CAR_Public/180808.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 158

                            Headlines

ABAXIS INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Won't Certify Massachusetts FDCPA Class
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Franco Suit
ALLSCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Ransomware Attack Class Action
AMERICAN BENEFIT: Racanati Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

AMERICAN HONDA: Preston Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Class of Traveling Nurses
ARIZONA: Corizon Appeals Order in Parsons Suit to 9th Cir.
ASIANA AIRLINES: Shareholders Mull Class Action
ATMOSPHERE DISCOUNT: Melara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium

AVENTURA, FL: Judge Dismisses Red Light Camera Class Action
BELLINGHAM, WA: Robert Vandenbosch Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
BHI ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/CMWA, Klapatch Says
BIG HEART: FDA Pentobarbital Probe Ongoing Amid Class Action
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract

CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses S. Razuki's Security Breach Suit
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Ortiz Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
CAMBRIDGE, MA: Bouley et al. Balk at Liquor Regulations
CANADA: Ex-Manitoba Day School Students File Abuse Class Action
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sued by Kupczyk for Illegal Debt Collection

CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Becerra Says
COMMERCIAL RESEARCH: Williams Sued over Debt Collection Practices
COPSYNC: Washington Co. Considers Joining Dashboard Camera Suit
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Breached Laundry Service Contracts, RBB2 Says
DEBT MANAGEMENT: "Fabec" Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio

DEVILLE ASSET: Ross Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: White Sues over Debt Collection
DOWNTOWN TOWING: Petraglia Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
EDGE FITNESS: Court Certifies Class of Membership Advisors
EGS FINANCIAL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Taubenfliegel Suit

ELMER BUCHTA: Monroe Sues Trucking Co. Over FLSA Violations
EMERALD EQUITY: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Israelson Disputes Vague Collection Letter
ESSEN22 LLC: Solares-Gonzaga Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
F&A DRYWALL: Marquez Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Allows FHFA to Intervene in FCRA Suit
FIDELITY BANK: McAlister Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLOYD COUNTY, GA: Correctional Officers File Suit to Recover Wages
FORD MOTOR: Settles Takata Airbag Class Action for US$299.1MM

FORD MOTOR: Tacmed Says Driveshaft Flexible Couplings Defective
FRIENDS OF FREDDIE: Judge Rules Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed
GAMESTOP CORP: Settles Customers' Data Breach Class Action
GEORGE TYNDALL: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action Suit
GOOGLE LLC: AdX Publishers Can Amend Breach of Contract Suit

HOMESERVE USA: Peker TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
HOULIHAN LAWRENCE: Faces Class Action Over "Predatory Behavior"
HSBC HOLDINGS: Blaney McMurtry Discusses Class Action Ruling
ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Suit Over $50 Case Reinstatement Fee Upheld
IOC-PA LLC: Tumpa Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Landfill Fumes
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Faces Class Actions Over Sexual Abuse
KINCAID INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Portillo Claims
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Marietta Files Suit Over No-Poach Conspiracy
MDL 2624: Plaintiffs Must Show Cause re Prelim Deal Approval

MERCURY SYSTEMS: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
MIAMI RESEARCH: Court Denies Bid to Approve TCPA Suit Settlement
MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collections Practices
MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrison Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settles Class Action Over "Natural" Labeling

MYEXPERIAN INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Opt-in Classes
NATIONAL BOARD: 4th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Optometrists' Suit
NEW DOMINION: Trial in Earthquake Class-Action Lawsuit Delayed
NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Inmates Win Early Victory in Class Action
NEW ZEALAND POST: Courier Drivers May Need Litigation Funding

NHL: Federal Judge Denies Class-Action Status in Concussion Suit
OKLAHOMA: Medical Marijuana Advocates Mull Class Action
ORMAT TECH Cohen Milstein Investigates Possible SEC Violations
ORNUA FOODS: Myers-Taylor Files Class Suit Over False Advertising
OVATION CREDIT: Wagner Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

PA FIRE RECOVERY: Accused by LaMonaca Suit of Violating FDCPA
PENNSYLVANIA: HB 2025 to Order Lead Testing in Schools Amid Suit
PERU: NAACP Chapter Mulls Class Action Against City of Lima
PINNACLE A ROOFING: Paredes Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
POLARITYTE INC: Faces Lawi Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop

POLARITYTE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Avoids Age Bias Class Action, For Now
QUALCOMM ANTITRUST: Key et al. Seek Certification of Class
QUALITY CARE: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
RED EYE: Court Reconsiders Denial of Arbitration in Wage Suit

REMINGTON RIFLES: Court OKs Class Accord Over Defective Triggers
RHODE ISLAND: Court Dismisses J. Rodriguez's Suit
RILEY HAYS: Harmon Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
ROGERS WIRELESS: Sued Over System Access Fee
SAMSUNG: Ice Maker Complaints Trigger Lawsuit

SANDOZ CANADA: Class Action Launched Over Valsartan
SANTA FE NATURAL: Pontusson Files Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
SARBANAND FARMS: N. Perez Loses Bid to Dismiss FLCA Suit
SCALZO INC: Hernandez Action to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SCANA CORP: Dominion Energy Appeals Order in Warren Police Suit

SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Dismissal A. Amari's Suit Affirmed
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Bid to Certify Nationwide Class
SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Cir. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings in "Robinett"
ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Nguyen Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-the-Clock Tasks

STATE FARM: Wash. App. Affirms Denial of L. Daniels' Insurance Suit
STATE STREET: ATRS Chief's Role in Class Action Lawsuits Flagged
STATE STREET: Committee to Get Report on ATRS Plaintiff Role
STEEL & TUBE: Homeowners Sign Up to Steel Mesh Class Action
SUFFOLK, NY: Court Denies Certification of Taxpayers Class

SUNWING VACATION: Faces Class Action on Use of Term "Champagne"
SWAP.COM INC: Haefner Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
T-MOBILE USA: Court Narrows Claims in P. Ames' RFDCPA Suit
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Lakatosh Sues over Sale of Gravity Knives
TEVA CANADA: Valsartan Class Action Commences

TOSHIBA CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Bid to Certify Terminated Policy Classes Stayed
TURNER OIL: Approval of FLSA Suit Settlement Recommended
TWITTER INC: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class
U.S. XPRESS: I. Nunez's Suit Remains in District Court

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: London Taxi Drivers Mull Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies R. Holl's Writ of Mandamus
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of VOA Contractors' FAC Affirmed
UNITED STATES: Iraqi Files Citizenship Suit Amid Class Action

UNITED STATES: Sheridan to Consider Joining PILT Class Action
UNITED STATES: Wilmington City Joines PILT Class Action Suit
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Requests Gag Order v. Plaintiffs' Attorneys
UNUM GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
USA DIVING: 2 Former Divers File Sexual Abuse Class Action

VUZIX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Secondary Public Offering
WAL-MART STORES: Must Face Cashiers' Seating Class Action
WATERLOO, ON: Judge Rules on Jurisdictional Issue for WRPS Suit
WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Bushfire Class Action Trial Ongoing
WESTERN POWER: WA at Far More Risk of Bushfire from Electric Pole

WESTJET AIRLINES: Former FA Protests Sexual Harassment
WHOLE FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in S. Kellman's Suit
WITHCOIN: Japanese Class Action Claims $12 Million Damages
[*] VLRC Issues Final Report on Class Action Reform

                            *********

ABAXIS INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on July 17 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of holders of Abaxis,
Inc. ("Abaxis") (NasdaqGS:ABAX) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Abaxis by Zoetis, Inc. and its affiliate
("Zoetis") announced on May 16, 2018 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Abaxis and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is
captioned Kent v. Abaxis, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-03834 (N.D.
Cal.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On May 15, 2018, Abaxis entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Zoetis.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Abaxis will receive $83.00
in cash for each share of Abaxis stock they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, Abaxis's financial projections and the analyses performed
by Abaxis's financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Abaxis common
stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 17, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. --
http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial
corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide,
including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class
actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Won't Certify Massachusetts FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC f/k/a ALLIED
INTERSTATE, INC., Defendant, No. 13-cv-4053 (KBF)(S.D.N.Y.).

The operative complaint alleges, in sum, that the defendant's
collection practices violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's
written communications warned debtors that they may be subject to
wage garnishment of 15% of their pay.  The Plaintiff sought
certification of a class consisting of all natural persons in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to whom Allied Interstate sent a
written communication in violation of the FDCPA during the period
beginning June 13, 2012 and ending June 13, 2013.

The Court concludes that the plaintiff is not an adequate
representative of the proposed class, and that the plaintiff's
motion for class certification under Rule 23 must be denied.

The Court understands and agrees with the defendant's broader point
that the plaintiff is not typical of the rest of the class, at
least from a colloquial perspective. To wit, the plaintiff is the
only potential class member to have been offered judgment in full
satisfaction of his individual claims. Furthermore, the plaintiff
is the only potential class member to have rejected such an offer.
Thus, although the plaintiff may have "typical" claims, he appears
likely to litigate those claims in a decidedly atypical way.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4) and relevant precedent, the Court may
only certify a class action if it is satisfied, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the representative party will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The plaintiff received and rejected a Rule 68 offer of judgment
that would have fully compensated him for his individual claims.
And the factual record is completely silent as to why he did so, or
what kind of offer would have been acceptable. Indeed, there is no
factual record as to this plaintiff on this issue at all. This is
not an insignificant point. A class representative will be a
decision-maker with regard to the acceptance or rejection of a
settlement; that is, he will need to make judgments as to
reasonableness.

On this motion for class certification, it is the plaintiff's
burden under Wal-Mart to demonstrate to the Court by a
preponderance of the evidence that decisions of this type will be
made reasonably, in good faith, and in the interests of the
majority of the class members. The record currently before the
Court consists of an unexplained rejection of an offer that would
amount to full satisfaction of the plaintiff's individual claim.

For these reasons, and keeping in mind the Supreme Court's clear
recognition that class litigation is the exception rather than the
rule, Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 348, the Court concludes by a
preponderance of the evidence before it that the plaintiff is not
an adequate representative of the proposed class under Rule
23(a)(4). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydc4n8j4 from
Leagle.com.

Gilberto Franco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson , Stern &
Thomasson Law, LLP, pro hac vice, William Franklin Horn , Law
Office of William F. Horn & Craig Thor Kimmel , Kimmel &
Silverman.

Allied Interstate LLC, formerly known as Allied Interstate, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Casey Devin Laffey --
claffey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith & Nana Japaridze --
njaparidze@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Franco Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gilberto Franco filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, Case No.
13-cv-4053, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this action against the Defendant, a national debt
collection agency, alleging that its collection practices violate
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant violated the FDCPA when it used false, deceptive, and
misleading practices in its attempts to collect alleged debts from
plaintiffs and other consumers in Massachusetts.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's written communications
warned debtors that they may be subject to wage garnishment of 15%
of their pay.  The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant disseminated
this communication in violation of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the
FDCPA because the law only allows wage garnishment up to 15% of
disposable income.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Gilberto Franco, Case No.
18-2213, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Gilberto Franco, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Respondent Allied Interstate LLC, FKA Allied Interstate,
Inc., is represented by:

          Nana Japaridze, Esq.
          Casey Devin Laffey, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 549-0282
          E-mail: njaparidze@reedsmith.com
                  claffey@reedsmith.com



ALLSCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Ransomware Attack Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Donovan, writing for HealthIT Security, reports that EHR
vendor Allscripts wants a district court judge in Illinois to
dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by Florida-based Surfside
Non-Surgical Orthopedics over the SamSam ransomware attack that
encrypted patient data and took Allscripts' servers offline in
January.

In its court filing obtained by HealthITSecurity.com, Allscripts
argued that Surfside sued Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.,
the nonoperating holding company of Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, the
EHR vendor that was hit by the ransomware attack, to avoid the
arbitration clause in the contract Surfside signed with the
vendor.

"Even if Plaintiff had sued the right entity (though it did not),
its claims would still fail for numerous reasons," Allscripts
argued in its court filing.

"Plaintiff asserts a breach-of-contract claim against an entity
with which it has no contract (although it is now saying it is
going to dismiss that claim after months of prodding). But no
matter: because there is a valid contract governing the parties'
relationship, Plaintiff's tort claims are foreclosed by the
economic loss doctrine. Its claim for unjust enrichment is
precluded by the existence of an express contract with LLC."

Allscripts also argued that it was not negligent because the
ransomware attack was a new variant of SamSam malware, which it
could not have foreseen.

On January 18, 2018, Allscripts Healthcare suffered a SamSam
ransomware attack.  

According to a description of the attack by HHS, the ransomware
attack prevented around 1,500 customers from accessing Allscripts'
cloud EHR applications. Allscripts' InfoButton, regulatory
reporting, clinical decision support, direct messaging, Payerpath,
and the electronic prescription of controlled substances service
were all taken down because of the attack.

"The affected tools are part of a patient engagement platform and
are used to support and connect 45,000 physician practices, 180,000
physicians, 19,000 post-acute agencies, 2,500 hospitals, 100,000
electronic prescribing physicians, 40,000 in-home clinicians, and
7.2 million patients," the HHS report stated. "Disruptions to these
services are impacting secure patient communication with providers,
electronic medical records access, and even bill payment via web
portals," it added.

Later in January, Surfside filed a class-action lawsuit against
Allscripts, arguing that it suffered economic damage and other harm
from the interruption in Allscripts services.

"This attack hurt both patients and their healthcare providers
using the Allscripts systems in that providers were unable to
e-prescribe drugs, and patients were unable to obtain drugs
e-prescribed for them by those providers," the lawsuit stated.

"As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff and the
Class continue to experience significant business interruption and
disruption as a direct and proximate result of their inability to:
access and transact with Allscripts' products and services; submit
electronic prescriptions; and to access any patient records or any
of the above modules," the lawsuit read.

Allscripts' "wanton, willful, and reckless disregard caused a
complete and total interruption of service, and further caused
Plaintiff and the Class monetary and other damages."

Surfside charged that Allscripts failed to take "adequate and
reasonable measures" to secure its data systems.

"Allscripts breached its duties by failing to implement, monitor,
and audit the security of its data and systems, resulting in a
ransomware attack that significantly impeded and/or prevented its
clients' ability to conduct business," the class-action lawsuit
stated, adding that failure to implement the necessary safeguards
was also a breach of contract.

"Allscripts agreed to provide its specialized services in a
professional and workmanlike manner," said the lawsuit. "Implicit
in performing these contractual duties is an obligation to
reasonably safeguard its systems and data from cyberattack,
including ransomware attacks, which can cause an interruption in
the flow of an enterprise's routine and everyday provision of
services to its clients."

Surfside did not site a specific amount in damages being sought.
However, it said that on behalf of all class members, it was asking
"for an award of actual damages and compensatory damages, in an
amount to be determined." [GN]

AMERICAN BENEFIT: Racanati Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO RACANATI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN BENEFIT SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-12086
(D.N.J., July 26, 2018), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
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 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

American Benefit Solutions LLC is a Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business located in Woodbine, Maryland.  The
Company sells health insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com



AMERICAN HONDA: Preston Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Preston and Penelope Turgeon filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Michael Preston, et al.
v. American Honda Motor Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00038-R-JC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
moved for certification of a class of:

    "all persons in the State of Illinois who, (a) between May
     2014 and May 2017, (b) purchased or leased a new Honda
     vehicle at a Honda authorized dealership in Illinois and not
     for purposes of resale, (c) which Honda vehicle is equipped
     with a P.S. Gear Box (EPS), (d) which Honda vehicle
     experienced a power steering malfunction attributed to
     rodent damage to one of the parts contained within the P.S.
     Gear Box (EPS) during the applicable new vehicle warranty
     period, and (e) Honda denied warranty coverage for the
     service, repairs, and/or replacement parts needed to fix the
     power steering malfunction."

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Preston, et al. v.
American Honda Motor Company, Case No. 18-56023, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Michael Preston and Penelope Turgeon's opening
      brief is due on September 24, 2018;

   -- Appellee American Honda Motor Company, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on October 24, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL PRESTON and PENELOPE TURGEON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Stacy Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219-6980
          Facsimile: (312) 219-6981
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com

               - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324-3532
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., is
represented by:

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (713) 495-4500
          E-mail: mcampbell@sidley.com
                  mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          E-mail: dcho@sidley.com


AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Class of Traveling Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT SHAW, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. AMN
HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-02816-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered
an order certifying a class of:

   "all traveling nurses who worked in the job position(s) of
   Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or another nursing
   position(s), for Defendant AMN and/or Defendant Kaiser, in one
   or more Kaiser facilities in California between September 11,
   2013 and the date of class notice".

The Court appoints Shaw, Kucharski and Corona Teitelbaum as class
representatives and appoints the law firm of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP to serve as class counsel.

The Court vacates the dispositive motions and trial dates
previously set in this case, as well as all related dates. The
parties are instructed to meet and confer and submit a proposed
schedule for the remainder of the case no later than August 10,
2018.


ARIZONA: Corizon Appeals Order in Parsons Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Movant Corizon Health, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-16398, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31, 2018,
Defendants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as
Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-16358.

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

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

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

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 23, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on September 21, 2018;

   -- Appellant Corizon Health, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      October 31, 2018;

   -- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne
      Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn
      Jensen, Desiree Licci, Victor Antonio Parsons, Joshua
      Polson, Richard Pratt, Sonia Rodriguez, Charles L. Ryan,
      Warden, Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas,
      Christina Verduzco and Charlotte Wells' answering brief is
      due on November 30, 2018; and

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

Movant-Appellant CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Prospective Defendant
Intervenor, is represented by:

          Courtney Beller, Esq.
          Timothy Berg, Esq.
          Todd Stephen Kartchner, Esq.
          FENNEMORE CRAIG P.C.
          2394 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 916-5402
          E-mail: cbeller@fclaw.com
                  tberg@fclaw.com
                  tkartchn@fclaw.com

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW is represented
by:

          Maya Abela, Esq.
          Rose Ann Daly-Rooney, Esq.
          Jose de Jesus Valdez Rico, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW
          177 North Church Avenue, Suite 800
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 327-9547
          E-mail: mabela@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  rdalyrooney@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  jrico@azdisabilitylaw.org

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ASIANA AIRLINES: Shareholders Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Ch-Aviation reports that some shareholders of Asiana Airlines (OZ,
Seoul Incheon) are mulling a class action lawsuit against the
airline's board, including Chairman Park Sam-koo, for actions
allegedly hurting the brand image, The Korea Herald has reported.

The report comes in the wake of an in-flight catering scandal,
wherein the carrier was unable to serve any meals to passengers for
a few days in early July.

Asiana had previously inked a contract with HNA Group owned Gate
Gourmet Korea (GGK) to supply in-flight catering as of July 1,
2018, after the contract with the previous supplier, Lufthansa
Group subsidiary LSG Sky Chef lapsed. In March, GGK suffered a fire
in its facilities which forced the company to subcontract the
Asiana deal to Sharp DO&CO. DO&CO, a much smaller company in Korea,
has an average daily output of 3,000 meals in comparison to
Asiana's requirement of 25,000 per day. As such, it was initially
unable to meet the terms of the contract.

Speaking during the crisis, Park had to deny that he and other
executives were served hot meals onboard despite the lack of such a
service for other passengers. Asiana's passengers were given
USD30-50 vouchers and were advised to bring own food onboard during
the crisis. The situation normalised after a few days. DO&CO's
temporary contract with Asiana runs through the end of September.

The local CEO of DO&CO was found dead after an apparent suicide on
July 2, shortly after he had told a friend that he felt guilty,
ashamed, and extremely overwhelmed by the situation.

Asiana's largest domestic rival, Korean Air (KE, Seoul Incheon),
has been battling its own scandals over the past few years. Among
the more infamous was the "nut rage" incident in which one of the
chairman's daughters forced a departing Asiana flight to return to
the terminal and demanded the removal of a cabin crew member after
she was served macadamia nuts in a package rather than on a plate.
[GN]

ATMOSPHERE DISCOUNT: Melara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Merlos Melara and Christopher Castillo, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Atmosphere
Discount Shoes Corp., Bronx Foot Fashion Inc., Graham Shoe Corp.,
It's Your Option, Corp., Jeffrey D. Imports Inc., Ladies Shoes
Corp., Times Square Shoes Corp., $5 Shoe Warehouse Inc., Five
Dollar Shoe Factory Corp., Abraham Hakim and Jeffrey Deutsch,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03109 (E.D. N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate under the trade name "Atmosphere Discount Shoes"
where Plaintiffs were employed as a general assistant, retail
assistant or assistant manager. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AVENTURA, FL: Judge Dismisses Red Light Camera Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBSMiami reports that following the lead of the Florida Supreme
Court, a federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that
challenged the way red-light camera programs have been operated
throughout the state.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno issued a two-page order
dismissing the case, which was filed in 2014.

In the decision, Moreno cited a May 3 ruling by the Florida Supreme
Court that rejected a motorist's challenge to the red-light camera
program in the city of Aventura.

The federal and state cases focused heavily on questions about
whether local governments had violated state law by giving too much
authority to private red-light camera companies in operating the
programs. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the "Legislature
has permitted a local government's agent to review information from
red light cameras for any purpose short of making the probable
cause determination as to whether a traffic infraction was
committed.

We thus hold that (a section of state law) authorizes a local
government to contract with a private third-party vendor to review
and sort information from red light cameras, in accordance with
written guidelines provided by the local government, before sending
that information to a trained traffic enforcement officer, who
determines whether probable cause exists and a citation should be
issued."

Red-light cameras have long been a controversial issue in Florida,
with critics arguing that they have become a way for local
governments and red-light camera companies to make money.
Supporters, however, contend the cameras improve traffic safety and
dissuade motorists from running red lights. [GN]

BELLINGHAM, WA: Robert Vandenbosch Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Vandenbosch, and all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of Bellingham, a
subdivision of the State of Washington; and AllianceOne Receivables
Management Inc., a Washington corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
18-00002-01010-37, was removed from the Whatcom County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Seattle) on July 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00999-RAJ to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones.

Bellingham is a coastal city in Washington State, near the Canadian
border.  It is a port for ferries to Alaska.[BN]

Attorneys for Robert Vandenbosch:

          William J. Johnston, Esq.
          401 Central Ave
          Bellingham, WA 98225
          Telephone: (360) 676 1931
          Facsimile: (360) 676 1931
          E-mail: wjtj47@gmail.com

Attorneys for City of Bellingham:

          Shane P Brady, Esq.
          BELLINGHAM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          210 Lottie St
          Bellingham, WA 98225
          Telephone: (360) 778 8270
          Facsimile: (360) 778 8271
          E-mail: sbrady@cob.org

Attorneys for AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc.:

          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART PS INC
          701 Pike St.
          Ste 1800 One Convention Pl
          Seattle, WA 98101-3929
          Telephone: (206) 624 7990
          E-mail: mr@leesmart.com


BHI ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/CMWA, Klapatch Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS KLAPATCH and RICHARD LEE, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated v. BHI ENERGY I POWER SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-11581 (D. Mass., July 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other workers overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.

BHI is headquartered in Weymouth, Massachusetts.  BHI provides
specialty services and staffing solutions to the power generation,
energy, and government markets.  BHI's workforce includes more than
8,500 experienced project management and technical, professional,
and craft labor operating at over 130 global project
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
          585 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


BIG HEART: FDA Pentobarbital Probe Ongoing Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Entis, writing for Food Safety News, reports that an
investigation into pentobarbital adulteration in canned, wet pet
food manufactured by Big Heart Pet Brands Inc. remains "open and
ongoing" according to a spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

Big Heart is a wholly owned subsidiary of The J.M. Smucker Company
Inc.

