARI and KAYLEE HEFFELFINGER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 463-3900
          E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

Defendants-Appellees WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., are represented by:

          Manuel Francisco Cachan, Esq.
          Bart H. Williams, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 284-4568
          E-mail: manuel.cachan@mto.com
                  bart.williams@mto.com

               - and -

          Erin J. Cox, Esq.
          Eric P. Tuttle, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9575
          E-mail: erin.cox@mto.com
                  Eric.Tuttle@mto.com

               - and -

          Jeslyn A. Everitt, Esq.
          David H. Fry, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4040
          E-mail: jeslyn.everitt@mto.com
                  david.fry@mto.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Consolidates Wage & Hour Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
granted Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42 the cases captioned EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, ALFREDO ALESNA
JR., DAVID CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK EADS, and KENNETH J.
SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants; WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a C.L.
WERNER, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants;
and BRIAN VESTER and JOEL MORALES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES,
INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants, Nos. 8:14CV319,
8:15CV287, 8:17CV145 (D. Nev.).

After review of the filings in the cases, the Court concludes the
Vester action contains common issues of law and fact as the Abarca
and Smith cases. The putative class action claims by the Vester
plaintiffs against the Defendants for violations of California wage
and labor laws are largely the same as those alleged in the Abarca
and Smith cases. Additionally, the Court has certified a California
class in the Abarca and Smith cases that appears to encompass the
Vester plaintiffs' claims. Consolidation will conserve time and
resources of the parties and of the Court. Accordingly, the Court
will grant the Defendants' motion and consolidate all of the cases
for purposes of discovery and trial.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9e638lm from Leagle.com.

Brian Vester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Joel Morales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Grace E. Parasmo --
gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- PARASMO, LIEBERMAN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Yitzchak H. Lieberman --
ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- PARASMO, LIEBERMAN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice.

Werner Enterprises, Inc. & Drivers Management, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brandon J. Crainer , FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM,
Elizabeth A. Culhane , FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM &Joseph E. Jones ,
FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM.

WILLIAM J. URBAN: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiahna Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Law Firm of William J. Urban, Co.,
L.P.A. and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01731 (N.D.
Ohio, July 25, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Some time prior to August 4, 2017, an obligation was allegedly
incurred by Taylor out of a transaction involving an alleged debt
with Farmers National Bank. Defendant, a law firm, sent Taylor a
collection latter that implied that a lawsuit was being filed and
threatened legal action to coerce Plaintiff into paying immediately
to avoid the threat of pending legal action in lieu of exercising
her right to validate or dispute the debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amichai Zukowsky, Esq.
      ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC
      23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 800-5529
      Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


WIRELESS VISION: Carrington Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Giovanni Carrington, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wireless Vision, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 155094/2018 (N.Y. Sup.), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July
26, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-06740.

Giovanni Carrington, who was a customer service representative at
Wireless Vision LLC, a Michigan-based T-Mobile seller, asserts that
the company didn't pay her based on the hours she worked and that
she was not paid for overtime. [BN]

Defendant is represented by:

      Joseph Scott Streb, Esq.
      JOSEPH STREB CO. LPA
      736 Neil Avenue
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 224-0200
      Fax: (614) 224-9323
      Email: streblaw@sbcglobal.net

             - and -

      Alexander Seton Lorenzo, Esq.
      ALSTON & BIRD, LLP (NYC)
      90 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 210-9400
      Fax: (212) 210-9444
      Email: alexander.lorenzo@alston.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***