On Feb. 16, FDA alerted pet owners to the possible presence of
pentobarbital in certain canned dog foods, including Gravy Train,
Kibbles 'N Bits, Ol' Roy and Skippy products, after a media outlet
reported having found the chemical in several samples of Gravy
Train canned, wet dog food.

Upon learning of the findings, Smucker initiated a product
withdrawal pending the outcome of an internal investigation. The
withdrawal was upgraded to a voluntary recall after the company
verified the presence of pentobarbital in its finished products and
in beef tallow, an ingredient common to all of the affected
products.

Pentobarbital is a barbiturate used to euthanize animals. FDA
considers a pet food to be adulterated if it contains even a trace
amount of the drug.

On Feb. 23, FDA initiated an inspection of the Big Heart
manufacturing facility in Bloomsburg, PA. The inspection was
conducted jointly with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
(PDA) and was completed on March 12th.

According to information contained in the Establishment Inspection
Report (EIR), obtained by Food Safety News in response to a Freedom
of Information Act request, Big Heart produces dog food under
contract for third-parties in addition to manufacturing the Gravy
Train, Ol' Roy, Kibbles 'N Bits, and Skippy dog food brands as well
as several brands of cat food.

A spokesperson for FDA, citing the ongoing status of the
investigation, declined to comment on whether any of the
private-labeled products were evaluated for possible pentobarbital
contamination. Nor would the spokesperson comment on whether FDA
conducted its own independent analysis of any ingredients or
finished products as part of its investigation.

Big Heart did not test any other ingredients for pentobarbital once
it found the chemical in the beef tallow ingredient.

All of the beef tallow used in the adulterated pet food was
obtained from a single supplier.

Big Heart notified its supplier of the test results and followed up
with an inspection of the supplier's facility. Concluding that the
supplier did not have adequate controls over its supply chain, Big
Heart management switched to a different tallow supplier. In
addition, the company reconfigured some product formulas to
eliminate beef tallow.

A class action lawsuit filed in Northern California on May 1
against Big Heart Pet Brands Inc. alleges that the tallow was
supplied by MOPAC, an eastern Pennsylvania rendering facility
belonging to JBS USA Holdings Inc.

JBS operates two facilities in eastern Pennsylvania, one in
Souderton and the other in Elizabethville. FDA declined to comment
on whether either or both of these facilities were included in the
investigation.

According to information contained in Establishment Inspection
Reports obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act
request, the Elizabethville location manufactures poultry feed.

JBS Souderton is a rendering operation. It receives bovine, porcine
and avian trimmings, bone, hides, offal, and blood from its nearby
slaughter/meat packing facility and from other slaughter
facilities, and also receives used cooking oil and yellow grease
from restaurants.

Souderton produces a number of animal feed ingredients, including
tallow, blood-meal, feather-meal, bone-meal and animal protein.

During the February-March inspection of Big Heart, FDA and PDA
investigators were denied access to several documents, according to
the EIR.

On instruction from the Smucker corporate headquarters, Big Heart
management refused to furnish PDA and FDA investigators with
qualitative or quantitative product formulae and refused to permit
them to review either the company's consumer complaint files or its
Standard Operating Procedures for retaining samples.

The Plant Director, Dave Brookover, also declined to sign, or even
to read, an FDA Affidavit (FDA Form 463a) setting out the
information supplied by him during the course of the inspection. On
instructions from the corporate office, Brookover left the room
when the FDA investigator recited the contents of the Affidavit.

Some companies have specific policies on what they will or will not
share with FDA, a spokesperson for the agency explained, adding
that the nature and number of refusals were not out of the ordinary
and did not obstruct the investigation. [GN]

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP Unitholders,
Plaintiffs, v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, Boardwalk Pipelines
Holding Corp., Boardwalk GP, LP and Boardwalk GP, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2018-0372, (Del. Ch., May 24, 2018), seeks all available
damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and/or tortious interference, costs,
expenses and disbursements of this action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief.

Boardwalk's General Partner and its affiliates attempted to depress
the trading price of the Partnership's units and acquire all
minority units at an artificially deflated price in violation of
the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership,
dated June 17, 2008.

Tsachy Mishal is a current holder of 529,938 Boardwalk common units
with a market value of approximately $5,840,000, as of May 22,
2018. Paul Berger is a current holder of 4,000 Boardwalk common
units with a market value of $44,080, as of May 22, 2018.

Boardwalk, through its operating subsidiaries, owns and operates
integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons pipeline and storage systems. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Friedlander, Esq.
      Jeffrey Gorris, Esq.
      Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
      Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
      FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A.
      1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-3500

             - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
      208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 685-0969


CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses S. Razuki's Security Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
SALAM RAZUKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv1718-LAB (WVG) (S.D. Cal.).

Caliber removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, and now asks
the Court to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim.

Salam Razuki sued Caliber Home Loans after hackers breached
Caliber's security and stole sensitive customer information like
social security numbers. Razuki alleges a cybercriminal attempted
to open credit cards in his name after the hack, and he's spent
money and suffered emotional distress as a result. He blames
Caliber for deploying second-rate security and waiting too long to
notify customers like him.

Caliber argues Razuki's increased risk of identity theft isn't an
injury in fact. But the Ninth Circuit recently held that
data-breach-victims pled an injury in fact based on a substantial
risk that hackers will commit identity fraud.

Caliber's reply brief argued Razuki failed to allege the company
still possessed his data during the breach, or that it was actually
stolen. But Caliber admits it sent out notice to those individuals
whose information could potentially be affected. Razuki alleges he
received such a letter. That's sufficient. Caliber's opening brief
also seems to acknowledge the point. And the argument is waived
anyway—new counsel raised it for the first time in the reply.
Caliber's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing is
denied.

What's more, his allegations are too vague for the Court or Caliber
to evaluate. He says he was informed that an unknown party
attempted to make numerous fraudulent transactions in his name; he
spent time, money, energy, and effort managing the fallout; and he
took remedial measures. Who informed him and what fraudulent
transactions were made? How did he manage the fallout? What
remedial measures did he spend money on? Also, he sums up his
damages in paragraph 22 by alleging, "Plaintiff and/or members of
the Class" suffered harm. That's not good enough. This
conjunctive-disjunctive formulation suggests class members may have
suffered injuries Razuki didn't. As the class representative, he
needs to allege his damages—not possible damages that happened to
other, absent class members.  

Under Rule 8's short and plain statement standard, Razuki need not
allege his allegations of harm in great specificity. And the Court
must accept all allegations as true and draw inferences in Razuki's
favor. But he needs to allege more than the cagey and indefinite
allegations in his complaint.

This claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

Razuki argues Caliber violated his constitutional right to privacy
by failing to protect his data. What matters here is whether
Caliber committed a serious invasion of privacy; that is, an
egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.

The privacy damage here is serious. But Razuki's allegations don't
suggest the type of intentional, egregious privacy invasion
contemplated in Hill. Razuki didn't distinguish these cases, nor
did he point to any authority besides Cope v. Davidson, a case
interpreting willful misconduct within the meaning of section 403
of the Vehicle Code. 30 Cal. 2d at 195.
This claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

The Customer Records Act requires businesses to protect customers'
personal information by maintaining reasonable security procedures
and if a data breach occurs, to notify affected customer's without
unreasonable delay.

If Razuki amends, he needs to provide more facts to support his
various theories for a CRA violation. The Court acknowledges Razuki
probably can't make specific and definitive allegations about how
Caliber's security was insufficient before discovery. But he needs
to hum a few more bars about some of these allegations, like why
mitigation was "inadequate" or disposal of customer information was
improper. The Court must accept his factual allegations as true,
but he needs more than threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.

This claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

The California Supreme Court has held that ancillary services that
insurers provide to actual and prospective purchasers of life
insurance doesn't count as a service under the Act because the
activity centers on a contractual obligation to pay money. If
selling life insurance isn't a service, then neither is selling
home loans both center on contractual obligations to pay money.

Razuki says the Court should read the statute more broadly. But
that reading would defeat the apparent legislative intent of the
Act, since ancillary services are provided by the sellers of
virtually all intangible goods, like those who provide loans. Other
courts agree.  
This claim is dismissed without leave to amend.

Razuki's complaint doesn't explain which theory he's advancing. His
opposition suggests he's relying on the CLRA and CRA violations
above as predicates for an unlawful theory. Since those claims are
out, this one is too. Plus, he hasn't sufficiently alleged lost
money or property.

The motion to dismiss this claim is granted with leave to amend.

The Court, accordingly, dismisses all of Razuki's claims with leave
to amend, except his CLRA claim amendment would be futile since
home loans aren't covered under the statute.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hwq9h7 from Leagle.com.

Salam Razuki, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig
McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic & David Gerald Greco -- dgreco@nicholaslaw.org --
Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Kleine -- bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley
Godward Kronish LLP, Laura Marie Elliott -- bkleine@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP & Maurice Werter Trevor -- rtrevor@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP.

CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Ortiz Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees,
the Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA CEMETERY AND FUNERAL
SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC-18-567890 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2018), alleges an ongoing
wrongful scheme by Defendants denying their employees the full
benefits of California's Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated numerous
provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to
compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all overtime
hours worked despite the fact that Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees regularly work overtime, failure to pay a minimum wage
for all hours worked, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay all earned wages at the conclusion of employment,
failure to adequately reimburse Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees for business expenditures incurred and required by their
jobs, failure to furnish timely statements accurately showing,
among other things, the total hours Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees worked during each pay period.

California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of ECI Capital, LLC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees:

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


CAMBRIDGE, MA: Bouley et al. Balk at Liquor Regulations
-------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Bonney Bouley, Jeffrey R. Weingast, Gwyneth Trost, McCabe's
Porter, LLC, Lanes & Games, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Cambridge,
Cambridge License Commission, the following individuals in their
official capacities as employees of the city of Cambridge and in
their individual capacities: Elizabeth Lint, Andrea Boyer,
Henderson Headley, Christopher O'Neil, Nicole Murati Ferrer, Andrea
Spears Jackson, Robert Haas, Gerald Reardon, Richard Rossi, Lisa
Peterson, Louis DePasquale, Mary Calnan, James McDavitt, Michael P.
Gardner, Benjamin Barnes, Richard Scali, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV2096 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 6, 2018), alleges that Cambridge
businesses, whose owners sacrificed long hours and great devotion
to the Cambridge community, were required by the Cambridge License
Commission to make unnecessary and costly business decisions to
operate their businesses under illegal and invalid local
Regulations, and among other harms, to spend millions of dollars to
purchase liquor licenses even though there was no quota in
Cambridge and they should have been able to apply for a new one.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are dedicated businesses
and business owners, who have worked hard for years to help create
a thriving restaurant industry for the residents, workers, and
visitors of Cambridge. They have all operated with liquor licenses
that were issued to them by the City of Cambridge License
Commission in order to serve the "public need" and to "protect the
common good", as the state statute that governs liquor licenses
provides.

City of Cambridge is a body politic in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts with an address of City Hall, 795 Massachusetts
Avenue in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[BN]


CANADA: Ex-Manitoba Day School Students File Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie May, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that they were
left out of national settlements for residential school survivors,
but former students at Manitoba day schools are asking the court to
allow a class-action lawsuit seeking compensation for alleged abuse
they suffered at schools on- and off-reserve.

In a claim filed in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg
lawyers are asking the court to certify a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of all students who attended day schools in the province.

As part of the claim, two Manitobans who attended different day
schools in the 1960s and '70s have detailed their alleged physical
and sexual abuse. They're seeking damages from the federal and
provincial governments and the Catholic Church, which they allege
failed to protect Indigenous children who were forced to attend the
schools.

"As a result, those children suffered in many ways, including
mentally, physically, sexually, emotionally, verbally, spiritually,
and culturally. The day schools were destructive to the lives of
the children who were made to attend," the claim states.

Lawyer Israel Ludwig, who filed the claim along with lawyer William
Percy, said he was approached by former day school students who
questioned why they weren't included in compensation and settlement
agreements reached federally in 2006, as part of the Indian
Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

Mr. Ludwig said he initially thought about filing individual claims
for each day school where students alleged abuse -- he said he
knows of at least 10 such schools in Manitoba -- but decided
instead to push for a class action.

"Now we're noticing that the courts have become more generous in
allowing the basis of one class action to cover a number of schools
in a number of areas and on behalf of a large number of people who
come from different cultural groups," he said.

The archdiocese of Winnipeg, the archdiocese of St. Boniface, and
the Missionary Oblate Sisters of St. Boniface are named in the
statement of claim, along with the federal and provincial
governments.

No statements of defence have been filed.

In the claim, Stanley Boucher, a 66-year-old Metis man from Duck
Bay, and Corinna Kay Mintuck, a 57-year-old First Nations woman,
both say they were abused while attending day schools in the
province -- schools run either by the federal or provincial
government that they were expected to attend during the day.

Ms. Mintuck claims she was forced to perform oral sex on the
principal of her school at Sagkeeng First Nation, starting when she
was eight years old. She had her finger broken when a nun hit her
with a ruler, and broke her right wrist when another student pushed
her off a slide on school grounds the same year, according to the
statement of claim.

At a school in Duck Bay, which he started attending in 1958, Mr.
Boucher claims a teacher threw him into a wood pile, causing a
severe head injury for which he didn't receive immediate medical
treatment. When he was in Grade 7, Boucher claims a teacher forced
him to pull down his pants and walk around in each classroom with
his genitals exposed to all of the teachers and students.

Both Mr. Boucher and Ms. Mintuck have suffered depression, suicidal
thoughts and addictions, along with other harms, according to the
statement of claim.

Ludwig said Mr. Boucher and Ms. Mintuck have chosen to come forward
to represent other former day school students.

"They realized when we spoke to them about them being a
representative client, that it meant that their case would be in
the claim and that the claim may cause some publicity. They have
reconciled themselves to that. They feel that this is something
that's been kept quiet too long, and that now's the time to go to
court to do something about it," Mr. Ludwig said.

The lawyers are hoping other former students will come forward,
particularly those who weren't included in residential-school
settlement agreements, whether they are Metis, First Nations or
don't have treaty status. As of yet, there are no specifics about
monetary compensation or the number of participants who could join
the class action, if it's certified by the court.

"We really haven't got a handle as to how big that group's going to
be. We're hoping the publicity that our claim has started will
bring them forward," Mr. Ludwig said. [GN]

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sued by Kupczyk for Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESTER KUPCZYK on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Case No.
1:18-cv-03909-ARR-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant's collection practices violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Capital Management, with its principal place of business located
within Buffalo, New York, is regularly engaged, for profit, in the
collection of allegedly owed consumer debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Becerra Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BECERRA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC;
CENTRAL TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC712869 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime compensation under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to Plaintiff and the
Proposed Class. Plaintiff and other Proposed Class Members were not
properly compensated for all hours worked. Also, Defendants do not
provide paid rest periods to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class. As
piece rate employees, when Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members
took their ten-minute ret periods, they were not compensated in any
way. As such, they are entitled to wages for each and every rest
period provided by Defendants.

Central Transport International, Inc. offers transportation and
logistics services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It
offers regional, inter-regional, and long-haul less-than-truckload
services. The company also provides cross-docking, consolidation,
and pool distribution services, as well as customized supply chain
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


COMMERCIAL RESEARCH: Williams Sued over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL RESEARCH &
RECOVERY, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00847-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to August 1, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred by Plaintiff. The alleged
obligation arose out of a transaction involving a debt allegedly
incurred by the Plaintiff with LAGO Funding Corp., in which the
funding received from LAGO or a previous owner of the LAGO debt
were used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The
owner of the obligation contracted with the Defendant to collect
the alleged debt.

Commercial Recovery Inc. provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217 3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272 7807
          E-mail: Justin@zeiglawfirm.com


COPSYNC: Washington Co. Considers Joining Dashboard Camera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Falls, writing for KBTX, reports that Washington County
Sheriff's deputies didn't have properly working dashboard cameras
for the better part of two years.

Washington County Commissioners are deciding whether to join a
class action lawsuit against COPSync. The company went bankrupt in
October. Sheriff Otto Hanak said they were left with equipment that
didn't work right. The sheriff's office has since switched to a new
dashcam vendor last year.

Washington County Judge John Brieden said the county is out almost
$50,000. The reason they are considering joining a class action
lawsuit is to try and recoup some of the cost. Judge Brieden said
the dash camera service went away when COPsync filed for
bankruptcy.

"They did leave us hanging. It was a situation where we saw that
first of all the product was not as good as we felt. It should be
and as advertised. And it was surprising because the others were
and then the support was not what it should be and we were
continuing to have problems," said Judge Brieden.

Washington Sheriff Otto Hanak said they were glad to switch vendors
for their patrol cars. He said the dashcam systems were replaced.

Washington County still has two products from the former COPsync
company, including a data terminal and panic button technology for
courthouse employees. They said both of those products are working
well. COPSync was bought out by another company, KOLOGIC.

In March 2017, KBTX reported that Calvert Police were using a
COPsync product. Police Chief Mike Hoyt said their product is still
up and running without any issues. [GN]

CSC SERVICEWORKS: Breached Laundry Service Contracts, RBB2 Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBB2, LLC, a California limited liability company, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CSC
SERVICEWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00915-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal., July 6, 2018), alleges that
Defendant unlawfully underpays Plaintiff and the putative Class on
their laundry service contracts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant CSC is one of the largest
coin-operated laundry businesses in the country, largely providing
services to multi-unit apartment buildings. CSC's market dominance
is largely attributable to its practice of buying out its
competition. Most notably, CSC has merged the operations of
Coinmach, Mac-Grey, and Continental Laundry Services -- all major
players in the coin-operated business -- under its current entity.


After CSC acquired its competitors (and the existing customer
contracts along with them) it disregarded the actual terms of those
contracts and imposed a 9.75% "administrative fee" on its services,
thereby systematically shortchanging building owners on
contracted-for revenue shares. The Plaintiff and members of the
Class never agreed to pay the so-called administrative fee and such
a fee was never included in contracts with CSC (or the companies
acquired by CSC).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: 415 212 9300
          Facsimile: 415 373 9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com


DEBT MANAGEMENT: "Fabec" Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christina Fabec, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Debt Management Partners, LLC and Capital Management Holdings, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-898852, was removed from the Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Cleveland) on July 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01537-DCN to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER
          767 East 185 Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502 1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566 9400
          E-mail: mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

Attorneys for Debt Management Partners, LLC:

          Dennis M. Coyne, Esq.
          1428 Hamilton Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1106
          Telephone: (216) 781 9162
          Facsimile: (216) 781 9160
          E-mail: Denniscoyne@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Leslie E. Wargo, Esq.
          WARGO LAW
          Ste. 182
          1501 North Marginal Road
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 403 3350
          Facsimile: (216) 744 1816
          E-mail: Leslie@Wargo-Law.com


DEVILLE ASSET: Ross Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Monique Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DeVille Asset Management, Ltd. and John
Does 1-25, Defendant(s), Case No. 1:18-cv-00455-MRB (S.D. Ohio,
July 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory relief
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to September 25, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to JD Byrider CO-748. The JD
Byrider obligation arose out of a transactions involving funding
for an automobile, which Plaintiff used primarily for personal,
family or household purposes. The alleged JD Byrider obligation is
a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). JD Byrider is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). JD Byrider or
a subsequent owner of the JD Byrider debt contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant collects and
attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred
for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

DeVille Asset specializes in the acquisition of defaulted account
receivable portfolios from consumer credit originators such as
major banks.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: White Sues over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., PINNACLE
CREDIT SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00318-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to December 24, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Verizon Wireless by the
Plaintiff. The Verizon Wireless obligation arose out of a
transaction for personal cellular phone services in which money,
property, insurance or services, the subject of the transaction,
were primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The
alleged Verizon Wireless obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Due to her financial constraints, the
Plaintiff could not pay the alleged debt, and it went into default.
Sometime thereafter, Defendant Pinnacle purportedly purchased the
alleged debt. The Defendant Pinnacle is a "debt collector" as
defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA.

The Defendant, a subsequent owner of the Verizon Wireless debt,
contracted with the Defendant Diversified to collect the alleged
debt. Diversified collects and attempts to collect debts incurred
or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan St, Ste. 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217 3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272 7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglaw.com


DOWNTOWN TOWING: Petraglia Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNA PETRAGLIA, and all others similarly situated v. DOWNTOWN
TOWING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, TIMOTHY RYAN DEL ROSAL,
individually, BRANDON RAY DEL ROSAL, individually, and ZACHARY
ROBERT DEL ROSAL, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-22733-DPG (S.D.
Fla., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for the Defendants'
alleged willful violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Downtown Towing is a Florida corporation, which regularly conducted
business within the Southern District of Florida as a tow truck
company.  The Individual Defendants are "employers" as defined in
the FLSA, as they have operational control over the Defendant
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


EDGE FITNESS: Court Certifies Class of Membership Advisors
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MELISSA MCARTHUR, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff,
v. EDGE FITNESS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01554-JAM (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action:

      "all persons who have been employed as Membership Advisors
      in the previous three years"; and

   2. directing Defendant to disclose to plaintiff the names and
      contact information for potential FLSA opt-in plaintiffs
      within 15 days.

The notice period -- that is, the period during which individuals
may "opt in" to the FLSA collective action -- began July 23, 2018,
and concludes September 21, 2018, Court held.


EGS FINANCIAL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Taubenfliegel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Menachem Taubenfliegel filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order dated June 21, 2018, and judgment dated
June 25, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Taubenfliegel v. EGS Financial
Care, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-1962, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Taubenfliegel v. EGS Financial
Care, Inc., Case No. 18-2208, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Menachem Taubenfliegel, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee EGS Financial Care, Inc., is represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL L.L.C.
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


ELMER BUCHTA: Monroe Sues Trucking Co. Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MONROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELMER BUCHTA TRUCKING LLC; RAYMOND WRIGHT, individually
and as officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of ELMER
BUCHTA TRUCKING LLC; J. KIRK WRIGHT, individually and as officer,
director, shareholder, and/or principal of ELMER BUCHTA TRUCKING
LLC; LEONARD MEHRINGER, individually and as officer, director,
shareholder, and/or principal of ELMER BUCHTA TRUCKING LLC; and
WRIGHT FAMILY INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-00132-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 26, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana Minimum
Wage Law and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

Mr. Monroe contends that the Defendants compensate him and other
truck drivers on a weight hauled percentage basis, which did not
amount to the Federal and the Indiana State statutorily required
minimum wage for all hours worked.  He adds that the Defendants
deduct, for their benefit, from the Drivers' paychecks for
training, equipment, and drug test costs, which drove the Drivers'
hourly rate below or further below the Federal and the Indiana
State statutorily required minimum of $7.25 per hour.

Elmer Buchta Trucking LLC is incorporated under the laws of Indiana
and is headquartered in Otwell, Indiana.  WFIG is incorporated
under the laws of Indiana and is headquartered in Otwell.  Elmer is
a wholly owned subsidiary of WFIG.  The Individual Defendants are
principals, officers or managers of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company doing business as
"Elmer Buchta Trucking."  Particularly, they specialize in hauling
coal, limestone, and aggregate across the Midwest.  In addition to
their trucking business, the Defendants operate a "professional
driving school," which allegedly trains Drivers without a
commercial driver's license ("CDL") for their CDL test.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          1 Indiana Square, #1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 793-2252
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          James Vagnini, Esq.
          Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: jav@vkvlawyers.com
                  rrb@vkvlawyers.com



EMERALD EQUITY: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN ORTIZ, JOSE TORRES, NEYL GARCIA, JOSE B. CABRERA GOMEZ,
CLAUDIO A. PAULINO DIAZ, LEONARDO A. PACHECO-CEPEDA, and ISAUL
HERNANDEZ, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. EMERALD EQUITY GROUP, LLC, ARCHROCK, LLC D/B/A ARCHROCK
MANAGEMENT, STAFF-RBX, LLC, STAFF-EUN, LLC, STAFF-EBX LLC, 147
BRUCKNER BOULEVARD REALTY, LLC, BRONX 495 EAST 188TH STREET, LLC,
BRONX 495 EAST 188TH STREET, LP, BRONX 346 EAST 146 EAST 146TH
STREET, LP, BRONX 2650 MARION AVENUE, LP, BRONX 232 CYPRESS AVENUE,
LP, BRONX 214 EAST 168TH STREET LP, and MOSHE STAHL, Individually,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04246 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2018), is brought on
behalf of superintendents and handymen seeking to recover minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Emerald Equity Group, LLC, is a domestic business corporation with
its principal places of business located in New York City and in
Brooklyn, New York.  Emerald is a real estate acquisition company
with a portfolio comprising of over 3,000 residential units in
buildings located throughout New York.  Emerald designated all
management responsibilities for its residential properties to its
subsidiary, ArchRock, LLC, doing business as ArchRock Management.

The other Corporate Defendants are domestic limited liability
companies or domestic limited partnerships.  Moshe Stahl is a
property manager, supervisor, member or managing member of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Corporate Defendants are interrelated and operate as an
enterprise, owning and managing over 3,000 residential units in
buildings located throughout the City of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
          Diego O. Barros, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 406-6890


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Israelson Disputes Vague Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Israelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-80688, (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2018), seeks statutory
and actual damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency who attempted to
collect an obligation Israelson allegedly incurred to a Capital One
Credit Card. On July 26, 2017, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter that deceptively failed to identify who the
current creditor is to whom the alleged debt is owed, says the
complaint. Said letter lists Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. as a
creditor and Capital One, N.A. as the Original Creditor, but
nowhere does the letter clearly identify who the current creditor
is. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


ESSEN22 LLC: Solares-Gonzaga Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE SOLARES-GONZAGA, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ESSEN22 LLC d/b/a Essen Food;
AMICI 519 LLC d/b/a Essen Food; BNP NY FOODS, INC d/b/a Essen Food;
27 MADISON AVENUE CORP d/b/a Essen Food; TEN WESTSIDE CORP d/b/a
Essen Food; 100 BROAD STREET LLC d/b/a Essen Food; JANE DOE1, JANE
DOE2, JOHN BYUN, CHONG WON BYUN, WILLIAM BYUN, MYONG AE BAEK BYUN,
K.C. CHOI, SUNG CHOI, YOUNG CHOI, KYEONG T HWANG, JOSEPHINE KIM,
ANGIE PARK f/k/a Eun Ju Park, and HAE YUNG PARK, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06175 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and/or minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's
fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants are in the food business industry.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


F&A DRYWALL: Marquez Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Marquez, Francisco Perez and Gustavo Rico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. F&A
Drywall Construction Inc. and Francisco Lopez, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01731 (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2018), seeks all available relief,
including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Defendants operate a construction and drywall services catering to
customers throughout the State of Texas where Plaintiffs worked as
a general laborers, routinely working in excess of 40 hours per
workweek but was denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on July 16 disclosed that a shareholder class
action complaint has been filed against Farmland Partners Inc.
(NYSE: FPI) (NYSE: FPI-PB) ("Farmland" or the "Company") on behalf
of certain investors who purchased the Company's securities between
May 9, 2017 and July 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Farmland's common or
preferred stock during the Class Period may, no later than
September 10, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the investor class. Farmland investors are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.)
at (484) 258–1585 or (888) 715–1740 and/or submit their
information online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/farmland-partners/.

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."
The report further detailed that "[w]e found evidence that strongly
supports [Farmland] has significantly overpaid for properties;
under normal circumstances, we estimate [Farmland] is worth
$4.85/share, but we think the shares are un-investible."
Additionally, the report stated that Farmland has "neglected to
disclose that the majority of its loans have been made to two
members of the management team." Following this report, Farmland's
common stock fell $3.37 per share (39%) and its preferred shares
fell $6.08 per share (25%).

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Farmland artificially increased its revenues by
marking loans to related party tenants and (ii) Farmland's Class
Period revenues were overstated. The complaint further alleges
that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased Farmland's
securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period
and sustained significant investment losses.

Farmland investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC and/or
submit their information online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/farmland-partners/.Kaskela Law LLC
exclusively represents investors in state and federal courts
throughout the country. For additional information about Kaskela
Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Allows FHFA to Intervene in FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)'s Motion
to Intervene in the case captioned JAMES BANNECK, Plaintiff, v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-04657-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Banneck filed this purported consumer class action against Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) asserting two claims
under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(CCRAA) and one claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 includes provisions for
intervention of right and permissive intervention. On timely
motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene as a matter of
right who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a
federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property
or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest,
unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

FHFA argues that its intervention is warranted under any of four
grounds: (1) as a right under Rule 24(a)(1) because it has a
statutory right to intervene as Fannie Mae's conservator in any
action in which Fannie Mae is a party; (2) as a right under Rule
24(a)(2) because it meets those requirements as regulator and
conservator; (3) because it meets the requirements for permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b)(1) as regulator and conservator; and
(4) because it meets the requirements for permissive intervention
by a government agency under Rule 24(b)(2) in its capacity as
regulator.

On the first factor, he argues that the stage of the proceeding
should be considered relative to the timeline underlying the motion
to dismiss, since FHFA seeks to intervene for the limited purpose
of appealing the Order on that motion. But the Ninth Circuit has
found "a post-judgment motion to intervene to be timely if filed
within the time limitations for filing an appeal."

Moving on to the second factor, prejudice to existing parties is
the most important consideration in deciding whether a motion for
intervention is untimely. The only 'prejudice' that is relevant
under this factor is that which flows from a prospective
intervenor's failure to intervene after he knew, or reasonably
should have known, that his interests were not being adequately
represented and not from the fact that including another party in
the case might make resolution more difficult.  

As for the third factor, Banneck contends that the FHFA provides no
explanation for the unreasonable delay of its motion to intervene
until after the Court's unfavorable decision.
But FHFA counters that FHFA typically does not intervene in a case
unless and until it is clear that the case could have significant
consequences. And it insists that this approach benefits the
judicial system as well. The Court find this reason justified and
the length reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yadmfr9j from Leagle.com.

James Banneck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul B. Mengedoth , Mengedoth
Law PLLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly
& Crandall, PLC, pro hac vice, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., pro hac
vice, John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman, P.C., pro hac vice, Kristi Cahoon Kelly --
kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly and Crandall PLC, pro hac
vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis and Mailman PC, pro hac vice, Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith ,
Goldsmith and Associates, LLC, pro hac vice & Stephanie R. Tatar --
stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC .

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Benjamin Dean Brooks -- benbrooks@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP & Danielle Nicole Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Myers LLP.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by D. Eric
Shapland -- eric.shapland@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP.

FIDELITY BANK: McAlister Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin McAlister on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Fidelity Bank, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-0405 (W.D. Mo., May 24, 2018), seeks overtime pay at the
correct overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and attorneys'
fees incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment interest and all
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a financial institution that, among other things,
sells financial products to customers including mortgage products.
McAlister worked for Fidelity as a mortgage loan originator,
selling mortgage loan products. Plaintiff estimates that he worked
on average 70 hours per workweek without being paid overtime
premium.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON PC
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 221-7100
      Fax: (816) 709-1044
      Email: brendan@donelonpc.com


FLOYD COUNTY, GA: Correctional Officers File Suit to Recover Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarita Johnson, David Castro, Jason Johnson, Herbie Saade and
Charles Smith, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Floyd County, GA, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00127, (N.D. Ga., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, damages, equitable and other relief available under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Floyd County,
Georgia, who have worked in the position of "Correctional Officer"
at Floyd County Corrections. Their duties as Correctional Officers
often required them to stay beyond the end of their 12-hour shift
to continue working and complete tasks. Defendant regularly
adjusted the timecard entries to reflect only their scheduled
12-hour shift, and not the time each employee actually worked
thereby concealing the true number of hours worked, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lance J. LoRusso, Esq.
     Tiffany R. McKenzie, Esq.
     LORUSSO LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1827 Powers Ferry Road, SE
     Building 8, Suite 200
     Atlanta, GA 30339
     Phone: (770) 644-2378
     Fax: (770) 644-2379
     Email: lance@lorussolawfirm.com
            tiffany@lorussolawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Settles Takata Airbag Class Action for US$299.1MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proactiveinvestors reports that Ford Motor Company has agreed to a
US$299.1 million class action settlement over its "potentially
faulty" Takata airbags, according to a Reuters report.

The settlement covers at least 6 million vehicles in the US that
were equipped with the airbags.

Known as an "economic loss settlement," it covers several forms of
economic damage that occurred as a result of the airbags, including
claims that the cars were not as safe as they were presented as
being and that Ford customers had overpaid for cars with inadequate
safety features.

Ford isn't the first big-name automaker to pay out a hefty
settlement. Honda Motor Co Ltd, Toyota Motor Corp, Nissan Motor Co,
Mazda Motor Corp, Subaru Corp and BMW AG have paid a combined total
of US$1.2bn, according to Reuters. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Tacmed Says Driveshaft Flexible Couplings Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
TACMED HOLDINGS, INC. and TACMED, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00212 (S.D. Tex., July 6,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Ford Transit vans
equipped with uniform and uniformly defective driveshaft flexible
couplings manufactured, distributed, warranted, and sold/leased by
Ford Motor Company and/or its related subsidiaries or affiliates.

Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
distributing, assembling, marketing, warranting, selling, leasing,
and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other
motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in Texas and throughout
the United State.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walt D. Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM, P.C.
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com

               - and -

          Janice E. Cohen, Esq.
          JANICE COHEN LAW
          Two Turtle Creek
          3838 Oak Lawn Avenue
          Suite 750 ~LB 20
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 528 7977
          Facsimile: (214) 528 7986
          E-mail: Jan@JaniceCohenLaw.com

               - and -

          Jim Mitchell, Esq.
          PAYNEMITCHELL LAW GROUP
          3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1250
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 252 1888
          Facsimile: 214-252-1889
          E-mail: JMitchell@PayneMitchell.com


FRIENDS OF FREDDIE: Judge Rules Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
News 12 The Bronx reports that a judge has ruled the case against
animal rescue group "Friends of Freddie" may proceed.

Dozens of people are suing the rescue group, claiming they adopted
sick pets.

As News 12 has reported, Friends of Freddie's owner Barbara Sanelli
was charged with neglect and is accused of failing to provide
animals with proper medical care.

In 2017, the State Attorney General's office also opened an
investigation into the rescue group.[GN]




GAMESTOP CORP: Settles Customers' Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that GameStop Corp. has
reached a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit from
customers whose personal information was compromised in a
six-month-long data breach at the Texas-based video game retailer.

Plaintiffs attorneys said in court papers, filed on July 16 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, that GameStop has
agreed to pay up to $235 to each plaintiff for a range of potential
costs resulting from the breach, which exposed customers' credit
and debit card numbers to fraud and identity theft. Under the
proposed settlement, class members who suffered the most harm would
receive as much as $10,000 to cover "extraordinary expenses."

In exchange for the cash payments, GameStop would be released from
all claims relating to the breach, according to the document.

The filing was the first step toward resolving the nearly
10-month-old suit, which accused the Texas-based company of
negligence in failing to protect sensitive card information online
and in its stores. The settlement would need to receive preliminary
approval from U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III before it could
receive a fairness hearing.

If approved, class members would be notified about the settlement
and have the opportunity to decide whether to participate or to opt
out.

"The court should preliminarily approve the settlement because it
incorporates fair, reasonable, and adequate relief for the class,
includes a comprehensive notice plan that is the best means of
providing notice under the circumstances," attorneys from Chimicles
& Tikellis wrote. "Defendant does not oppose the relief requested
in this motion."

A spokesman for GameStop did not return a call on July 16 seeking
comment on the proposed settlement. Edward J. McAndrew --
mcandrewe@ballardspahr.com -- a Ballard Spahr attorney representing
the company, declined to comment, saying his client had not
authorized him to speak to the media.

Plaintiffs Crystal Bray and Samuel Cook filed their lawsuit last
September. The 36-page complaint alleged that inadequate
cybersecurity mechanisms directly led to the breach, which lasted
from August 2016 to February 2017.

Ms. Bray and Ms. Cook claimed that they made purchases online
during the six-month period but were not notified about the breach
until last June. According to the complaint, GameStop did not offer
credit monitoring services or compensation for their losses.

GameStop confirmed in April 2017 that it was investigating the
breach, after a third party notified the company that card data was
being offered for sale online.

Judge Jones, who is visiting from the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence-based claims in
March, but allowed claims for breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment to proceed.

According to the July 16's filing, the sides had already been
engaged in settlement talks prior to the March 16 decision, and
finally reached an agreement May 2 during an all-day mediation
session with Bennett Picker, a private mediator from Stradley Ronon
Stevens & Young in Philadelphia.

Under the agreement, the lawyers said, Ms. Bray and Ms. Cook would
each receive $3,750 in incentive awards for bringing the case, as
well as $557,500 in attorney fees and costs.

The rest of the class would receive a maximum of $235 each for
costs associated with the breach, including up to $120 for credit
monitoring and identity-theft services they had purchased and $22
for each card used to make fraudulent purchases. They would also
receive $15 per hour for up to three hours spent dealing with
replacement card issues or reversing fraudulent charges.

Chimicles & Tikellis partner Robert Kriner Jr. --
RobertKriner@chimicles.com -- who was listed as lead attorney for
the plaintiffs, did not return a call on July 16 seeking comment on
the agreement.

The case is captioned Bray v. GameStop. [GN]

GEORGE TYNDALL: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Jane Does 5-10, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. University of Southern California, Board of
Trustees of the University of Southern California and George
Tyndall, M.D., Case No. 705677, (Cal. Super., May 25, 2018), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs
resulting from gender violence, gross negligence, negligent
supervision and retention, civil battery and violation of the
Education Amendments Act of 1972, California Sex Equity in
Education Act.

Tyndall is a gynecologist at the University of Southern California
(USC) student health center. He is accused of sexual abuse,
molestation and unwanted touching by female students who sought
examination by a gynecologist at the student health center. USC
nurses, chaperones and other staff members were regularly present
in the examination rooms, observed the inappropriate sexual
molestation but took no steps to stop it as it occurred. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John C. Manly, Esq.
     Vince W. Finaldi, Esq.
     Alex E. Cunny, Esq.
     Jane E. Reilley, Esq.
     MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
     19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 252-9990
     Fax: (949) 252-9991

            - and -

     Ronald T. Labriola, Esq.
     Thomas M. Moore, Esq.
     THE SENATORS (RET.) FIRM, LLP
     19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 557-5800
     Fax: (866) 676-6769


GOOGLE LLC: AdX Publishers Can Amend Breach of Contract Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned BULLETIN
MARKETING LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-07211-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

The Google Services Agreement, which Bulletin Marketing entered
into, governs the relationship between AdX publishers and Google.
A few days before Google was due to pay Bulletin Marketing's
accrued AdX earnings, Google disabled Bulletin Marketing's account
for purported policy violations.  Although Google never sent any
notice to Bulletin Marketing that its AdX account was in violation
of any policy, Google withheld payment of all of Bulletin
Marketing's accrued AdX earnings for the last earnings period.

Bulletin Marketing asserts four class action claims: (1) breach of
contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) breach of implied duty to perform with reasonable
care; and (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Google moves to dismiss claims 2 to 4.

Second Cause of Action: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing

The second cause of action asserts a claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. According to
Google, the FAC alleges four theories in support of that claim:
Google (1) fails to provide publishers a meaningful appeal after
termination; (2) withheld accrued earnings directly tied to valid
activity; (3) withheld publishers' earnings close to the earnings
payout date; and (4) does not allow publishers to get relief from
Google even when it withheld earnings that are tied to valid
activity.

The Court finds that the FAC does not adequately plead the second
cause of action. The implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing's application is limited to assuring compliance with the
express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create
obligations not contemplated by the contract.

However, as pled, the FAC's allegations attempt to add obligations
that do not expressly appear in the Google Services Agreement. As
such, the allegations which Bulletin Marketing relies on fail to
support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. The Court therefore grants Google's motion to
dismiss the second cause of action with leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action: Breach of the Implied Duty to Perform with
Reasonable Care

The FAC's third cause of action asserts a claim for breach of the
implied duty to perform with reasonable care.

Google argues that the third cause of action is duplicative of
Bulletin Marketing's claim for breach of contract because those two
claims rely on the same allegations.

The Court first turns to the FAC's second alternative situation.
Bulletin Marketing seeks to assert its implied duty claim when the
contract does impose an express contractual obligation upon Google.
In this situation, the alleged implied duty does not exist because
the contract at issue already expressly contains the purported
obligation. Bulletin Marketing cannot assert a non-existent implied
duty. The claim which Bulletin Marketing seeks to assert would be
subsumed in its breach of contract claim.

Thus, Google's motion to dismiss the third cause of action to the
extent it is based on the FAC's second alternative situation is
granted without leave to amend.

Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law

Google argues that Bulletin Marketing lacks standing to assert a
claim under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) on the
grounds that it did not bring this case for "the public in general
or individual consumers.

Bulletin Marketing responds that Google's practice of disabling
publisher's AdX accounts and withholding the entirety of their
accrued earnings implicates the public interest.
The Court is unpersuaded by Bulletin Marketing's arguments.  

The FAC does not contain adequate factual allegations showing that
the named Plaintiff Bulletin Marketing is not a sophisticated
corporate plaintiff. In fact, the FAC suggests the opposite. In
contrast, the FAC contains no such allegations. As such, the Court
finds that the FAC fails to plead that the named Plaintiff Bulletin
Marketing has standing to bring the UCL claim.

The FAC also raises a concern whether it sufficiently alleges that
Google engaged in "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice. The Court need not reach this issue because the FAC fails
to allege that the named Plaintiff Bulletin Marketing has standing
to pursue the UCL claim.

The Court grants Google's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of
action with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9m3basw from Leagle.com.

Bulletin Marketing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Weylin Poe
-- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Samuel S. Song --
ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng -- vmeng@gawpoe.com
-- Gaw & Poe LLP & Randolph Gaw -- rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe
LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Audrey Jane Mott-Smith --
amottsmith@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Kyle Christopher Wong, Cooley
LLP.

HOMESERVE USA: Peker TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELINE PEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOMESERVE USA CORP., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00517-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2018), seeks to stop
HomeServe from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's
prohibition on unsolicited calls to consumers whose phone numbers
are registered with the National Do Not Call Registry by making
calls to those consumers without their consent.

HomeServe is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.  HomeServe provides homeowners with insurance plans
that cover repairs that might be needed for electric, gas, heating,
cooling and water systems.

HomeServe markets its services by calling consumers' phone numbers
without consent, regardless of whether the phone numbers are listed
on the DNC or the consumers have otherwise demanded that HomeServe
stop calling, the Plaintiff alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


HOULIHAN LAWRENCE: Faces Class Action Over "Predatory Behavior"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Bockmann, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
Westchester homebuyer is the lead plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit accusing Houlihan Lawrence of "predatory behavior" over its
dual agency practices.

The lawsuit claims that the 1,300-agent-strong residential
brokerage makes dual agency part of its fundamental business plan
and obscures its agents' roles, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Houlihan Lawrence also provides less disclosure than other
brokerages about its agents' dual roles, according to the lawsuit,
which says the brokerage represented both sides of the deal in nine
out of 10 of Houlihan Lawrence's biggest Westchester sales.

A spokesperson for Houlihan Lawrence, which Warren Buffett's
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s HomeServices of America bought last year,
told the Journal that the company had just learned of the lawsuit
and was still going over it, adding the brokerage "is confident in
its business practices."

Pamela Goldstein, the lead plaintiff in the case, bought a home in
White Plains in 2017 for $637,000. She was surprised to find,
though, that her broker at Houlihan Lawrence was part of the team
that had listed the house for the seller. Her agent, Daniel
Cezimbra, is also the brother-in-law of the listing agent.

Brokers in New York are allowed to work on both sides of the deal,
so long as they disclose their dual roles. Ms. Goldstein said her
broker sent her a disclosure only three days after she submitted
her initial bid, and that the pre-checked boxes on the form were
incorrect.

Mr. Cezimbra told the Journal that he worked "solely" on
Goldstein's behalf.

"She was well represented," he said. "I feel everything we did was
up to par. She had every disclosure laid out to her." [GN]

HSBC HOLDINGS: Blaney McMurtry Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
John Polyzogopoulos, Esq., of Blaney McMurtry LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reported that in Yip v HSBC Holdings plc, the Ontario
Court of Appeal upheld the stay of a US$7 billion class action
claim for secondary securities market misrepresentation on
jurisdictional grounds. The securities at issue were bought by
Canadians on foreign exchanges, as they did not trade on a Canadian
stock exchange. The Court determined that Ontario securities law
did not extend as far as to permit a claim for secondary market
misrepresentation under the Securities Act to proceed in Ontario in
such circumstances, and therefore upheld the stay of proceedings
imposed by the motion judge.

Yip v HSBC Holdings plc, 2018 ONCA 626

Keywords: Torts, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities, Secondary
Market Misrepresentations, Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S 5, s.
138.1, Definition of "Responsible Issuer", Abdula v Canadian Solar
Inc, 2012 ONCA 211, Statutory Interpretation, Bell ExpressVu
Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd
(Re), [1998] 1 SCR 27, Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Jurisdiction
Simpliciter, Real and Substantial Connection, Forum Non Conveniens,
Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Moran v Pyle National
(Canada) Ltd, [1975] 1 SCR 393, Kaynes v. BP, PLC, 2014 ONCA 580,
Kaynes v BP PLC, 2016 ONCA 601, Costs, Public Interest Litigation,
Enterpreneurial Litigation, Disbursements, Experts,
Proportionality, Fantl v Transamerica Life Canada, 2009 ONCA 377,
3664902 Canada Inc. v. Hudson's Bay Co. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 283
(C.A.), Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6, s. 31(1), Rules
of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.04(1.1)

Facts:

This appeal concerns a proposed securities class action for
negligent misrepresentation against HSBC Holdings ("HSBC
Holdings"). HSBC Holdings is the parent holding company of an
international banking conglomerate with its head office in London,
UK. The securities have never traded or been listed on any Canadian
stock exchange. They are traded on the London and Hong Kong Stock
Exchanges with secondary listings on the Bermuda Stock Exchange and
the Paris Euronext Stock Exchange. HSBC's American Depository
Receipts (ADRs) traded on the New York Stock Exchange. HSBC
Holdings has about 220,000 shareholders in 129 countries, including
Canada. The appellant asserts that he and other purchasers of HSBC
Holdings' shares or ADRs were misled by HSBC Holdings' continuous
disclosure documents and public statements in two primary respects:
(i) that it had complied with anti-money laundering and
anti-terrorist financing laws; and (ii) that it had not
participated in an illegal scheme to manipulate certain
international benchmark rates. The motion judge proceeded on the
assumption that these misrepresentations occurred.

The appellant asserts that these misrepresentations caused
investors in HSBC Holdings to suffer about US$7 billion in losses
because they purchased shares and ADRs at artificially inflated
prices. This is the basis of his statutory and common law tort
claims for misrepresentation.

The motion judge heard two motions. HSBC Holdings moved to dismiss
or stay the appellant's action because the Ontario court lacks
jurisdiction simpliciter and because Ontario is forum non
conveniens. The appellant brought a cross-motion for a declaration
that HSBC Holdings is a responsible issuer under s.138.8 of the
Ontario Securities Act. The motion judge dismissed the appellant's
action and stayed the common law misrepresentation claim. He
dismissed the appellant's cross-motion.

Issues:

(1) Did the motion judge err in his interpretation of the
definition of responsible issuer in s. 138.1 of the Securities
Act?

(2) Did the motion judge err in his application of the common law
real and substantial connection test?

(3) Did the motion judge err in his application of the doctrine of
forum non conveniens?

(4) Should leave to appeal the costs award be granted and should
the costs award be varied?

Holding: Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

(1) No, the motion judge did not err in his interpretation of the
definition of responsible issuer in s. 138.1 of the Securities Act.
The appellant's statutory tort claim is based on s. 138.3, which
gives investors a statutory cause of action against a responsible
issuer for a misrepresentation in a "document" released by it or
contained in a public oral statement. Section 138.3 defines a
responsible issuer to mean "(b) any other issuer with a real and
substantial connection to Ontario, any securities of which are
publicly traded" (emphasis added). The appellant relied on Abdula v
Canadian Solar Inc, 2012 ONCA 211, and urged the court to find
that: "An issuer that knows or ought to know that its investor
information is being made available to Canadian investors has a
securities regulatory nexus" with Ontario sufficient to establish a
real and substantial connection. The appellant argued that this
would be a purposive interpretation consistent with the goal of the
Securities Act to protect investors from fraudulent practices.

In the alternative, the appellant submitted that the court should
identify a new presumptive connecting factor for cases of secondary
market misrepresentation. The appellant argued that HSBC Holdings
"ought to know both that" the putative class members "may well be
injured and it [was] reasonably foreseeable that the
misrepresentation" would be acted upon: Moran v Pyle National
(Canada) Ltd, [1975] 1 SCR 393. The appellant therefore argued that
the motion judge erred in declaring that HSBC Holdings is not a
responsible issuer.

The Court rejected this argument because the proposed formulation
of the test might make Ontario a universal jurisdiction for
secondary market misrepresentations made anywhere in the world. The
Court reiterated that the words of an Act are to be read in their
entire context and their grammatical and ordinary sense
harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and
the intention of Legislature: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v
Rex, 2002 SCC 42, at para 26; and Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd (Re),
[1998] 1 SCR 27, at para 21.

In analyzing the Legislature's intention, the Court found that by
introducing civil liability for secondary market
misrepresentations, the Legislature did not intend that Ontario
would become the default jurisdiction for issuers around the world
whose securities were purchased by residents of Ontario. The Court
additionally found that the Legislature's adoption of the language
in which the common law jurisdiction simpliciter test is framed was
not accidental. Rather, it was well entrenched, and it specifically
aimed at preventing jurisdictional overreach. The concern about
jurisdictional overreach affects the assessment at three levels of
the common law test for determining whether a Canadian court will
assume jurisdiction: (i) requiring the presence of a presumptive
connecting factor; (ii) determining whether the factor has been
rebutted; and (iii) in applying the forum non conveniens doctrine.

Further, in assessing the judicial history of the real and
substantial connection test, the Court cited the Supreme Court's
decision in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17. Justice
LeBel expressed similar concerns in his formulation of the factors
a court is to consider in determining whether a real and
substantial connection exists in a tort case. He repeatedly
expressed one of the primary aims of the test: to reduce the "risk
of jurisdictional overreach" (at para. 22); to "prevent improper
assumptions of jurisdiction" (at para. 26); to prevent "courts from
overreaching by entering into matters in which they had little or
no interest" (at para. 38); and to reduce the risk of "sweeping
into that jurisdiction [,] claims that have only a limited
relationship with the forum" (at para. 89). In his view, a judicial
approach that leads to "universal jurisdiction" should be avoided.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that, on
purposive grounds, the interpretation of the expression "real and
substantial connection" in the Securities Act must be different
than its common law meaning in the jurisdiction simpliciter cases.
Rather, a purposive interpretation led the Court to reject the
appellant's proposed test and alternative argument that the court
should recognize a new presumptive connecting factor for this type
of statutory claim. The Court rejected that an issuer that knows or
ought to know that its investor information is being made available
to Canadian investors creates a securities regulatory nexus
sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection to
Ontario. In determining whether an issuer is a responsible issuer,
the courts are generally to apply the common law test for a real
and substantial connection.

(2) No, the motion judge did not err in his application of the
common law test for a real and substantial connection. The Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction over a foreign defendant
in a tort action if the plaintiff establishes that a real and
substantial connection exists between the subject matter of the
litigation and Ontario. In Van Breda, the Supreme Court formulated
four rebuttable presumptive connective factors, at para 90:

[I]n a case concerning a tort, the following factors are
presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie, entitle a court
to assume jurisdiction over a dispute:

(a) the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;

(b) the defendant carries on business in the province;

(c) the tort was committed in the province; and

(d) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the
province.

The appellant asserted that HSBC Holdings was caught by two of the
presumptive connecting factors: it committed a tort in Ontario; and
it carries on business in Ontario. The appellant contended that the
motion judge erred by requiring HSBC Holdings to have a physical
presence in Ontario. The Court of Appeal disagreed with this
argument. The motion judge's finding that HSBC Holdings' business
is that of managing a global enterprise of a group of commonly
bannered banks to the extent of setting global standards for a
global enterprise was correct and entitled to deference. The Court
found that HSBC Holdings could not be said to have carried on
business in Ontario simply because the appellant could access a
non-reporting issuer's disclosure information using his home
computer in Ontario. This would amount to an "extremely weak
connection" to securities regulation in Ontario. It would also give
rise to the universal jurisdiction that LeBel J. explicitly
rejected in Van Breda.

The Court distinguished Abdula, where the issuer was found to be a
responsible issuer because there was a real and substantial
connection to Ontario, at para. 88. The issuer in Abdula had been
incorporated in Ontario; its executive offices as well as some
business and governance operations were in Ontario; and it had held
its annual meeting in Ontario. Here, HSBC Holdings' management
business was distinct from the businesses it manages. Very few
activities of HSBC Holdings' business had ever occurred in Ontario;
it had no fixed place of business in Canada; and there was no agent
of HSBC Holdings doing its management business in Ontario.
Therefore, HSBC Holdings is not a responsible issuer under the
Securities Act because it had no real and substantial connection to
Ontario.

(3) No, the motion judge accurately expressed and applied the
principles in the forum non conveniens analysis and this
determination attracts deference: see Van Breda, at para. 112.

A court may decline jurisdiction on the basis that there is another
more appropriate forum under the forum non conveniens doctrine,
even if it finds it has jurisdiction simpliciter. Given the Court's
conclusion that Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction
simpliciter, it was unnecessary to consider the forum non
conveniens doctrine. However, since the appellant raised arguments
about the interaction between this court's decisions in Kaynes
(2014) and Kaynes v BP PLC, 2016 ONCA 601, 133 O.R. (3d) 29, the
Court found that a response would be helpful.

The Court went on to extensively discuss the Kaynes decisions, in
which the court had first stayed a securities class action in 2014
on jurisdictional grounds, and then lifted the stay in 2016 to
permit the claim to proceed. The appellant's argument that there
was inconsistency between the court's decisions in Kaynes (2014)
and Kaynes (2016) was rejected. In Kaynes (2016), the court lifted
the stay it imposed in Kaynes (2014) in order to allow the
appellant to have his claim adjudicated on its merits. The panel
did not suggest that the framework it set out in Kaynes (2014) was
wrong. The law did not change in Kaynes (2016); the facts changed.
The court in Kaynes (2016) stated, at para. 16: these developments,
taken as a whole, are sufficient to justify lifting the stay.
Comity was central in Kaynes (2014). The importance of comity did
not change in Kaynes (2016). In Kaynes (2014), the court showed
respect for the U.S. court, which was already adjudicating similar
claims. When the U.S. District Court judge dismissed the claim on a
"purely procedural barrier", there was no decision on the merits
that the court could recognize: Kaynes (2016), at para. 16. In
addition, given that Mr. Kaynes had commenced his claim in Ontario
in time, it was unfair that this be a basis for preventing the
claim from being heard on its merits. Thus, in Kaynes (2016), the
court did not elevate the juridical advantage of asserting a claim
as a class action to the status of an inviolable right. Rather, it
applied the Kaynes (2014) framework to a new set of facts.

The appellant argued that the motion judge failed to give due
weight to the loss of juridical advantage he would suffer if
Ontario declined jurisdiction, and he asserted: There is no
authority for the proposition relied on by the motion judge that
juridical advantage should be viewed as "a weak and problematic
factor". This is incorrect. The Supreme Court noted that the
juridical advantage factor is problematic in the forum non
conveniens analysis, both as a matter of comity and as a practical
matter: Breeden v Black, 2012 SCC 19, [2012] 1 SCR 666, at para 27;
Van Breda, at para 112.

As a matter of comity, secondary market trading is international
and involves numerous jurisdictions. Comity is particularly
important to maintain an orderly and predictable regime for dispute
resolution. As stated by LeBel J. in Van Breda: "Comity cannot
subsist in private international law without order, which requires
a degree of stability and predictability in the development and
application of the rules governing international or interprovincial
relationships" (at para. 74). In this case, the motion judge
properly expressed and applied the forum non conveniens principles.
HSBC Holdings could not reasonably have expected that it would be
subject to the securities regulation of the law of Ontario.
Therefore, the motion judge was right to conclude that Ontario was
forum non conveniens.

(4) Yes and yes. The Court granted leave to appeal the costs award,
and varied it by reducing it from $1,000,455.22 to $800,000. In
reducing the award, the court did not accept the appellant's
submission that this litigation should be considered public
interest litigation in the costs context (Pearson v. Inco Ltd.
(2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 427 (C.A.)). There was no such specific or
special significance of this case beyond the putative class
members. This was entrepreneurial litigation. The Court also found
that this litigation did not raise a novel issue: the central issue
was jurisdictional. The Court did disagree with the motion judge
where he drew a distinction between "altruistic" and
"entrepreneurial" litigation. Class actions are generally
entrepreneurial litigation: Fantl v Transamerica Life Canada, 2009
ONCA 377 at para 66. However, the Court did not disagree with the
motion judge's conclusion that the fees sought by the respondent
were fair and reasonable in the circumstances and the expert
evidence and fees were necessary for the motion.

Expert fees are not to be arbitrarily reduced to reflect partial
indemnity costs (3664902 Canada Inc. v. Hudson's Bay Co. (2003),
169 O.A.C. 283 (C.A.)). Proportionality is a matter of general
principle in applying the Rules of Civil Procedure: see r.
1.04(1.1). The expert fees allowed must still be reasonable in
terms of hours and rates charged in proportion to the matter. The
motion judge referred to, but did not apply, this test. There was
no information provided for three of the six experts in terms of
the hours spent or the rates charged. That significantly
constrained a review of the fees charged. While the court could
have remitted the matter back to the motion judge, it decided to
reduce the costs in respect of the expert fee disbursements
incurred. [GN]

ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Suit Over $50 Case Reinstatement Fee Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed the
trial court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned RICHARD ALDERSON AND ANN ALDERSON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. ERIN C. WEINSTEIN, in Her Official Capacity as Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Lake County and as a Representative of All
Illinois Circuit Court Clerks, Defendant-Appellee, No. 2-17-0498
(Ill. App.).

Plaintiffs, Richard and Ann Alderson, brought suit seeking mandamus
and other relief against defendant, Erin C. Weinstein, in her
official capacity as clerk of the circuit court of Lake County and
as a representative of all circuit court clerks in the state.

The Aldersons filed a complaint in arbitration in the circuit court
of Lake County. In January 2016, the Aldersons' complaint was
dismissed for want of prosecution, a court order also known as a
DWP.  Two weeks later, when the Aldersons sought to vacate the
dismissal and reinstate the case, Weinstein's office charged them a
$50 fee. The Aldersons' attorney paid the fee; the arbitration case
was reinstated, it proceeded to judgment, and it is now closed.

A section of the Clerks of Courts Act, applicable to Lake County,
authorizes the circuit clerk to charge a minimum of $50 and a
maximum of $60 when a party files a petition to vacate or modify
any final judgment or order of court in most civil cases.

Under Barber, then, this is a simple case. The record is clear that
the Aldersons had not formally sought class certification before
Weinstein tendered them financial relief and filed her motion to
dismiss. That was, more or less, the end of this matter; as Barber
explains, a putative class action is moot where the named
plaintiffs were granted the relief requested" prior to seeking
class certification. Barber, 241 Ill. 2d at 459.

But, the Aldersons maintain, they have not received the relief they
requested. They point out that their complaint did not request $341
(a refund of the $50 fee plus the $291 filing fees for the instant
case) or any specific amount of money or a policy declaration from
the circuit clerk.

Rather they sought a writ ordering the clerk to refund their fee
($50), as well as an accounting, as well as a similar order
applicable to all other circuit clerks in the state. In this
regard, the Aldersons have taken a snippet of Barber to an
unreasonable extreme. Illinois law holds that a suit is moot where
the defendant tenders to the plaintiff the essential relief
demanded.

Here, the complaint alleged that the Aldersons were charged a $50
fee by the circuit clerk in excess of the clerk's statutory
authority; the circuit clerk issued the Aldersons a refund and
stated in an affidavit that she had implemented a policy to ensure
that others would not be erroneously charged a fee when filing a
motion to vacate a DWP. By any reasonable measure, the Aldersons
have received what they basically sought and more, considering that
they never requested a refund of their filing fees for the instant
case ($291) and yet have received a check for that amount.

In addition, the Aldersons put the cart before the horse when they
sought to treat Weinstein, in her official capacity, as a
representative defendant. No allegation was made in the complaint
as to why Weinstein is a representative for any other circuit
clerk, let alone all other circuit clerks in the state, none of
whom were joined as defendants. And, so, as we have said, the
Aldersons have essentially received all that they are entitled to
and then some. Their purported nonacceptance notwithstanding,
pursuant to Barber, this case is indeed moot.

Pursuant to Barber, the Aldersons' case is moot, and no exception
applies to save it. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court
of Lake County, which dismissed the complaint, is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ill. App.'s July 13, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7q5az6 from Leagle.com.

IOC-PA LLC: Tumpa Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Tumpa, Sr., on behalf of himself as an individual and all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. IOC-PA, LLC,
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. and Mary Ann Rutherford, Director of Casino
Operations, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00112, (W.D. Pa., May 24,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, pre-judgement interest and all other appropriate relief
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, Pennsylvania's Wage Payment
and Collection Law and under the common law doctrine of unjust
enrichment.

IOC-PA, LLC operates as the Lady Luck Casino in Fayette County,
Pennsylvania where Tumpa was employed as a table game dealer and
operator at the casino. Dealers are required to be at work or
"punch in" at the Casino seven minutes prior to the start of their
shift, for which they are not paid, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
     Elizabeth Rabenold, Esq.
     Brendan R. Delaney, Esq.
     FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
     429 Fourth Avenue
     Law and Finance Building, Suite 1300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: (412) 281-8400
     Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
     Email: efeinstein@fdpklaw.com
            erabenold@fdpklaw.com
            bdelaney@fdpklaw.com, Esq.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Landfill Fumes
----------------------------------------------------------
4WWL TV, reports that a Jefferson Parish man has filed a
class-action against the parish and the operator of a west bank
landfill, whose noxious odors many residents say are making them
sick.

The lawsuit was filed on July 25 by Elias Jorge "George"
Ictech-Bendeck. It names Jefferson Parish, Progressive Waste
Solutions, Waste Connections, IESI Louisiana Landfill Corp., the
Louisiana Regional Landfill Co. and Aptim Corp. as defendants.

A Jefferson Parish spokesman said the parish has received the
lawsuit but declined to comment. The parish plans to file a
response to the lawsuit in court.

While the landfill is on the west bank, neighbors across the river
in Harahan and River Ridge have complained about a noxious odor
coming from the facility in recent months.

The parish has blamed the landfill's private operator in part for
the odor and is holding the company in breach of contract.

Parish President Mike Yenni earlier this week said the breach of
contract was "for failing to maintain a uniform, immediate daily
cover to prevent odors and failing to fully implement the leachate
control and monitoring plan that would contain and prevent these
odors."

The landfill operator, IESI Louisiana, now called Louisiana
Regional Landfill Company, disputed that claim.

A statement from the company reads in part, "LRLC has at all times
operated the landfill in accordance with the provisions of the
landfill operating agreement and under the direction and
supervision of Jefferson Parish. . . .  Jefferson Parish operates
and maintains the landfill gas collection system at the landfill,
not LRLC."

The company also claims it offered to take over that function and
repair the system for the next 90 days at no extra cost to the
parish.

But, according to the contractor, the parish never responded to
their offer.

The contractor added, "LRLC, at its own expense, has hired a
nationally known odor mitigation firm in order to assist the parish
in identifying all sources of local odors, including the two River
Birch landfills immediately adjacent to the Jefferson Parish
landfill. A final report detailing those findings will be made
public in the coming weeks."

Yenni accused his predecessor, John Young, of cutting a side deal
that let the landfill operator out of handling a portion of the
liquid and gas containment systems.

Young told WWL-TV that Yenni's claim is ridiculous.

"It's wrong and irresponsible for them to try and point fingers at
a prior administration when they've been on the job almost three
years now," Young said.

Young added his administration requested the landfill contractor to
do more, not less.

He presented as evidence a December 2014 parish council resolution
amending the landfill contract that asked the contractor to fix and
maintain broken pumps at the dump.

"There were some things done to actually get IESI to do additional
things in terms of the leachate and things like that," Young said.

A Jefferson Parish spokesman said the Yenni administration stands
by statements made about the landfill contractor and the former
parish president on July 23 news conference.[GN]

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Faces Class Actions Over Sexual Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a small group of protesters spoke out against
alleged abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses at one of the religious
group's annual conventions in Vancouver on July 15.

Natasha Peeters was among them. Now 50, she says she was abused by
an elder within the church when she lived in Belgium as a youth.

"I was abused . . . since I was a baby until 13 years old," she
said.

Two-witness rule

Ms. Peeters said when she came forward with the abuse she was
dismissed. She says the church has a rule that wrongdoing can only
be established on the basis of testimony from two or more
eyewitnesses to the same incident.

'I was alone, it was my word against his, I can't do anything," she
said. "He's an adult. He said nothing happened, so nothing
happened."

Two class-action lawsuits in Canada have been filed against
Jehovah's Witnesses, one in Ontario and a second suit in Quebec.

The suits accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of failing to protect victims
of sexual abuse.

In Vancouver on July 15, 8,500 church members attended a three-day
conference at the Vancouver Convention Centre with the theme of
being courageous.

Jehovah's Witnesses spokesperson Chas Harrison says he is unaware
of the two-witness rule but that the church, a denomination of
Christianity that has 8.5 million members worldwide, takes
allegations of abuse seriously.

"Abuse, if that was the case, that would be a matter for the
secular authorities, in which case we would hand it over to them,"
he said.

In 2017, a royal commission in Australia investigated allegations
of sexual abuse of children in institutions like churches.

It highlighted the two-witness rule and found that as long as
policies like it were in place, the relevant organization could not
adequately respond to child sexual abuse and could not protect
children.

A 2016 report in Australia found Jehovah's Witnesses in that
country failed to report 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse. Some
dated back more than 60 years.

Ms. Peeters, who now lives in Revelstoke, B.C., says she wants more
victims to come forward to speak out about abuse in the church.
[GN]

KINCAID INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Portillo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA PORTILLO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. KINCAID, INC., CAMPUZANO MIDLOTHIAN, L.L.C., CAMPUZANO
CEDAR HILL, L.L.C., and BRIAN HARDING, Case No. 3:18-cv-01759-C
(N.D. Tex., July 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendants willfully
and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act

Kincaid, Inc., is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dallas County. Campuzano Midlothian, L.L.C. is a company
that regularly transacts business within Ellis County and Dallas
County.  Campuzano Cedar Hill, L.L.C. is a company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County.  Brian Harding is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Companies.

The Defendant Companies are joint enterprises as the related
activities between them, performed through unified operation and/or
common control, are being done for a common business purpose.  The
Defendant Companies operate various "Campuzano" Mexican
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Marietta Files Suit Over No-Poach Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
KORY MARIETTA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY; NEW YORK AIR
BRAKE CORPORATION; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00882
(W.D. Pa., July 6, 2018), challenges under the Sherman Act unlawful
agreements between three of the world's largest rail equipment
suppliers to restrain competition in the labor market in which they
compete for employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants and certain of
their subsidiaries, collectively agreed not to solicit, recruit, or
hire each other's employees without prior approval, or otherwise
compete for employees (collectively, the "No-Poach Agreements" or
the "No-Poach Conspiracy").

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

Knorr Brake Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knorr
incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Westminster,
Maryland.  KBC manufactures train control, HVAC, braking, and door
systems used on passenger rail vehicles.

New York Air Brake Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Knorr incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Watertown,
New York.  New York Air Brake manufactures railway air brakes and
other rail equipment used on freight trains.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation is a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.
Wabtec is a publicly-held company.  With over 100 subsidiaries
globally, Wabtec is the world's largest provider of rail equipment
and services with global sales of $3.9 billion in 2017.  Wabtec is
an industry leader in the freight and passenger rail segments of
the rail equipment industry, manufacturing and servicing products
such as brake systems, positive train control systems, and new
locomotives.

Faiveley Transport North America, formerly a subsidiary of Faiveley
Transport S.A., is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Wabtec, and is
a New York corporation headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina.
On November 30, 2016, Wabtec acquired majority ownership of
Faiveley Transport S.A., which had been a French societe anonyme
based in Gennevilliers, France.  Faiveley develops, manufactures,
and sells passenger and freight rail equipment to customers in
Europe, Asia, and North America, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          JCEVANS LAW, P.C.
          436 7th Avenue
          Koppers Building, The 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          Facsimile: (412) 642-2309
          E-mail: jcevans@jcevanslaw.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  klerner@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Tai S. Milder, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4024
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: tmilder@robinskaplan.com
                  asheanin@robinskaplan.com


MDL 2624: Plaintiffs Must Show Cause re Prelim Deal Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, in the case captioned IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to All Cases, Case No. 15-md-02624-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), orders the parties to show cause why their Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendant
Superfish should not be denied as moot in light of Docket Number
230.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yat6w7eh from Leagle.com.

In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, In Re, represented by Jonathan
Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine, LLP.

Sterling International Consulting Group, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine LLP & Jonathan Krasne Levine , Pritzker Levine, LLP.

David Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson , Edelson PC, Rafey
Sarkis Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Samuel
Lasser -- samlasser@hotmail.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser.

Lenovo Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Stephenson --
dan.stephenson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Amanda G. Ray , Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Betsy Cook Lanzen , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Hayden J. Silver, III , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Matthew N. Lowe -- matthew.love@klgates.com
-- KL Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Raymond M. Bennett , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, & Rebecca Liu -- Rebecca.liu@klgates.com --
KL Gates LLP.

Superfish, Inc., defendant STAYED re Order, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP,
Annasara Guzzo Purcell -- apurcell@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West
LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West
LLP.

MERCURY SYSTEMS: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.        

Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQGS: MRCY)
Class Period: October 24, 2017 to April 24, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018

The complaint alleges that during the class period Mercury Systems,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Mercury's decision to in-source
processing was adversely impacting Mercury's operating margins and
free cash-flow generation and conversion; (ii) Mercury's model was
becoming structurally more working capital intensive; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Mercury's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Get additional information about the MRCY lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/mercury-systems?wire=3

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you.
If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please;  

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

MIAMI RESEARCH: Court Denies Bid to Approve TCPA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of
Settlement, Attorney Fees, and Expenses in the case captioned
DESIREE MARENGO, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a QPS
MIAMI RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-20459-JLK (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant MRA
alleging that MRA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The TCPA is a federal privacy statute which affords
consumers a private right of action. The Plaintiff alleges that in
January 2017 she received three automated text message
advertisements on her cellular telephone from MRA.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement fund requiring
the Defendant to pay $130 for each text message submitted by class
members. The claims are subject to verification. The settlement
requires the Defendant to make available up to $1,236,300 to pay
timely and valid claim submissions, including $390,000 for
attorneys' fees and costs associated with the notice program and
settlement administration.

The Court points out that counsel elected not to present adequate
proof to enable the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement at
this time. On these facts, the Court cannot make the essential
finding that this Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable to
the Plaintiff class or that the record supports the Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The fairness hearing held on April 26,
2018, reflects reliance on conclusory statements from the
plaintiff's motion that the plaintiff's lawyer had worked hard on
the case and that since the defense counsel agreed, the $390,000
fee must be reasonable and should be ordered by the Court.

The Plaintiff did not call an attorney fee expert (or submit an
affidavit) regarding the number of hours spent by each counsel, or
the hourly rates each of the Plaintiff's three counsel charged to
demonstrate consistency with the fee usual and regular charges of
the Bar for these services and costs. Judge Middlebrooks in Mahony
v. TT of Pineridge, Inc., No. 1780029 Civ, required counsel to
submit documentation and sworn declarations supporting a lockestar
analysis, including information about the attorney experience for
each of the Plaintiff's attorneys, the number of hours billed, and
the hourly rate that each attorney charged after it had not been
submitted by the plaintiff at his Fairness Hearing.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice to refile after
the parties furnish the court with expert witnesses, documents
and/or affidavits giving the Court the necessary factual basis, to
establish the fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement
Agreement and motion for attorneys' fees.  Accordingly, based on
the totality of the circumstances,
the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and for Final Approval
of Settlement be and the same is denied without prejudice, to file
again in accordance with this order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at      https://tinyurl.com/y8dzsph6 from Leagle.com.

Desiree Marengo, individually and on behalf of all others simarily
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John Shamis --
ashamis@shamisgentile.com -- Seth Michael Lehrman --
seth@eplllc.com -- Edwards Pottinger, LLC & Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
, Hiraldo P.A.

Miami Research Associates, LLC, a Florida corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ezra D. Church -- ezra.church@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Mark Brochin --
bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Brian
Michael Ercole -- brian.ercole@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis,
Bockius & Clay Matthew Carlton -- clay.carlton@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis, Bockius LLP.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc. and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04675
(N.D. Ill., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to April 11, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Citibank, N.A. by the
Plaintiff. The Citibank obligation arose out of Citibank credit
card transactions in which money, property, insurance or services,
which were the subject of the transactions, were primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The alleged Citibank
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Due to her financial constraints, Plaintiff could not pay the
alleged debt, and it went into default. Sometime thereafter, the
current creditor Midland Funding LLC purportedly purchased the
alleged debt from the original creditor Citibank. Creditors
Citibank or Midland Funding LLC contracted with the Defendant
Midland to collect the alleged debt. Midland collects and attempts
to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrison Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN F. MORRISON SR., the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER
CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01097-JMB
(E.D. Mo., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff
maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like
those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, and Roundup
Pro Concentrate.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settles Class Action Over "Natural" Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. on July 16 disclosed that a proposed settlement has
been reached in the class action lawsuit Mayan Mooney and Chayla
Clay v. Monster Beverage Corp. et al., No. 37-2014-20192-CU-BT-CTL
(the "Action"), brought on behalf of the Class, and pending in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.  The Action
alleges that certain products were labeled as being "natural" even
though they contained synthetic or artificial ingredients and/or
added colors. Monster denies all claims and liability but has
agreed to settle to avoid further expense, inconvenience,
interference with its ongoing business operation, and burdensome
litigation.

1. You are a class member if you fall into either category below:

2. All persons who made a purchase in California between June 19,
2010 and June 12, 2015 of Hansen's Natural Juices (64 oz. bottles
or 6.75 oz. boxes) or Hansen's Smoothie Nectars (11.5 oz. cans);
or

All persons who made a purchase in California between June 19, 2010
and January 1, 2014 of Hubert's Lemonades or Hubert's Half & Half
Lemonade Teas.

Class Members who made eligible purchases have the right to submit
a Claim and receive a Settlement Benefit, which includes a cash
reimbursement. To receive a Settlement Benefit, you MUST complete a
Claim Form online at www.naturalbeveragesettlement.com by October
12, 2018.

This is only a summary.  For complete details, including the Claim
Form, detailed court documents, and other information, visit
www.naturalbeveragesettlement.com or call toll-free
1-888-404-0507.

Contact:

      CPT Group, Inc.
      Monster Beverage Corporation Class Action Settlement
      50 Corporate Park
      Irvine, Calif. 92606
      1-888-404-0507 [GN]

MYEXPERIAN INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Opt-in Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES VINSANT, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., the PLAINTIFFS, v.
MYEXPERIAN, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge P.K. Holmes, III entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and authorizing notice
      to be sent to two classes of potential opt-in plaintiffs:

      The first opt-in class will consist of:

      "each hourly-paid supervisor who worked for Defendant
      MyExperian, Inc., any time after April 13, 2015".

      The second opt-in class will consist of:

      "each hourly-paid Customer Care Specialist or Customer
      Service Representative who worked for Defendant MyExperian,
      Inc., any time after April 13, 2015.

   2. directing Plaintiffs, within 90 days, to distribute notice
      and file opt-in plaintiffs' signed consent to join forms
      with the Court;

   3. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with the names of
      each putative class member, including any aliases they may
      have gone by or go by now and the last known home and work
      addresses of the worker for the same time period.

   4. denying Plaintiffs' request for Defendant to provide cell
      phone numbers and email addresses for putative class
      members;

   5. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail notice and consent
      to join forms to all putative class members.

   6. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send follow-up postcard
      to potential plaintiffs who do not respond within thirty 30
      days of sending the notice;

   7. denying Plaintiffs' request to disseminate notice via text
      message or, in the alternative, via email; and

   8. approving Plaintiffs' proposed notice, consent to join
      form, and follow-up postcard subject to the following
      changes:

      - Separate notices, consent forms, and postcards shall be
        sent to the two classes of potential opt-in plaintiffs.
        The first opt-in class will consist of each hourly-paid
        supervisor who worked for Defendant MyExperian, Inc., any
        time after April 13, 2015. The second opt-in class will
        consist of each hourly paid Customer Care Specialist or
        Customer Service Representative who worked for Defendant
        MyExperian, Inc., any time after April 13, 2015.

      - The follow-up postcard should be titled "Reminder of
        Right to Join Lawsuit" and should include a disclaimer
        stating, "The Court does not encourage or discourage
        participation in this case.


NATIONAL BOARD: 4th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Optometrists' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D.; TAWNY P. KAEOCHINDA, O.D. on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY,
INC., Defendant-Appellee. NICOLE MIZRAHI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
Case Nos. 17-1506 and 17-1508 (4th Cir.), Judge Robert Bruce King
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the
district court's order dismissing the Complaints for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, and remanded.

These consolidated appeals arise from a breach of personal
information maintained in a database of the Defendant, the National
Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc. ("NBEO").  Three
optometrists, Hutton, Kaeochinda, and Nicole Mizrahi, as the
representatives of the putative class of victims, specify in two
complaints that their personal information and that of the class
members was stolen in the NBEO data breach.

Hutton and Kaeochinda joined in the initial complaint -- which
underlies appeal No. 17-1506 -- that was filed in the District of
Maryland in August 2016.  It alleges five claims, including
negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract.

The complaint of plaintiff Mizrahi -- which underlies appeal No.
17-1508 -- was filed in that court in September 2016, and alleges
claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.  All the claims arise from the
NBEO's failure to adequately safeguard personal information of the
Plaintiffs and the class members.

The district court dismissed the Complaints for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, based on a failure to establish that
the Plaintiffs possessed Article III standing to sue.  It reasoned,
inter alia, that the Complaints had not sufficiently alleged the
necessary injury-in-fact and that, in any event, they failed to
sufficiently allege that any injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs
were fairly traceable to conduct of the NBEO.  The Plaintiffs have
appealed the judgments of dismissal and the appeals have been
consolidated.

In these appeals, the Plaintiffs seek a reversal of the district
court's dismissal of the Hutton and Mizrahi Complaints for lack of
standing to sue.  They primarily argue that the court erred by
making factual determinations to support its ruling.  More
specifically, the Plaintiffs maintain that they made sufficient
allegations of injury-in-fact deriving from the NBEO data breach
that are not at all speculative.

On the other hand, the NBEO asks the Court to affirm the dismissal
ruling in the district court's Opinion.  It contends that the
Plaintiffs' assignment of blame to the NBEO is fatally flawed, in
that their allegations derive from discussions in Facebook groups
and assume that the personal information divulged in the NBEO data
breach had a single source.  The NBEO maintains that the Opinion
was correctly decided, and that the allegations of an NBEO data
breach are speculative and conclusory.

Judge King is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have standing to sue.
He finds that the Complaints contained sufficient allegations that
the NBEO was a plausible source of the Plaintiffs' personal
information.  Accordingly, the Complaints contain sufficient
factual matter to render the Plaintiffs' allegations plausible on
their face with respect to traceability.

In these circumstances, the standing elements of injury-in-fact and
traceability are both sufficiently alleged in the Complaints.  And
the third standing element -- redressability -- has not been and is
not contested by the NBEO.  As a result, the district court erred
in dismissing the Complaints for lack of standing to sue.  

For these reasons, Judge King vacated the judgment of the district
court and remanded for such other and further proceedings as may be
appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/59FRHv from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Norman E. Siegel, STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP, Kansas City,
Missouri, for Appellants.

Claudia Drennen McCarron -- mccarron@mullen.law -- MULLEN COUGHLIN
LLC, Wayne, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Barrett J. Vahle -- vahle@stuevesiegel.com -- J. Austin
Moore -- moore@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP,
Kansas City, Missouri; Hassan A. Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com
-- TYCKO & ZAVEREEI LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants Rhonda L.
Hutton and Tawny P. Kaeochinda, Michael Liskow, New York, New York,
Carl Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Donald J. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant Nicole Mizrahi.

NEW DOMINION: Trial in Earthquake Class-Action Lawsuit Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wilmoth, writing for NewsOK, reports that the trial in a
class-action lawsuit over the 2011 earthquakes near Prague has been
delayed pending an appeal.

The lawsuit claims Tulsa-based oil company New Dominion LLC is
responsible for damage caused by the 2011 earthquakes near Prague.

Judge Lori Walkley in May ruled that the class includes Oklahoma
citizens with residential or business property in nine central
Oklahoma counties that sustained damage from the November 2011
earthquakes. The class includes properties in Cleveland, Creek,
Lincoln, Logan, Oklahoma, Okfuskee, Payne, Pottawatomie and
Seminole counties.

A trial had been scheduled for September, but the judge and
attorneys have agreed to the delay to allow New Dominion attorneys
to appeal the class-action ruling.

"This wasn't unexpected at all," said Scott Poynter, Esq. --
scott@poynterlawgroup.com -- the attorney representing the affected
home and business owners. "Most state jurisdictions have an
appellate rule on class certifications allowing either side to
immediately appeal that order."

The appeal process likely will take at least six to nine months,
Poynter said.

"No matter how that appeal comes out, we will come back to Judge
Walkley after the appeal is decided and work with her on a new
schedule," he said.

Still, Poynter said he feels confident the case will continue as a
class action.[GN]

NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Inmates Win Early Victory in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Muscavage, writing for My Central Jersey, reports that inmates
of the Edna Mahan Correctional Faculty for Women (EMCFW) have won
an early victory in their class action lawsuit against the New
Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC).

A motion for a partial summary judgment, granted July 6 by Mercer
County Superior Court Judge Kay Walcott-Henderson, was announced by
the law firm of Stark & Stark.

The lawsuit alleges Edna Mahan is a place of public accommodation
subject to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which
the judgment granted.

The judgment marks the first time a state Superior Court has
explicitly held that LAD extends to apply to prisoners, according
the law firm.

The lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the law firm of Barry,
Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz, alleges decades of "rampant and
unchecked sexual assault and harassment of female inmates by prison
employees," according to Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq. --
scolella-walsh@stark-stark.com -- of Stark & Stark.

The lawsuit was filed in March on behalf of thousands of potential
female class members.

The state Department of Corrections declined to comment.

Edna Mahan in Union Township (Hunterdon), the state's only prison
for women, has been rocked by a sexual abuse scandal after seven
employees were arrested and charged.

Six of the seven were corrections officers and the other was a
trade instructor. Of the seven, three corrections officers and the
trade instructor have pleaded guilty.

Most recently, Ahnwar Dixon, of East Orange, pleaded guilty on uly
10 to three counts of second-degree official misconduct.

"Ahnwar Dixon's guilty plea comes on the heels of a jury convicting
a fellow corrections officer for crimes based on sexual conduct
with inmates," said Hunterdon County Prosecutor Anthony P. Kearns
III, Esq. -- prosecutor@co.hunterdon.nj.us -- who prosecuted the
case. "As a society, we hold corrections officers to the same high
standard that we hold all public officials."

In May, senior corrections officer Jason Mays was convicted by a
jury of sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, official
misconduct and pattern of official misconduct following a six-week
trial.

In 2017, senior corrections officer Thomas Seguine and
institutional trade instructor Joel Herscap both pleaded guilty to,
and were sentenced to prison for, official misconduct.

In February, the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee held a
hearing to hear testimony from former Edna Mahan inmates about
abuse endured at the prison.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a federal probe of
the facility.

"An environment of sexual terror pervaded the EMCFW grounds. Stark
& Stark has sought to protect the rights of those injured, and
force the NJDOC to take appropriate corrective action to end this
widespread environment of harassment and discrimination against
women at risk," Martin Schrama, Esq. -- mschrama@stark-stark.com --
of Stark & Stark, said.

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

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

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs will continue to push
forward.

"We are prepared to be at the forefront of protecting women at risk
in sexually abusive environments," Colella-Walsh said.[GN]

NEW ZEALAND POST: Courier Drivers May Need Litigation Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that numerous independent
courier drivers in New Zealand are floating the idea of a class
action against employers such as the New Zealand Post, for
violating fair compensation laws. The group has the backing of a
former Chief Judge of the Employment Court who said it would be
"worthwhile" for the couriers to file a class action if they can
prove they make less than the minimum wage.[GN]

NHL: Federal Judge Denies Class-Action Status in Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 5 Eyewitness News reports that former players suing the
National Hockey League for promoting fighting and violence while
downplaying the risks of concussions and repeated head hits
suffered a significant setback in federal court on July 13 in St.
Paul.

Judge Susan Nelson denied the players' motion to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action, which would have allowed all retired
NHL players to join the case.

More than 150 players -- including more than a dozen from Minnesota
-- are seeking medical monitoring for long-term brain diseases such
as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). They claim those
diseases are directly linked to the repeated head hits, collisions
and punches they sustained during their playing careers.

The ruling means the players will now have to challenge the league
on a case-by-case basis.

In her 45-page ruling, Nelson wrote, "The Court is sympathetic to
the significant cost and the likelihood of duplicative proof in
trying this case many times, for each individual player."

She added, "....resolving these claims in a single class action
would present significant case management difficulties."

Minneapolis-based attorneys representing the players declined
comment on July 13 ruling. The players first filed the lawsuit five
years ago, and had anxiously been awaiting a ruling on their motion
to form a class action for several months.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS detailed the players' legal battle last year in a
special series called "Fighting Back."

A review of thousands of court records, league memos and internal
emails found NHL executives had privately worried about the
consequences of fighting and repeated head hits for decades.

However, those executives have consistently denied the players'
claims in public and in court, while maintaining it is too early to
definitively link long-term health effects like CTE to hockey.

An NHL spokesperson did not return messages seeking comment.[GN]

OKLAHOMA: Medical Marijuana Advocates Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
KFOR-TV reports that medical marijuana advocates say they are
prepared to take their fight to court.

"We will absolutely throw the book at them with class-action
lawsuits on behalf of patients. We won't be railroaded," Chip Paul,
with Oklahomans for Health, said. "We simply want our state
question implemented and properly regulated."

Now, the Oklahoma County and Tulsa Republic Parties are calling on
state lawmakers to get involved to "reinstate the will of the
people and do whatever is needed to oust the bureaucratic
authoritarians within the Oklahoma State Board of Health," a news
release from the group read.

"We ask that they move as quickly as possible to resolve this
matter. Our country is a constitutional republic, and state
government, under the United States Constitution and its
amendments, is supposed to respect the voice of the people and due
process. The actions by the OSBH are truly repugnant. Not only did
they show no regard for the will of the people, but that they are
truly part of the governmental swamp that seeks to legislate
outside the republican form of government," said Oklahoma County
Republican Chairman Daren Ward.

The group says the Oklahoma State Board of Health drafted rules
that were "counter to the language in the ballot measure and
created a compromised medical marijuana system that hinders access
to patients and discourages qualified medical professionals from
taking part."

"The 'we know better attitude' expressed by the OSBH and the
shocking approval by our current Governor shows contempt for the
liberties and the rights we express at the ballot box as citizens,"
said Tulsa County Republican Chairman David McLain. "I call on all
Republicans to contact your legislators, from either party, and ask
for a quick resolution to this desecration of the citizens'
voice."

Republican leadership announced plans to create a bipartisan
working group with House and Senate members who will work with
medical marijuana stakeholders.

"The Oklahoma Senate will not undo the will of voters, who spoke
loudly by passing State Question 788," said Senate Majority flood
leader Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City. "While the Health Department
and its commissioner did yeoman's work in drafting emergency rules,
the Board of Health's adoption of last-minute amendments without
public comments has undermined the public's confidence in the
system. Lawmakers have the ability to amend this law as we move
forward to address any issues which may arise.

Republican groups calling on lawmakers to "reinstate the will of
the people" for medical marijuana.

A local GOP group is speaking out following a controversial
decision by the state's Board of Health regarding the rules for
medical marijuana.

On July 17, the Board of Health approved emergency rules on medical
marijuana, with two specific exceptions.

Under the new emergency rules, smokable forms of medical marijuana
would be banned from sale in dispensaries. According to Interim
Health Commissioner Tom Bates, licensed medical marijuana users
would still be allowed to use it if it was grown themselves.

"To allow smokable forms would be a step back as protectors of
public health in Oklahoma and certainly reasonable people can
differ on that," Commissioner Bates said. [GN]

ORMAT TECH Cohen Milstein Investigates Possible SEC Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is conducting an investigation
to determine whether Ormat Technologies, Inc. ("Ormat" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers and directors made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada by another law firm on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Ormat Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ORA) between
August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Ormat and certain of its officers and
directors ("Defendants") misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there were errors in the income tax provision related to
Ormat's valuation allowance based on its ability to utilize foreign
tax credits in the U.S. prior to their expiration; (2) Ormat netted
certain deferred income tax assets and deferred income tax
liabilities across different tax jurisdictions in violation of U.S.
GAAP; (3) Ormat's internal controls over financial reporting were
ineffective during the Class Period, (4) Ormat would need to
restate its second, third, and fourth quarter 2017 financial
statements, as well as its full-year 2017 financial statements; and
(5) as a result, Defendants statements about Ormat's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 11, 2018, Ormat announced a delay in filing its first
quarter 2018 Form 10-Q because "management has identified an error
in the Company's financial statement presentation of deferred
income tax assets and deferred income tax liabilities that affects
the Company's balance sheets in previous reporting periods." Ormat
continued:

Specifically, the Company netted certain deferred income tax assets
and deferred income tax liabilities across different tax
jurisdictions that are not permitted to be netted pursuant to
United States generally accepted accounting principles. The Company
is evaluating the impact of this error on its consolidated
financial statements and the extent to which the Company's annual
and quarterly consolidated financial statements filed in previous
periods require revision or amendment. Further, the Company is in
the process of evaluating the control implications of this error as
it relates to the material weakness disclosures previously made in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2017.

The price of Ormat shares fell from $56.19 on May 11, 2018 to
$52.77 on May 14, 2018.

On May 16, 2018, Ormat announced "it will restate its second, third
and fourth quarter 2017 financial statements and its full-year 2017
financial statements." Ormat continued:

The decision to restate these financial statements is based on the
Company's conclusion that there were errors in the income tax
provision primarily relating to the Company's valuation allowance
based on the Company's ability to utilize foreign tax credits in
the U.S. prior to their expiration. Additionally, the Company
netted certain deferred income tax assets and deferred income tax
liabilities across different tax jurisdictions that are not
permitted to be netted pursuant to United States generally accepted
accounting principles. The restatement is expected to impact the
"income tax (provision) benefit" line item in the Company's
statements of operations, with associated impacts to net income and
earnings per share and the "deferred income taxes" line items on
its balance sheet. In connection with the restatement of the
full-year 2017 financial statements, the Company will also make
revisions to the same line items in certain quarterly financial
statements for 2016 and its full-year 2016 and 2015 financial
statements.

The price of Ormat shares fell from $53.02 on May 15, 2018 to
$52.35 on May 16, 2018.

Cohen Milstein encourages all investors who purchased Ormat common
stock between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018, or former employees
with information concerning this matter to contact the firm.

If you are an Ormat shareholder and would like to discuss your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without any cost
or obligation, call Cohen Milstein's Managing Partner, Steven J.
Toll at (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, or email him at
stoll@cohenmilstein.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than August 10, 2018 to request
appointment. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen
Milstein or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this
action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Cohen Milstein has significant experience in prosecuting investor
class actions and actions involving securities fraud, and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the nation. Cohen Milstein has taken a lead role in numerous
important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been
responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the
aggregate, total billions of dollars. Prior results do not
guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit
www.cohenmilstein.com.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Robin Bleiweis
         Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Fifth Floor
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Telephone: (888) 240-0775
                    (202) 408-4600
         Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                rbleiweis@cohenmilstein.com [GN]

ORNUA FOODS: Myers-Taylor Files Class Suit Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyami Myers-Taylor, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and the general public v. Ornua Foods
North America, Inc.; Ornua Co-operative Limited; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538-H-MDD (S.D. Cal., July 6,
2018), is brought on behalf of consumers, who were allegedly misled
into purchasing Kerrygold Products due to false and misleading
advertising.

The Kerrygold Products include: Salted Butter, Unsalted Butter,
Naturally Softer Pure Irish Butter, Garlic & Herb Butter, Reduced
Fat Irish Butter, Irish Butter With Canola Oil, which are
manufactured, packaged, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold
by the Defendants through supermarket chains and retail stores in
California and throughout the United States.

Mr. Myers-Taylor contends that he and the Proposed Class would not
have purchased or paid a price premium for the Kerrygold Products
had they known that the representations, "Milk From Grass-fed
Cows", "Made with milk from grass-fed cows not treated with rBST or
other growth hormones", "All Natural", and "100% Pure and Natural"
were false, deceptive and/or misleading.

Ornua Foods North America, Inc., is an New York corporation with
its headquarters in Evanston, Illinois.  Ornua Co-operative Limited
is an Irish corporation with its headquarters in Dublin, Ireland.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to
the Plaintiff at this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          600 W Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101-3370
          Telephone: (619) 272-7014
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Ross Cornell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL APC
          111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 612-1708
          Facsimile: (562) 394-9556
          E-mail: ross.law@me.com


OVATION CREDIT: Wagner Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Wagner and Darlene Bauman, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ovation Credit Services,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00681, (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2018), seeks
actual and statutory damages, injunction requiring Defendant and
Defendant's agents to cease all unsolicited telephone calling
activities, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on monetary
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs and all other
and further relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Ovation Credit -- www.ovationcredit.com -- is a credit repair
service in Jacksonville FL. It attempted to promote its services to
the Plaintiffs via autodialed telephone calls. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Scott Wellikoff, Esq.
      ADLER WELLIKOFF PLLC
      1300 N. Federal Highway, Suite 107
      Boca Raton, FL
      Tel: (561) 508-9591
      Email: swellikoff@adwellgroup.com


PA FIRE RECOVERY: Accused by LaMonaca Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT A. LAMONACA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PA FIRE RECOVERY SERVICE, Case No. 1:18-cv-11419
(D.N.J., July 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's debt
collection practices violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

PA Fire Recovery Service is located in Macungie, Pennsylvania.
Recovery regularly engages in the collection of consumer debt
through the use of the mails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


PENNSYLVANIA: HB 2025 to Order Lead Testing in Schools Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altoona Mirror reports that whether or not state House Bill 2025
becomes law Pennsylvania school districts should comply with the
proposed law's intent of having all school buildings' water tested
for presence of lead, a neurotoxin interferes with children's
ability to learn and develop.

It's puzzling that the issue of lead in school water is only now
getting the attention in Pennsylvania that it has long deserved.
The dangers associated with lead-based paint were recognized many
years ago.

If the proposed measure is enacted, the state should consider
reimbursing districts for the cost of the first round of mandated
testing.

That would serve two purposes: It presumably would help get the
testing process started more quickly, and it would address the
reality that most school districts, after they've drawn up their
annual budget, have few extra dollars available for new mandates
from Harrisburg or Washington, D.C.

Delaying the testing until a new budget year would represent bad
judgment.

The current state budget passed in June encourages school districts
to conduct testing for lead in water, without specifically
mandating it. House Bill 2025 would require regular lead testing
for all schools' drinking water, as well as a report to the public
about the tests' findings.

A statement attributed to Rep. Karen Boback, a Republican House
member from Dallas, Luzerne County, says that the water-testing
recommendation that passed in conjunction with the 2018-19 state
budget "is not a substitute for comprehensive legislation" aimed at
keeping children safe.

HB 2025 has been referred to the House Education Committee, which
hopefully will be expeditious in weighing the measure and
forwarding it to the full House.

The measure has attracted more than 70 co-sponsors and otherwise
continues to receive strong bipartisan support.

The reason why HB 2025 would be valuable is because it would focus
on the condition of water once it has entered school buildings. It
would answer the question of whether the school whose water is
being tested has a problem on its property or within its walls that
is compromising the safety of the water that students are
drinking.

Few people familiar with the Butler Area School District in western
Pennsylvania would have envisioned a problem with the water in that
district's schools. However, a class-action complaint filed last
year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania alleged that the Butler district permitted students to
consume drinking water from two of its wells that contained lead
levels about 200 percent to 300 percent above what's acceptable.

On a brighter note, the Tyrone Area School District is one of the
school systems in this region that hasn't needed a recommendation
or mandate from the state regarding water testing. All of Tyrone
Area's buildings were tested two years ago, and no lead reportedly
was detected.

The statewide citizen-based environmental advocacy organization
PennEnvironment says it's now not clear how many schools might have
dangerous levels of lead in their water, but that where tests have
been performed across the commonwealth, many of the results have
been troubling.

As now written, HB 2025 would have the power to shine some badly
needed light.

Lawmakers should make the bill's passage a priority. [GN]

PERU: NAACP Chapter Mulls Class Action Against City of Lima
-----------------------------------------------------------
Britt Salay, writing for Hometown Stations, reports that the Lima
NAACP Chapter announced on July 15 that they plan to file a class
action lawsuit against the City of Lima.

In a press conference in front of the city offices, chapter
president Ron Fails announced that the NAACP plans to file a class
action lawsuit on behalf of at least six former city employees who
have allegedly experienced discrimination in the form of racism,
nepotism, and intimidation from people in power. Mr. Fails says the
NAACP wants to make sure that every employee is being treated
fairly, regardless of color.

"These departments are not holding people accountable to ensure
that people are treated fairly and people are given the support
that they need to succeed," says Mr. Fails.

Mr. Fails did not say when they plan on filing, and he declined to
name any of the former employees involved or what departments they
worked for. [GN]

PINNACLE A ROOFING: Paredes Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel D. Paredes, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle A
Roofing Company, the Defendant, Case No. 18-014049-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July 6, 2018.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-22719-DPG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

Pinnacle A Roofing Company is an independently owned full-service
roofing and waterproofing company that since its founding in 1996,
has served South Florida as well as other areas in the state of
Florida and the U.S. including New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carlo D Marichal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LORRAINE LESTER
          1200 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 750
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 424 4676
          Facsimile: (866) 696 7828
          E-mail: carlo.marichal@cna.com


POLARITYTE INC: Faces Lawi Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
YEDID LAWI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. POLARITYTE, INC., DENVER LOUGH, and JEFF DYER, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW (D. Utah, July 6, 2018), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 7, 2017, PolarityTE announced the closing of a transaction
through which the Company purchased Dr. Denver Lough's pending
Patent #14/954,335 in exchange for over $104 million of PolarityTE
stock.  Just one week prior to the closing of the transaction, on
March 31, 2017, Dr. Lough received a notice of non-final rejection
of the Patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").
On June 4, 2018, the USPTO issued a final rejection for the
Patent.

In June 2018, Citron Research published a report exposing the
Defendants' failure to disclose the USPTO's March 31, 2017 notice
of non-final rejection of the Patent and highlighting the USPTO's
June 4, 2018 final rejection of the Patent.  On this news,
PolarityTE's share price fell $10.59, or 27.3%, to close at $28.14
on June 26, 2018, according to the complaint.

PolarityTE is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal executive
offices are located in Salt Lake City, Utah.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

PolarityTE purports to be a commercial-stage biotechnology and
regenerative biomaterials company focused on discovering, designing
and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and
biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering and
material sciences.  The Company's key development is SkinTE, which
is intended to be used by physicians or other appropriate
healthcare providers for homologous uses of skin
tissues/integument.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          HARPER LAW, PLC
          P.O. Box 581468
          Salt Lake City, UT 84158
          Telephone: (801) 910-4357
          E-mail: jharper@jonharperlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, 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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: 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


POLARITYTE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PolarityTE ("PolarityTE" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:COOL)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, District of Utah, and docketed under
18-cv-00541, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
PolarityTE securities between March 31, 2017 and June 22, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased PolarityTE securities
between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until August 27, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and
the number of shares purchased.

PolarityTE purports to be a commercial-stage biotechnology and
regenerative biomaterials company focused on discovering, designing
and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and
biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering and
material sciences.  The Company's key development is SkinTE, which
is intended to be used by physicians or other appropriate
healthcare providers for homologous uses of skin
tissues/integument.  Patients who have suffered from an event,
disease, process or acquired deficit that results in the functional
loss or void of skin/integument systems can receive SkinTE as an
adjunct and/or in place of split-thickness skin grafting,
full-thickness grafting, temporizing skin coverage and/or skin
substitute products.

On April 7, 2017, PolarityTE announced the closing of a transaction
through which the Company purchased Dr. Denver Lough's ("Lough")
pending Patent #14/954,335 (the "Patent") in exchange for over $104
million of PolarityTE stock.

Just one week prior to the closing of the transaction, on March 31,
2017, Dr. Lough received a notice of non-final rejection of the
Patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").  The
USPTO mailed Dr. Lough a letter indicating the non-final rejection
of the Patent on April 7, 2017—the same day that the transaction
closed.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, PolarityTE made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the USPTO issued a notice of
non-final rejection of the Patent before PolarityTE acquired it in
exchange for over $104 million of Company stock in April 2017; (ii)
the USPTO issued a final rejection of the Patent on June 4, 2018;
and (iii) as a result, PolarityTE's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 25, 2018, Citron Research published a report exposing the
Defendants' failure to disclose the USPTO's March 31, 2017 notice
of non-final rejection of the Patent and highlighting the USPTO's
June 4, 2018 final rejection of the Patent.

On this news, PolarityTE's share price fell $10.59, or 27.3%, to
close at $28.14 on June 26, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby,Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Avoids Age Bias Class Action, For Now
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that older
applicants who were denied jobs by PricewaterhouseCoopers can't
bring their age discrimination in hiring claims on behalf of a
nationwide class, at least for now, a federal judge in San
Francisco ruled.

The case is the latest case to challenge the legality of the
age-old practice of on-campus recruiting and similar hiring
practices -- such as "maximum" experience limits for applicants --
that target younger workers.

Lead plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman made the mistake of
including in their proposed class job applicants who weren't
qualified for the jobs they sought. Rabin and Chapman also included
workers who didn't actually apply for jobs with PwC because they
believed they were deterred from doing so. Rabin and Chapman,
however, were both qualified for the jobs they wanted and actually
applied for them. That meant the two men weren't similar enough to
the class they sought to represent, the court said. The class
proposed by Rabin and Chapman could have boasted as many as 14,000
members.

Rabin and Chapman's bias allegations include accusations that the
accounting giant discriminates against entry-level applicants over
age 40 by focusing its recruiting efforts on college campuses and
mostly hiring directly from colleges and universities.

Rabin and Chapman say PwC uses a recruitment tool that can only be
accessed by those with a current college affiliation. It's part of
the company's plan to hire predominantly millennial age workers for
its assurance and tax business lines and peg all older workers as a
"bad fit," they say. PwC efforts to attract millennials extend to
how the firm presents itself on social media and to the types of
office events it hosts for workers, including trips to Disney
World.

The July 26 ruling by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, however, is "without
prejudice." Rabin and Chapman have 30 days to file an amended class
certification motion to see if they can join forces with other
older job seekers across the country who believe PwC turned them
away for employment because of their age.

Plaintiffs Will Amend Class Bid

A lawyer for Rabin and Chapman told Bloomberg Law July 26 that they
will amend their motion and renew their class certification bid.

Tigar may have suggested a quick way for Rabin and Chapman to at
least partly salvage their original proposed class in finding that
they aren't similar enough to rejected applicants who were
unqualified to represent their interests in the case. The pair
argued that not including unqualified applicants in the class means
they'll be unable to challenge what they see as hiring bias in the
process PwC uses to screen job candidates.

"While there may be merit" to that argument, they'll have to "find
another way to challenge discrimination in the initial screen,"
perhaps by adding a new named plaintiff to their case, the judge
said.

Inadvertent Bias?

While on-campus recruiting isn't news, the case involves the novel
legal question of whether workers 40 and over may sue for
unintended age discrimination that occurs during the hiring
process. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes
clear that older workers are protected against intentional age bias
in hiring and against intentional and unintentional bias after
they've been hired.

Tigar ruled in February 2017 that PwC must defend against Rabin and
Chapman's allegations of unintentional age bias. But other federal
courts have disagreed about whether the ADEA bans hiring policies
that inadvertently favor younger workers.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review whether the
40-plus crowd can sue for hiring bias when there is proof only of
inadvertent mistreatment, not intentional unfairness. The justices
may ultimately get another opportunity to look at the question
depending on how Rabin, Chapman, and the other class members fare
on their claims against PwC.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports there are nearly 86 million
people over 40 in the active labor force -- so the answer could
affect many workers' prospects for finding a job in a new field
should market shifts or other events make it necessary. While
unemployment rates for workers 40 and over generally are lower than
for their under-40 counterparts, BLS also reported in 2014 that
those 40 and over tend to stay unemployed longer when they lose
their jobs.

In addition, another 94 million-plus Americans currently aren't in
the labor force, and 70 percent of those potential workers are 40
or over. Moreover, the BLS reported in May 2017 that the labor
force participation rate is expected to increase fastest for people
ages 65 to 74, and 75 and older, through 2024 as poor planning or
other limitations of retiring are forcing more and more people to
work into their later years.

Outten & Golden LLP, Liu Law Firm P.C., and AARP Foundation
Litigation represent Rabin and Chapman. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
represents PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The case is Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, N.D. Cal., No.
3:16-cv-02276, motion for conditional class certification denied
7/26/18.[GN]

QUALCOMM ANTITRUST: Key et al. Seek Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
5:17-md-02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.), a group of Plaintiffs will move the
Court on September 27, 2018, for certification of a class
consisting of:

   "all natural persons and entities in the United States who
   purchased, paid for, and/or provided reimbursement for some or
   all of the purchase price for all UMTS, CDMA (including
   CDMAone and cdma2000) and/or LTE cellular phones ("Relevant
   Cellular Phones") for their own use and not for resale from
   February 11, 2011, through the present (the “Class Period")
in
   the United States.

This class excludes (a) Defendant, its officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) all
federal and state governmental entities; (c) all persons or
entities who purchased Relevant Cellular Phones for purposes of
resale; and (d) any judges or justices involved in this action and
any members of their immediate families or their staff.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for appointment of Sarah Key,
Terese Russell, Carra Abernathy, Leonidas Miras, and James Clark as
Class Representatives, and for appointment of Kalpana Srinivasan of
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Joseph W. Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789 3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789 3150
          E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com


QUALITY CARE: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Lois A. Bowers, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports that
less than two weeks before a special meeting at which shareholders
will vote on whether to merge with fellow real estate investment
trust Welltower, Quality Care Properties announced on July 13 that
it had reached an agreement to resolve two related class action
lawsuits against the company and members of its board of
directors.

The resolutions occurred on July 11, the company said in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bethesda, MD-based QCP had revealed the lawsuits, filed in late
June in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Todd
Sanderson and Michael Kent, in a July 2 SEC filing, saying the
actions were "without merit." Sanderson and Kent, described by QCP
as "purported" shareholders, claimed that QCP and its directors
violated the Exchange Act because some public disclosures contained
in a June 21 proxy statement related to the merger allegedly were
"false and misleading," the company said.

On July 13, the company said that it agreed to amend its proxy
statement to ensure that the lawsuits did not delay the special
meeting and to "minimize the substantial expense, burden,
distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation." The added
information includes financial projections for the company as well
as some information regarding the sale process leading up to the
merger agreement. It also clarifies whether QCP financial adviser
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC has a conflict of interest related to the
merger.

"The resolution of the actions is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant," QCP
said. "Furthermore, nothing in this report or the resolution of the
actions shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in this report."
[GN]

RED EYE: Court Reconsiders Denial of Arbitration in Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the
case captioned CIERRA DAVIS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
other current and former employees similarly situated et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. RED EYE JACK'S SPORTS BAR, INC., a Nevada
Corporation doing business as Cheetahs Gentleman's Club, doing
business as Cheetahs Nightclub, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01111-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal.).

Davis asserts claims against the Defendants for: (1) violation of
29 U.S.C. Section 206(a) failure to pay minimum wage under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) violation of multiple sections of
the California Labor Code for failure to pay wages, overtime,
provide adequate rest and meal breaks, and reimbursement of
necessary work expenditures; and (3) conversion.

The Defendants previously moved for arbitration on the grounds that
Davis agreed to submit the claims she alleges in the Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) to binding arbitration. The Court's May 9, 2018
Order denied the Defendants' motion because the arbitration
agreement they relied upon contained a concerted action waiver,
which under Ninth Circuit authority at that time rendered it
invalid and unenforceable. The Court also stayed the action as to
Davis's claims pending the Supreme Court's decision in Morris v.
Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), which it relied
upon in denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and
granted the Defendants leave to file a motion for reconsideration
once Morris was decided.

The Supreme Court has issued its decision in Morris, where it
reversed the Ninth Circuit's determination that the mere inclusion
of a concerted action waiver in an arbitration agreement rendered
said agreement invalid and unenforceable as a standalone defense to
arbitration. The Court agrees with the Defendants that this
constitutes an intervening change in the law which justifies
reconsideration of their motion to compel arbitration.  
Therefore, the Defendants' motion for reconsideration is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/y7yv3od4 from Leagle.com.

Cierra Davis, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other current
and former employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alex M. Tomasevic -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
-- Nicholas and Tomasevic, David Gerald Greco --
dgreco@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP & Noam Glick --
noam@glicklawgroup.com -- Glick Law Group, P.C.

Amber Moore, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other current
and former employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alex M. Tomasevic , Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, David Gerald Greco
, Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP & Noam Glick , Glick Law Group, P.C.

Red Eyed Jack's Sports Bar, Inc., a Nevada Corporation & Suzanne
Coe, an individual, Defendants, represented by Jason P. Saccuzzo --
jsaccuzzo@vivolilaw.com -- Vivoli & Associates & Michael Louis
Federici -- mfederici@vivolilaw.com -- VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP.

Rich Buonantony, an individual, Defendant, represented by Steve
Hoffman , Law Office of Steve Hoffman.

REMINGTON RIFLES: Court OKs Class Accord Over Defective Triggers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an appeals court has approved a class action settlement about
allegedly defective Remington rifles—one that attorneys general
in 10 states opposed for offering what they saw as inadequate
notice to potential claimants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed with the
arguments from two objectors that a claims rate of less than 0.3
justified rejecting approval of the settlement, which provides
retrofits and rebates to about 7.5 million owners of Remington
Model 700 rifles with allegedly defective triggers. In an order on
July 25, the panel found that the objectors failed to consider that
class members got the notice—but just didn't want to make a
claim.

"In the end, the low claim submission rate, while not ideal, is not
necessarily indicative of a deficient notice plan," wrote Judge
Ralph Erickson. "It is apparent that many class members received
notice, but opted not to participate for any number of reasons."
Among those reasons, the panel cited: Class members found nothing
wrong with their guns, didn't think a $10 voucher was worth the
effort, didn't want to part with their guns, or didn't "trust the
government or lawyers" or want to "become part of any firearm
registry."

Attorneys general in 10 states, including New York and
Pennsylvania, had raised public safety concerns in an amicus brief,
given that, under the notice plan, the vast majority of class
members wouldn't be aware that their guns could accidentally injure
or kill someone. But a competing amicus brief from 11 attorneys
general supported the deal for protecting the rights of gun owners
while offering them benefits.

The settlement does not resolve lawsuits filed over injuries or
deaths.

The case also attracted critics of electronic notice plans, often
involving social media or emails, which cost less than postcards
sent through U.S. mail. Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group in
Philadelphia, who has worked with the Federal Judicial Center to
develop class action notice standards, has criticized such plans
for being ineffective and has opposed the Remington settlement.

Under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, lawyers are supposed to
use the "best notice that is practicable" in reaching out to class
members. The U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure pushed through amendments to Rule 23,
effective later this year, that would encourage electronic notice
plans.

In February, Remington attorney John Sherk, Esq. -- jsherk@shb.com
--
a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in San Francisco, and lead
plaintiffs attorney Kevin Parker, Esq. -- info@lanierlawfirm.com --
of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, defended the revised notice plan
at oral arguments before a panel that appeared dubious about
rejecting the deal.

"It is time to start getting these guns fixed!," said Mark Lanier,
Esq. -- info@lanierlawfirm.com -- of The Lanier Law Firm in an
email to the National Law Journal. "Safety was the victor in this
decision!"

The panel noted that, in 2015, Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, who oversaw
the Remington case, ordered lawyers back to the drawing table after
the notice plan attracted only 2,327 claims -- what he called an
"appalling claims rate." A revised notice plan boosted the total
claims to 22,000.

"The court took great care to ensure the best notice that was
practical was provided to class members," wrote Erickson, a
President Donald Trump appointee to the bench who began his service
in October 2017. "After reviewing the record, we find that the
supplemental notice plan was far-reaching and utilized several
types of mediums to communicate with potential class members and
was clearly more effective than the initial plan, as evidenced by
the increase in the claim submission rate."[GN]

RHODE ISLAND: Court Dismisses J. Rodriguez's Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond issued a Report and
Recommendation granting Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed in Forma
Pauperis and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) in the case captioned JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ,
JR., Plaintiff, v. COURTNEY E. HAWKINS, in her official capacity as
Director of the Rhode Island Department of HumanServices,
Defendant, C.A. No. 18-243 WES (D. R.I.).

Having reviewed the R&R and relevant filings, and having heard no
objections, the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island accepts the R&R and adopts its recommendations and
reasoning.

Plaintiff Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. filed this pro se Class Action
against Courtney E. Hawkins, in her official capacity as Director
of the Rhode Island Department of Human Services.
The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges that the State of
Rhode Island is failing to process Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program ("SNAP") applications within the time frame
mandated by federal law. The Plaintiff's pro se handwritten
Complaint is substantially copied from the Class Action Complaint
pending before this Court as Gemmell v. Affigne, C.A. No.
1:16-CV-00650-WES. The Gemmell case was filed on December 8, 2016
by experienced class counsel from the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice.

On February 28, 2017, Chief Judge Smith entered a Stipulation and
Order of Settlement resolving the Gemmell case and obligating the
Defendant to comply with the timely processing requirements for
food stamps and to accurately report this processing to the
Plaintiffs.

Compliance with the Order of Settlement in Gemmell is currently
under the active supervision of a Court-appointed Special Master.
The Plaintiff has cited no legal grounds to reopen or relitigate
the class allegations made and settled in the Gemmell case in this
new litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbmap3v from Leagle.com.

Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.

RILEY HAYS: Harmon Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------
Quenton Harmon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Riley Hays Roofing and Construction, LLC and Riley
Hays, Case No. 18-cv-00355, (E.D. Ark., May 25, 2018), seeks
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty
hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant provides on-site construction and roofing services where
Harmon worked as a manual laborer. He regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week without being paid overtime premium, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Daniel Ford, 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
             chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


ROGERS WIRELESS: Sued Over System Access Fee
--------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that lawsuit alleges
companies misled cellphone customers into thinking fee was a
government charge.

Thought that annoying system access fee was a thing of the past? It
turns out the saga isn't over. Some people are still paying the
controversial wireless phone charge, even as a class action lawsuit
targeting the fee makes its way to trial.

For years, phone companies -- including the big three: Bell, Rogers
and Telus, charged the monthly fee -- typically $6.95 -- as an
extra cost on top of the price of a regular cellular plan.

The big three each dropped the fee in 2009, facing competition from
new providers who didn't charge it. The telcos were also named in a
class action lawsuit certified in 2007.

The lawsuit alleges Rogers, Bell and Telus plus some smaller
players misled customers into thinking the system access fee (SAF)
was a tax levied by the federal government, when in fact most of it
was flowing into the companies' coffers.

"The whole process was designed to give the impression of a
government fee," claims Regina-based lawyer Tony Merchant, Esq. --
info@merchantlaw.com -- whose firm is heading up the lawsuit.

"The companies were unjustly enriched, so they received money for
providing nothing extra."

It's not over

Despite the lawsuit, Bell, Rogers and Telus haven't entirely
eliminated the fee. Harry Sivalingam in Toronto recently discovered
this when he checked out his father's wireless bill. To his
surprise, his dad, 70-year-old Shanmugam, is still being charged a
monthly $6.95 SAF by his provider, Telus.

"I was shocked," said Sivalingam. "Why and how this is possible?"

It turns out, when the telcos dropped the charge, existing
customers who didn't migrate to a new plan continued to pay it -- a
small number of people by this point.

Sivalingam also discovered that if he switched his father to a
different plan, he'd be worse off because all the ones currently on
offer are more expensive -- even without the added SAF.

Even so, Sivalingam says he doesn't understand how the telcos can
continue to charge such a contentious fee. "I don't think it's
fair."

Telus was the first phone company to drop the SAF, a decision it
made "based on customer feedback requesting greater simplicity,"
said spokesperson Jacinthe Beaulieu.

She added that the company made it clear to all customers that they
could switch to new plans that excluded the charge. Rogers and Bell
also said that anyone still paying the fee has always had the
option of choosing a different plan.

But switching hasn't necessarily translated into cost savings. When
Bell, Rogers and Telus scrapped SAFs in 2009, they each raised the
price of most of their new monthly plans by $5.

Rogers also added a government regulatory recovery fee ranging from
$2 to $3 a month. That fee also faced criticism, and the company
eventually dropped it in 2012.

'They were deceived'

Lawyer Merchant suggests the telcos didn't completely discard the
SAF in 2009 because it would have been a blatant admission of
wrongdoing.

"They came down in-between. They didn't immediately abandon [it]
and they didn't continue, either."

His suit alleges that between 1982 and 1987, Canadian cellphone
users had to pay an individual licensing fee to the federal
government.

In 1987, the rules changed and the telcos were instead charged a
licence fee. Merchant claims that even though that fee eventually
worked out to "pennies" per customer, the telcos kept charging
customers an added SAF and pocketing most of the profit.

"People were used to paying these amounts and they were used to
seeing the charge," said Merchant. "They were deceived."

Bell, Rogers, Telus and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications
Association each declined to comment on the lawsuit.

However, Bell takes a position on its Bell MTS website for Manitoba
customers, stating that it "denies that it has improperly or
illegally charged the SAF."

Bell MTS also makes it clear to customers still paying the charge
that the SAF isn't a government fee. Instead, it says the charge
helps "recover the costs associated with operating and maintaining
a wireless network."

What difference does it make?

Consumer advocate John Lawford says added fees on a bill do a
disservice to customers, even if eliminating them results in no
cost savings.

He says consumers need to understand the full price of their
service, something that's difficult to do when a bill includes a
variety of separate charges.

"You can't compare service prices across providers, because they
break their bills up into a million different forms," said Lawford,
executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. "You
don't know exactly what you're paying and whether your bill went
up."

He would like to see Canada's telecom regulator, the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, explore ways to
mandate more clear billing for telecom customers.

"What you want is more detail on what you're buying and less detail
-- more like one price -- on what you're paying for."[GN]

SAMSUNG: Ice Maker Complaints Trigger Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
John Matarese, writing for 9 WCPO  Cincinnati, reports that Pam
Coy's Samsung stainless steel refrigerator looks great, but looks
can be deceiving.

"It doesn't make ice," she said. "Doesn't make any ice."

Like dozens of people who've posted similar complaints at the site
ConsumerAffairs.com, Coy says the ice maker has been trouble since
almost the beginning.

"After about a year, the ice maker quit working," she said.

Repair teams have replaced it, and replaced it and replaced it
again.

"Four times, and it still doesn't work," she said.

And now, with her warranty expired, the next repair is on her.

Coy says every time a repair person comes to fix the ice maker it
works fine for a few weeks, and then the mechanism inside starts to
fail all over again.

"It works for a week, maybe two weeks, and then it doesn't work,"
she said. "The ice is very wet, it drips out of the ice maker, out
the door, and out onto the floor."

Class-action suit seeks help for owners

Now, a Philadelphia law firm has filed a class-action suit, stating
the problem is widespread, resulting in "leaking and slush, and
over freezing,"

Samsung wont comment on the suit, but after we contacted the
company's US appliance division, it agreed to replace Coy's fridge.


Pam Coy is hoping so, as the freezer door has gone bad as a
result.

"Because we have to keep ice in our freezer, we need ice bags to
get ice, we've opened the freezer so much that the handle has
broken and had to be replaced," she said.

In the meantime, if you are buying any new appliances, read reviews
and complaints about it online before you buy, so you don't waste
your money.[GN]

SANDOZ CANADA: Class Action Launched Over Valsartan
---------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP has launched national class action
litigation on behalf of all Canadian residents who have been
prescribed and ingested valsartan, a common blood pressure/heart
prescription drug made by generic manufacturers, including Teva
Canada Limited, Sandoz Canada Incorporated, Pro Doc Limitee, Sanis
Health Inc., and Sivem Pharmaceuticals ULC. These drugs have been
recalled by Health Canada due to the alleged presence of a
cancer-causing contaminant, known as NDMA.

It is alleged that the five defendant pharmaceutical companies who
produced contaminated valsartan for Canadians patients across the
country, were negligent in their manufacturing of the drugs and in
their failure to implement appropriate quality control testing when
they received raw material from their foreign suppliers. These
drugs have been recalled due to the presence of a cancer-causing
contaminant, known as NDMA.

According to the Health Canada bulletin, that ingredient (NDMA) is
a potential human carcinogen which means that it could cause cancer
for patients. According to Health Canada, generic valsartan made
with the NDMA impurity was supplied by a Chinese manufacturer. The
defendants in the proposed class action are five pharmaceutical
companies whose products appear on the Health Canada recall
bulletin.

For patients seeking more info, please visit www.merchantlaw.com

Copies of the issued class action litigation are available, upon
media request.[GN]

SANTA FE NATURAL: Pontusson Files Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLIVE PONTUSSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., REYNOLDS
AMERICAN INC., and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Case No.
1:18-cv-00594-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 6, 2018), seeks redress for
the Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing of their "Natural
American Spirit" brand cigarettes as "Natural" and
"Additive-Free."

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation
whose principal place of business is in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Reynolds American Inc. is a North Carolina corporation whose
principal place of business is in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
SFNT is an operating subsidiary of Reynolds.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a North Carolina corporation whose
principal place of business is in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Like SFNT, RJR is an operating subsidiary of Reynolds.

The Defendants sell Natural American Spirit cigarettes in
differently-colored packs, all of which the Defendants uniformly
and prominently label and advertise with representations that the
cigarettes are "Natural" and "100% Additive-Free."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, PC
          1612 Military Cutoff Rd, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE 3rd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
          Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  boyle@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (800) 493-2827
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue - Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURK & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, #201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue - Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  asafyan@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          James W. Gustafson, Esq.
          SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
          517 N. Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-7600
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9454
          E-mail: jwg@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
          RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-7141
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          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: ron@consumersadvocates.com


SARBANAND FARMS: N. Perez Loses Bid to Dismiss FLCA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned BARBARO ROSAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SARBANAND FARMS
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-0112-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs bring this employment class action arising out of
the Defendants' recruitment, employment, and treatment of foreign
H-2A farm workers.  The sole claim against Defendant Nidia Perez is
for violation of the Washington Farm Labor Contractor Act (FLCA).

A defendant may move to dismiss when a plaintiff fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
construes them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.


Ms. Perez argues that FLCA exempts employees of agricultural
employers, thus, the statute does not apply to her. She relies on
the FCLA exception for persons working within the scope of their
employment for one agricultural employer who are not paid a fee
based on the number of workers recruited.  

The fact that Ms. Perez is an agricultural employee does not, by
itself, bring her under the FLCA exception. The Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint alleges that Ms. Perez was employed by Munger,
that she recruited workers to harvest and package blueberries on
behalf of three entities in both California and Washington, and
that Sarbanand paid her a separate fee to recruit workers for its
harvest. The Court finds the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts for the Court to infer that Ms. Perez performed labor
contracting activities on behalf of more than one agricultural
employer.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yagv3zra from
Leagle.com.

Barbaro Rosas & Guadalupe Tapia, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J.
Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Joachim Morrison , COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Bernardo Rafael Cruz ,
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Lindsay Halm, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Lori Isley , COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES & Tony Gonzalez , COLUMBIA
LEGAL SERVICES.

Sarbanand Farms LLC, Munger Bros LLC & Nidia Perez, Defendants,
represented by Christopher E. Hawk -- chawk@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI & Derek Allan Bishop -- dbishop@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

CSI Visa Processing, S.C., Defendant, represented by Adam S.
Belzberg -- adam.belzberg@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES & Christopher T.
Wall -- Christopher.wall@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES.

SCALZO INC: Hernandez Action to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Reynoso Hernandez (a/k/a Martin Reynoso), on behalf of
himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff, v. Scalzo, Inc., an Illinois corporation and
John Scalzo, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03705, (N.D. Ill., May 25,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Chicago.

Hernandez worked as a cook at Defendants' "Via Carducci" restaurant
located at 1928 W. Division Street in Chicago, Illinois, from 2009
through May 4, 2018. He claims to have worked at least 51 hours in
individual workweeks without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


SCANA CORP: Dominion Energy Appeals Order in Warren Police Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled 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 seek unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and any other relief the court deems
proper.

The appellate case is captioned as Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys.
v. Dominion Energy, Inc., Case No. 18-1844, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on September 4, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on October 4, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee 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-Appellants 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

Defendants SCANA Corporation, 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, Jimmy E. Addison and
Alfredo Trujillo 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

Defendants SCANA Corporation, 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 are
represented by:

          Benjamin Palmer Carlton, Esq.
          Steven J. Pugh, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA
          P. O. Drawer 7788
          Columbia, SC 29202-0000
          Telephone: (803) 771-4400
          E-mail: bcarlton@richardsonplowden.com
                  spugh@richardsonplowden.com



SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Dismissal A. Amari's Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMY AMARI, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SCOTTSDALE
HEALTHCARE HOSPITALS, et al., Defendants/Appellees, Case No. 1
CA-CV 17-0443 (Ariz. App.), Judge Paul J. McMurdie of the Court of
Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the superior court's
orders (i) dismissing Amari's complaint with prejudice and without
leave to amend, and (ii) denying her post-judgment motion under
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

Amari filed a class action complaint against Scottsdale Healthcare
Hospitals ("HonorHealth"), alleging negligence, negligent hiring,
and vicarious liability.

In September 2014, Amari had inpatient surgery at HonorHealth.
HonorHealth later learned a surgical technician employed by the
hospital at the time of Amari's surgery was under investigation in
another state for the misuse of drugs intended for patient use.  On
Feb. 29, 2016, HonorHealth thus notified Amari by letter she had
possibly been exposed to HIV or hepatitis B and C during the
surgery and should have her blood tested.  On March 8, 2016, Amari
had her blood tested and two days later learned the results were
negative.

In May 2016, Amari filed a complaint against HonorHealth, alleging
HonorHealth breached the duty of care it owed Amari by negligently
hiring the surgical technician and that HonorHealth is vicariously
liable for the harm caused by the technician.  Approximately one
week later, Amari filed an amended complaint to correct
HonorHealth's name.  

Amari's first amended complaint alleged HonorHealth's letter caused
her "unavoidable concern and anxiety" and did not allege any
additional emotional distress.  On June 7, 2016, HonorHealth moved
to dismiss Amari's first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, arguing in part that there can be no
recovery for mental disturbance unless physical injury, illness or
other physical consequences accompany it, or physical harm develops
as a result of the plaintiff's emotional distress.  The parties
then agreed to allow Amari to file a second amended complaint, and
Amari filed her second amended complaint on July 1, 2016.

In her second amended complaint, Amari sought to hold HonorHealth
liable for their failure to conduct a proper and reasonable
investigation into the background and character of their employees
prior to hiring them and the resulting physical and emotional harm
that their failure to do so caused Amari.  Amari alleged
negligence, negligent hiring, and vicarious liability claims and
that HonorHealth's breach of duty caused Amari to suffer
foreseeable and unavoidable concern, anxiety, annoyance, and
inconvenience.  

HonorHealth again moved to dismiss Amari's then-second amended
complaint.  HonorHealth argued Amari failed to plead facts showing
that she suffered any actual, recoverable emotional or physical
damages and that, accordingly, Amari could not state a viable claim
against HonorHealth.  At oral argument on HonorHealth's motion, the
superior court stated it was concerned about whether Amari had
alleged recoverable damages because the court did not "think losing
a couple nights' sleep is enough."  Amari asked for permission to
amend her complaint again to allege with more specificity the
damages she suffered.  The court dismissed the vicarious liability
claim at the close of oral argument and, after taking the matter
under advisement, dismissed the remaining claims without granting
Amari leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile.

Amari then moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule
59.  She argued the superior court erred by dismissing her
complaint without granting her leave to amend based on the court's
conclusion that further amendment would be futile.  Amari attached
a detailed affidavit to her Rule 59 motion describing the emotional
distress she suffered from when she received the letter until
approximately one month after getting the negative test results,
which included sleeplessness, difficulty concentrating,
hyperventilating, sweating, anxiousness, nausea, headaches, and
anger.

Amari also stated she experienced similar distress a few months
later when she learned the surgical technician tested positive for
HIV.  After receiving HonorHealth's response and holding oral
argument on Amari's Rule 59 motion, the superior court denied the
motion, explaining Amari's second amended complaint was dismissed
based upon the lack of a physical intrusion and the lack of any
attendant bodily harm and that allowing Amari to further amend her
complaint would be an exercise in futility.

Amari timely appealed.

Judge McMurdie agrees with the superior court's finding that
Amari's blood test was an insufficient "physical invasion" to
support a claim for emotional distress damages.  The superior court
did not err by finding the blood test did not satisfy the physical
impact test.

After his review of the Rule 59 motion and the affidavit, the Judge
concludes Amari has not alleged her emotional distress resulted in
long-term physical illness or mental disturbance or that her
distress gave rise to more than transitory physical phenomena.
Therefore, he holds Amari has not stated a claim for emotional
distress damages or shown that further amendment would not be
futile.

For these reasons, Judge McMurdie affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2018 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://is.gd/qIPBi6 from Leagle.com.

Keller Rohrback LLP, Phoenix, By Mark D. Samson --
msamson@KellerRohrback.com -- Alison E. Chase --
achase@KellerRohrback.com -- (argued), Counsel for
Plaintiff/Appellant.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, By Barry D. Halpern --
bhalpern@swlaw.com -- Colin P. Ahler -- cahler@swlaw.com --
(argued), Counsel for Defendants/Appellees.

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Bid to Certify Nationwide Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for certification of nationwide
      class without prejudice to filing a second motion to
      certify a narrower class or subclasses;

   2. denying as moot Seagate's motion to strike portions of
      Plaintiffs' reply brief or to file a surreply;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' motion to file supplemental materials,
      which the Court considered in reaching its conclusion on
      class certification; and

   4. denying all pending motions to file documents under seal
      without prejudice to Seagate filing a consolidated motion
      identifying compelling reasons for such documents, or
      portions thereof, to remain under seal no later than July
      26, 2018.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that common
issues predominate among their proposed class as required for
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. It is not obvious, however, that there is no way to
manage at least some subset of the currently proposed class as a
Rule 23(b)(3) class action, or that some such class would not be
the most efficient way to resolve the claims of at least some of
the currently proposed class members. If Plaintiffs intend to file
a second motion for class certification, the parties are instructed
to file a stipulated briefing schedule no later than July 26,
2018."

On July 6, the Court held that a Case Management Conference will be
held August 31 at 2:00 p.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th
Floor.  On July 26, Seagate filed an Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal Certain Documents or Portions Thereof Filed in
Connection with Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Seagate,
alleging that the Company misrepresented certain hard drives and
delivered defective drives to consumers.


SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Cir. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings in "Robinett"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Judgment on the
Pleadings in the case captioned Lacey Robinett, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, doing business as Regional
One Health, doing business as Regional Medical Center; Avectus
Healthcare Solutions LLC, Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-1336. (8th
Cir.)

Lacey Robinett appeals the district court's grant of judgment on
the pleadings to Shelby County Healthcare Corporation (Med) and
Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC.

Lacey Robinett was severely injured in an automobile accident in
Arkansas. Another vehicle's driver was at fault. An air ambulance
transported Robinett to the Med, the nearest trauma center, in
Memphis, Tennessee, for immediate treatment. However, subsequent to
treating Robinett, the Med chose not to bill Arkansas Medicaid for
its services. Instead, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Section
29-22-101, the Med pursued a lien against Robinett's third-party
claim against the tortfeasor for all reasonable and necessary
charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance.

Robinett contends that the district court erroneously concluded
that the federal and Arkansas Medicaid laws do not bar a medical
services provider from billing patients directly until and unless
the provider bills Medicaid.

Federal Medicaid law precludes direct patient billing in two
specific instances. Section 1396a(a)(25)(C) prohibits medical
providers from substitute billing and balance billing. A medical
provider engages in substitute billing when it already has accepted
payment from Medicaid but tries to refund the payment in order to
bill the patient directly, usually because Medicaid reimbursements
are often much lower than the provider's customary fees.

Thus, Section 1396a(a)(25)(C) only becomes relevant once the
provider has billed Medicaid and accepted payment for services
provided to a beneficiary. The provision does not bar a provider
from taking a chance that a Medicaid-eligible patient has a
non-Medicaid source of payment for the medical services rendered.
The provider thus may opt to attempt collection directly from the
patient or a liable third party instead of seeking a certain but
likely reduced payment from Medicaid.

Not only does the plain language of the statute dictate this
interpretation, this reading comports with Medicaid's role as the
payer of last resort. The federal Medicaid statutory scheme is
designed to ensure that where there are liable third parties,
Medicaid's expenses are reimbursed. Other federal regulations
reinforce Section 1396a(a)(25)(C)'s mandate. Section 433.139(b)(1)
of 42 C.F.R. requires that if a Medicaid agency has established the
probable existence of third party liability at the time the claim
is filed, the agency must reject the claim and return it to the
provider.

This method of payment is called cost avoiding; it entails shifting
to the provider the burden of securing payment from third parties.
Alternatively, Medicaid may pay and chase, where the state Medicaid
agency pays the total amount allowed under the agency's payment
schedule and then seeks reimbursement from the liable third party
Thus, federal Medicaid regulations run counter to Robinett's
suggestion, because the cost avoidance measure requires medical
providers to bill liable third parties, or they may bill the
patient directly.

Robinett next argues that even if federal law permits the Med to
bill her directly, Arkansas law does not. She asserts that the
district court erroneously concluded otherwise.

In legal contexts, payable means a sum of money that is to be paid.
An amount may be payable without being due. In Robinett's case,
nothing was payable by Medicaid, because prior to the Med billing
Medicaid, the amount to be paid is zero. But, if and when the Med
bills Medicaid, then the Med must accept what Medicaid pays as
payable in full. This interpretation comports with the Medicaid
payment scheme. Medicaid, by design, does not pay the full price
for medical services, nor does it pay for every service provided.


Until the medical provider bills for services rendered, Medicaid
owes the provider nothing. As such, nothing is capable of being
paid until the provider bills for it. Thus, Ark. Code Ann. Section
20-77-104(a) simply reinforces the federal ban on substitute
billing. Likewise, Ark. Code Ann. Section 20-77-104(c) codifies
into Arkansas law the federal ban on balance billing.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's July 13, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yay8wmkm from Leagle.com.

Jeff Puryear -- jpuryear@wpmfirm.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Mark Mayfield -- mmayfield@wpmfirm.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Jeffrey Scriber , for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brandon W. Lacy, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ryan Michael Wilson -- rwilson@wpmfirm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John Irving Houseal, III, for Defendant-Appellee.

Don L. Hearn, Jr. -- dhearn@glankler.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John I. Houseal, Jr. -- jhouseal@glankler.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Nguyen Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC713041 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants willfully deny
their California employees their rest periods, and fail to timely
provide such, or compensation in lieu thereof, as required by the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees were required to work off the clock for Defendants.
Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees
if these tasks were completed outside of her regular work hours.
Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees worked in excess of 40
hours in one week and in excess of eight hours in one day,
requiring the payment of overtime wages at a premium rate of one
and one half the regular rate of pay. The Defendants willfully
failed to compensate Plaintiff the premium rate for all overtime
worked.  The Defendants fail to properly itemize the wage statement
of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees, in violation of
Labor Code section 226(a)(e).  The Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees their final wages on
the day of termination or if the employee resigns, within 72 hours
of separation.

St. Francis Medical Center is a not-for-profit hospital in Lynwood,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Meghan@OLFLA.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-the-Clock Tasks
--------------------------------------------------------
Maura Dolan, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports that the
California Supreme Court decided unanimously on July 26 that
employers must pay workers for the minutes they spend on brief
tasks off the clock.

The ruling came in a response to a federal appeals court request to
clarify California labor law.

California's laws "do not allow employers to require employees to
routinely work for minutes off-the-clock without compensation,"
Justice Goodwin Liu wrote for the state Supreme Court.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked the state high
court to clarify the law, is considering a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Starbucks brought by a supervisor who spent several
minutes each night closing the store and walking workers to their
cars after clocking out.

A federal district judge had thrown out the case, citing a federal
"de minimis" rule that bans suits for compensation for small bits
of time. The 9th Circuit asked the California court to determine
whether the federal rule applied to claims for wages under
California law.

The court said they did not. California's laws require compensation
for "all" time worked, the court said.

"A few extra minutes of work each day can add up," Liu wrote.

He noted that the former Starbucks employee who sued worked 12
hours and 50 minutes off the clock over a 17-month period. At $8 an
hour, that amounted to $102.67.

"That is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or
cover a month of bus fares," Liu wrote.

Bryan Lazarski, Esq. -- bryan@lazarskilaw.com -- a Century City
lawyer who represents workers in employment disputes, called the
decision "an excellent ruling for employees."

He said the impact may be large because many jobs require workers
to spend a few minutes on small tasks before or after their workday
officially starts or ends.

"There are a lot of places that have policies like Starbucks," he
said.

He stressed that not all time down to a split second would have to
be paid, but if the tasks are regular and anticipated, the employer
must compensate the worker's time.

Stanley D. Saltzman, who represents the Starbucks workers, said
federal judges have been throwing out these kinds of lawsuits, a
practice that will now end.

The 9th Circuit also is expected to revive the Starbucks suit as a
result of the July 26 decision.

"I think employers will just pay more attention now to getting
people paid properly, which is the ultimate goal," Saltzman said.

Eve Wagner, Esq. -- ewagner@swattys.com -- an employment lawyer who
also arbitrates and mediates workplace disputes, said the next
legal fight is likely to be over compensation for time spent at
home reading emails and responding to them.

"The California Supreme Court left open that question," she said.

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote separately to stress that
the ruling "does not consign employers or their workers to measure
every last morsel of employees' time."

"California law stops well short of requiring employer analysis of
every fractional second as part of an unsparing effort to discern
what time is compensable," Cuéllar said.

Justice Leondra R. Kruger, in another concurrence, said California
law would not apply to claims "for negligible periods of time that
cannot reasonably be measured or estimated with a fair degree of
accuracy."

She cited the example of an employer occasionally notifying a
worker by text or email of a schedule change that required an
acknowledgement from the worker.

"There may be some periods of time that are so brief, irregular of
occurrence, or difficult to accurately measure or estimate, that it
would [not] be reasonable to require the employer to account for
them," wrote Kruger, joined by Court of Appeal Justice Elizabeth A.
Grimes, who filled a vacancy on the court for the case.

Rex S. Heinke, who argued the case for Starbucks, referred a
request for comment to a Starbucks spokesperson.

"We are disappointed with the court's decision," the spokesperson
said in an email. "We will await further disposition of the case
before the 9th Circuit as the appeal process continues."[GN]

STATE FARM: Wash. App. Affirms Denial of L. Daniels' Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
trial court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned LAZURI DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of all
those similarly situated Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, No. 75727-0-I (Wash. App.).

When Daniels' vehicle was damaged in a collision, she paid the
deductible and State Farm paid the remaining amount of the cost to
repair her car. When State Farm recovered 70 percent of the amount
it paid for the repair from the tortfeasor's insurance company, it
also recovered 70 percent of Daniels' deductible payment and paid
it to her.

Daniels contends State Farm violated the policy because it did not
pay her the full amount of the deductible. She claims that before
State Farm could exercise its right to recover the payments it
made, the policy requires that she be fully compensated for her
loss which she argues includes the full amount of the deductible.

Daniels argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her
complaint. She contends that State Farm did not comply with the
terms of its policy when it failed to return her full deductible
before retaining money it received in subrogation.

Dismissal is warranted if the court concludes beyond a doubt that
the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts which would justify
recovery.

A contract of insurance should be given a fair, reasonable and
sensible construction, consonant with the apparent object and
intent of the parties, a construction such as would be given the
contract by the average person purchasing insurance.

The policy language at issue here states:

"12. Our Right to Recover Our Payments.

c. Underinsured Motor Vehicle Property Damage Coverage and Physical
Damage Coverages. If we are obligated under this policy to make
payment to or for a party who has a legal right to collect from
another, then the right of recovery of such party passes to us.
Such party must help us recover our payments by, inter alia:

(1) keeping our right to recover our payment in trust for us and
doing nothing to impair that legal right."

Daniels reading of the insurance contract is flawed in a number of
respects. First, Daniels asserts that under the contract, State
Farm has no right to seek recovery at all, unless and until its
insured obtains a full refund of his or her deductible. Whatever
rights State Farm may have to recover its payments, it does not
have those rights until after its insured has been fully
compensated for the loss. And to the extent State Farm has a right
to seek recovery, it has no such rights until its insured receives
full compensation. But reading the contract to preclude State
Farm's subrogation unless Daniels first obtains a full refund of
her deductible leads to absurd results.

Under Daniels reading of the contract, before State Farm could
assert a subrogation claim against a third party, one of two things
would have to occur.

First, State Farm would have to refund the deductible that Daniels
paid, which would make the provision requiring the payment of the
deductible meaningless. Or, second, Daniels would have to obtain
reimbursement from the third party on her own. And if she failed to
do so for any reason, or simply chose not to, State Farm would be
barred from seeking recovery of the payments it made from the
responsible third party.

State Farm complied with WAC 284-30-393. It included Daniels'
deductible with its subrogation demand and originally reimbursed
her 70 percent based on Geico's initial determination that its
insured was 70 percent at fault. It then fully reimbursed her when
an arbitrator concluded that she was not at fault. Daniels relies
on hindsight to argue that, because she was ultimately found not at
fault, she should have been originally reimbursed her full
deductible. But State Farm's incremental implementation of WAC
284-30-393 was reasonable and complied with the plain language of
the regulation.  

The Court finds that the trial court did not err in finding that
there was no violation.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s July 16, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydeugyjm from Leagle.com.

Matthew James Ide , Ide Law Office, 7900 Se 28th St Ste 500, Mercer
Island, WA, 98040-6004, Counsel for Appellant(s).

Joseph D. Hampton , Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S., 701 Pike St Ste
1400, Seattle, WA, 98101-3927.

Kathryn Naegeli Boling , Betts, Patterson, & Mines, P.S., 701 Pike
St Ste 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101-3927.

Frank Falzetta , Shephard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, 333 South
Hope Street 43rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90071.

Jennifer Hoffman , Shephard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, 333 South
Hope Street 43rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Counsel for
Respondent(s).

STATE STREET: ATRS Chief's Role in Class Action Lawsuits Flagged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Online reported that some state lawmakers are raising
questions and seeking more information about the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System's participation in class-action lawsuits.

The impetus for their interest is the system's role as the class
representative in a class-action lawsuit against financial services
provider State Street Corp. in which there has been a $300 million
settlement. The federal judge in the case has asked whether the
system should remain the lead plaintiff and about possible
corruption.

System Executive Director George Hopkins decided five weeks ago to
remain as a class representative in the lawsuit, even after the
system's trustees recommended that he withdraw from that position.

The trustees' recommendation and Hopkins' decision came after the
Boston-based federal judge, Mark L. Wolf, said he was considering a
special master's then-sealed report recommending that three law
firms in the case repay a significant part of the $75 million in
attorneys' fees awarded as part of the settlement.

The three law firms are Labaton Sucharow LLP, Thornton Law Firm LLP
and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. They took the case on a
contingency-fee basis.

A good estimate of how much the teacher retirement system will
receive from the settlement is not available at this time because
of the nature and stage of the case, said Rod Graves, the system's
associate director of operations.

But "if we were trying to get a ballpark estimate, it would likely
fall in the $300,000 range," he said Friday.

In his 377-page report unsealed June 28, Special Master Gerald
Rosen recommended that the three law firms disgorge more than $10
million in attorney fees -- including a $4.1 million payment to a
Texas attorney, Damon Chargois, who introduced Labaton Sucharow,
the lead law firm, to the Arkansas agency.

But Labaton Sucharow sharply criticized the special master's
report.

The law firm said Rosen, having been unsuccessful in identifying
anything more than an inadvertent billing error self-reported by
Labaton, elected to divert his investigation into one costing
nearly $4 million.

Rosen suggests that the class counsel engaged in "questionable
conduct" by paying a referral fee to another lawyer, even though
that payment was permissible under the well-established law in
Massachusetts, according to the law firm.

On June 28, federal judge Wolf rejected Labaton Sucharow's request
that he recuse from this case. The law firm has appealed his ruling
to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the issues is a
private sidebar on May 30 in which Wolf suggested that when Rosen's
report became public, "there are going to be questions about the
origin of this relationship and whether all of those millions of
dollars stopped with Mr. Chargois."

                     System Reaps Millions

The Arkansas system has collected more than $40 million as a result
of securities class-action lawsuits, including those in which the
system is lead plaintiff, over the past 10 years, Hopkins said.

Hopkins has been the system's executive director since December
2008. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is state government's
largest retirement system with roughly $17 billion in investments
and more than 100,000 working and retired members.

The system is seeking to recover more than $21 million in financial
losses through about a dozen class-action lawsuits, he told the
trustees recently.

Labaton Sucharow filed a class-action securities lawsuit against
State Street, the nation's second-largest custodian bank, on behalf
of the system in 2011. Wolf approved the settlement and the award
of attorneys' fees in 2016. The underlying suit alleged that State
Street swindled millions of dollars a year from its clients on
their indirect foreign exchange trades over the course of a
decade.

Hopkins estimated that he spent several hundred hours on this case
over its five-year history, according to court records.

                     Legislative Review

The special master's report is on the agenda for a combined meeting
of the Joint Committee on Public Retirement and Social Security
Programs and the Joint Performance Review Committee. The
committee's leaders have requested records about state retirement
systems' participation in class-action lawsuits. The meeting is at
9 a.m. in Room 151 at the state Capitol.

Rep. Doug House, R-North Little Rock, who is co-chairman of the
retirement committee, said his primary concern is that the teacher
retirement system's retirees get every dollar they have been
promised.

House also said the Legislature shouldn't run state retirement
systems because that's the job of the systems' trustees.

But "it is apparent that there is a lot of information those
[teacher retirement system] trustees didn't have [about the State
Street case] because they chose not to know, and that's a concern,"
he said.

He said Hopkins has indicated that he didn't want to know how the
attorneys' fees were divided in the settlement, and the trustees
didn't know either.

House said the trustees should be evaluating the contracts of the
securities-monitoring firms each year.

The chairman of the system's board of trustees, Jeff Stubblefield,
said, "I don't know that that's a bad idea.

"I don't think that's asking too much," said Stubblefield, who is
superintendent of Charleston Public Schools. "I do appreciate Mr.
Hopkins and his financial team trying to get financial recovery of
people taking financial advantage of us."

Hopkins said Friday in a written statement that all of the system's
contracts, including the securities monitoring contracts, go before
the trustees at least once every two years.

"ATRS staff would have no problem pulling the legal contracts out
for separate consideration," he wrote.

INNUENDO AND RUMORS

Rep. Mark Lowery, R-Maumelle, said he's worried about the negative
exposure that the teacher retirement system is being subjected to,
based on speculation about potential kickbacks and payoffs.

Lowery, who is co-chairman of the Joint Performance Review
Committee, said he wants more information to determine what has
transpired.

Five weeks ago, Hopkins told his trustees that he wished Rosen's
report was unsealed at that time because "I think any innuendos put
out will be shown to be incorrect."

At that time, Hopkins said he told the federal judge that then-Sen.
Steve Faris, D-Malvern, introduced the Labaton Sucharow law firm to
then-system Executive Director Paul Doane in 2007, based on
documents that he has reviewed. Hopkins served as a former
Democratic senator from Malvern before Faris.

Labaton Sucharow is one of five securities monitoring firms for the
retirement system. It was selected to monitor securities for the
Arkansas system under a request for qualification process before
Hopkins became executive director in December 2008.

Hopkins said he became aware of the $4.1 million payment to
Chargois after the special master's report came out.

Faris, who serves on the board of trustees for the Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, said in an interview last week that he
called Doane at the request of a friend, Tim Herron, on behalf of
Labaton Sucharow and indicated the New York firm's interest in
becoming a securities monitoring firm for the system.

Faris said he told Doane, "What you decide is your business."

Faris said he made many similar phone calls to state agencies on
behalf of many other people during his tenure in the Legislature.

He noted that Herron's uncle is Gordon Powell, who formerly worked
for the state House of Representatives during sessions. He said
Powell formerly served as board president for Central Arkansas
Telephone Cooperative, where Faris was manager. Hopkins formerly
represented the company as an attorney.

Faris said he has been paid no funds by Chargois, Herron or Labaton
Sucharow.

Labaton Sucharow said the "referral payment discussed in the
master's report was made to Mr. Chargois, a Texas-based lawyer, who
first introduced our firm to Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in
2007 ... before George Hopkins was hired by the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System.

"No referral payments were made to anyone in Arkansas," the law
firm said in a written statement.

Chargois and Herron, who are in a law firm together, could not be
reached for comment by telephone last week.

Labaton Sucharow said that "the State Street case has nothing
whatsoever to do with kickbacks or payoffs or bribes or influence
peddling or anything of that ilk.

"The 'speculation' stems from the presiding judge's improper
comments in the courtroom during a May 30 hearing in which he made
both public and sidebar statements that in part prompted the law
firms to seek his recusal from the case [and] that effort is now on
appeal in the First Circuit," the firm said a statement.

                   Praise For Settlement

The special master, Rosen, said in his report that "after much
work, dedication and exceptional effort in the discovery and
mediation process, the parties ultimately reached a $300 million
settlement.

"Given the risks, complexities and legal challenges inherent in the
litigation, it must be said that the $300 million settlement,
procured by skilled and dedicated plaintiffs' counsel, was an
excellent result for the class," he said.

Rosen said the most significant issue raised during his
investigation was the nondisclosure of the $4.1 million payment to
Chargois, who neither appeared in the State Street case nor worked
on it.

He said the Labaton firm and Chargois & Herron law firm submitted a
joint response to the retirement system's request for
qualifications in July 2008.

The report said the system's then-chief legal counsel, Christa
Clark, informed Labaton that it had been selected as an additional
monitoring counsel, but Chargois & Herron was not approved as part
of the proposal. Clark also wrote, however, that Labaton could use
Chargois & Herron on a case-by-case basis if it was "a necessary
and appropriate expense."

Labaton didn't seek Hopkins' approval to share information or remit
payments to Chargois, and Hopkins was not informed of the agreement
between Labaton and Damon Chargois that entitled Chargois to 20
percent of any attorney fee recovered on behalf of the Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System, Rosen said.

Hopkins instructed a Labaton official not to inform him about
attorney fee allocations in the State Street or any other case in
which the system is a class representative, Rosen said.

                    Attorneys' Fees Shared

Labaton has paid Chargois a percentage of Labaton's total fee award
on at least nine cases, including the State Street case, since this
arrangement began in 2008, Rosen said.

In each of these cases, Labaton paid Chargois an amount that more
often amounted to 10 percent to 15 percent rather than the
originally agreed-upon 20 percent, and neither Chargois nor any of
Chargois & Herron's attorneys appeared in court or did any work on
the cases, Rosen said.

In response to this newspaper's questions about the total amount
Chargois was paid in these cases, Labaton Sucharow said, "In each
case cited in the master's report, the court granted lead plaintiff
counsel a percentage of the settlement amounts awarded to the
respective class," and "all of those settlement amounts and
attorney's fees are part of the public record.

"The resulting distribution of those approved fees -- including
allocation among co-counsel and referring counsel -- are not
public; our firm, consistent with practice by other law firms, does
not disclose how it distributes its fees," the law firm said in a
written statement.

Rosen said the federal judge wasn't informed about the $4.1 million
payment to Chargois and that's "a material omission."

But Labaton Sucharow said Massachusetts state law "is crystal
clear" and class counsel is not required to disclose a referral
payment absent an explicit order from the court, and the court made
no order.

"Moreover, ATRS has reaffirmed its consent to the issuance of this
referral payment, which is adequate under clear and controlling
precedent from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court," the law
firm said in a written statement.

                  Hopkins' Role Questioned

In his report, Rosen said Hopkins' statement that he was not
concerned with how the aggregate attorney fees are distributed
among lawyers or law firms in any way raises "serious questions
about Hopkins' adequacy to serve as a class representative moving
forward.

"The class had a right to know that lead counsel intended to and
did, pay $4 million out of settlement funds to a person who
performed no work in the case, as a result of lead counsel's own
pre-existing obligation, whether or not payment itself was
permitted under Massachusetts ethical rules," Rosen said.

"We cannot see how in the light of clear dereliction of his
fiduciary duties to the class, Hopkins can fairly and adequately
protect the class's interests moving forward," Rosen said.

Hopkins, who is an attorney, said Friday in a written statement
that he "was really surprised to see that the special master said
this about me."

He said the class representative is not supposed to oversee fee
allocations between attorneys, and the special master cites no
case, law or rule that places that duty on him.

"I believe the special master is confused about this and just comes
down on the wrong side of the law. He has spent almost $4 million
so far to get to this point. So his statement about a 'clear
dereliction' of my fiduciary duties to the class is just based on a
false legal premise," Hopkins said.

"The ultimately irony of the special master's position on my duty
here is that he recommends clawing back attorney fees from the
attorneys representing institutional investors and reallocating
much of those same fees to ERISA attorneys in the case and NOT back
to the class," Hopkins said.

ERISA refers to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, which applies to virtually all private sector benefit plans.
Attorneys representing Employee Retirement Income Security Act
plaintiffs also participated in the class-action lawsuit that
started out as three separate suits that were later consolidated.

Hopkins said, "I decided to stay in the case specifically to argue
that if attorney fees are clawed back, the class members and not
attorneys should be the beneficiary of any clawed back fees."

Hopkins said all participants in this case have learned lessons.

"I now inquire about referral fees and require much more
transparency in fee petitions," he said. "Although I had tried to
stay out of how attorneys worked together on cases, I now do so
while still ensuring the attorneys engage the best legal firms to
protect the class." [GN]

STATE STREET: Committee to Get Report on ATRS Plaintiff Role
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that the
legislature's joint retirement committee was set to get a report on
July 17 on the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System's involvement as
plaintiff in about a dozen class-action lawsuits. It is a topic of
interest since a court in Massachusetts noted possible political
connections in payment of a $4 million finder's fee out of $75
million in attorney fees awarded in a $300 million judgment against
State Street Corp., an investment firm. That settlement is worth
about $40 million to the Arkansas retirement system, compensation
for a swindle in foreign exchange trading.

Did somebody say politics, Arkansas style? See what you think.

Here's what we know, from a report to the court in Massachusetts
and reporting by Michael Wickline of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
and here at the Arkansas Blog.

ATRS' involvement dates back to at least 2008, when George Hopkins,
a former state senator from Malvern, became director. He's told the
Massachusetts court he wants the system to remain lead plaintiff --
and thus eligible for enhanced recovery -- despite a vote of the
ATRS Board that he drop that role. Questions on that were expected
on July 17. In preparation, ATRS has filed papers on all the cases
in which it is involved, reimbursements from law firms so far, and
the recently unsealed Massachusetts court report reviewing attorney
fees in the case.

A judge has said the Labaton, Sucharow law firm did a good job and
won a good settlement. But questions were nonetheless raised about
a $4.1 million finder's fee paid by Labaton to a Texas attorney,
Damon Chargois, who introduced Labaton Sucharow, the lead law firm,
to the ATRS.

Labaton says finders' fees are legal and didn't come out of the
settlement and it disputes ethical concerns raised by a special
master. The presiding judge nonetheless suggested questions linger
about whether payments stopped at Chargois.

Who is Chargois and how did he come to be an intermediary between
Arkansas and Labaton?

Hopkins has testified that Steve Faris, who succeeded Hopkins as a
senator from Malvern, had introduced Labaton to Paul Doane,
then-director of ATRS in 2007. It was selected as a securities
monitoring firm in 2008, before Hopkins became director.

Mr. Faris, a one-time Democrat recently put on the Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System Board by Republican Gov. Asa
Hutchinson, told the Democrat-Gazette that he called Doane at the
request of a friend, Tim Herron, who is associated with the
Mr. Chargois' law firm. He said he made many calls on behalf of
many people as a legislators.

Herron's uncle is Gordon Powell, who once worked for the House of
Representatives during sessions. He was also board president for
Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative, where Mr. Faris once was
employed as a manager. Hopkins once did legal work for the
company.

All insist nobody in Arkansas got money from money paid to Mr.
Chargois. The Labaton firm bristled at suggestions by a special
master of potential political influence peddling, disputing even a
hint of kickbacks or payoffs.

Still, Hopkins himself had told the judge in the case that he'd
gotten encouragement from "political leaders" to get involved in
class action cases, something he previously hadn't considered.

Though not listed as attorney in the case, Mr. Chargois got a
percentage of the Labaton award in the State Street case, as it has
on at least nine more cases.

The special master in the case has faulted Hopkins for the
plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of the side payment to Chargois. But
Mr. Hopkins said that wasn't his responsibility. Still, the
presiding judge had concerns. As I wrote:

Among other materials Labaton later turned over was a 2014 e-mail
in which Mr. Chargois complained about being undercompensated in
some of the other cases where Labaton represented ATRS.

"We got you ATRS as a client after considerable favors, money spent
and time dedicated in Arkansas," Mr. Chargois said in that e-mail.


Mr. Faris is a Zelig figure in Arkansas politics. He first rose to
my attention as gatekeeper for Secretary of State Bill McCuen, who
died in prison after conviction of public corruption. He went on to
the Senate and, then, despite being a Democrat, got brought on
after he left office as right-hand man to Republican Senate
President Pro Tem Michael Lamoureux. Mr. Lamoureux's career was
marked by the disclosure that he wsas paid while a legislature by
special interest groups. He left abruptly as Gov. Asa Hutchinson's
chief of staff after a short tenure to become a lobbyist. He has
since has been identified among the legislators who shipped state
surplus money to the scandal-enmeshed Preferred Family Healthcare
and affiliates, now suspended from $43 million in state contracts
because of multiple fraud charges and convictions (unrelated to Mr.
Lamoureux). While working for the Senate, Mr. Faris managed to
obtain Little Rock living quarters in a pied a terre created out of
a former state utility facility on Capitol grounds during Mr.
McCuen's time in office.

Mr. Faris also once hooked up State Treasurer Martha Shoffner with
a free apartment in Little Rock. Owner: Tim Herron. Chad Day
reported extensively on this deal in 2013 for the Democrat-Gazette
after Ms. Shoffner's arrest for taking kickbacks on state bond
business. (By the time of that article, Mr. Faris was a member of
the state Lottery Commission.) By that account,
Ms. Shoffner lived in the house at 2nd and Ringo for about four
years, paying only utilities. She then moved to another Herron
apartment but had to pay $800 a month rent. That obligation,
according to the FBI, led to her need to get cash payments from a
bond salesman to pay the rent.

The National Review, in reporting on the finder's fee question in
the State Street case, said Labaton's contributions to political
candidates were minimal. In Arkansas, however, a little goes a long
way.

During Ms. Shoffner's runs for treasurer she netted more than
$30,000 in contributions from Herron and his wife, Hopkins and his
wife, Mr. Chargois and various members of the Labaton firm. She
also came under fire during her service for taking a $10,000 check
from a different New York law firm, rather than checks written for
the maximum $2,000 from individual members. She said it was a
clerical error. She was a member of the Teacher Retirement System
Board at the time and voted on the firms hired for security
monitoring work.

Oh, and speaking of that Hot Spring County connection between
Arkansas and a New York law firm: Eight members of the New York law
firm gave $500 contributions in 2012 to a successful Democratic
legislative candidate. David Kizzia. Of Malvern.

It is shocking someone would speculate pay-to-play happens in
Arkansas. [GN]

STEEL & TUBE: Homeowners Sign Up to Steel Mesh Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Edmunds, writing for the Stuff, reports that  more homeowners
have signed up to a class action against Steel & Tube after it
pleaded guilty to making misleading claims about its steel mesh.

The company pleaded guilty in November to 24 charges from the
Commerce Commission relating to false and misleading
representations.

This mesh was sold between 2012 and 2016.

But while it was marketed as being earthquake-grade, it did not
meet testing standards.

The 500E steel mesh standard was brought in by the government after
the Canterbury earthquakes. It allows more movement of buildings so
foundations do not crack.

Steel mesh is typically used as reinforcement in concrete floor
slabs, driveways or pathways to make them stronger and more able to
withstand ground movement.

The mesh is meant to be able to stretch by at least 10 per cent.
The standard was increased from 2 per cent after the Christchurch
earthquake.

Lack of stretch was a reason the CTV Building collapsed, killing
115 people.

Lawyer Adina Thorn, Esq. -- enquiries@adinathorn.co.nz -- is now
proposing a class action to seek compensation for homeowners who
have ended up with non-compliant steel mesh in their properties.

"The mesh is there forever. Everyone wants to know their home is
compliant. Steel & Tube cannot give that assurance -- we know the
mesh is non-compliant -- what we don't know enough about is
performance of that non-complaint mesh in an earthquake. That
uncertainty is stressful and unacceptable. We are seeking for
owners to be compensated for that."

She said registrations of interest for the class action, which
would be funded so owners did not have to pay the court costs, were
running at a high level.

Sentencing would bring more homeowners forward, she said.

If the action is successful, the funder would receive a share of
any payout.

Mark Malpass, chief executive of Steel & Tube, said:  "Steel & Tube
acknowledged in the Commerce Commission prosecution that prior to
April 2016 there were deficiencies in the testing of its steel
mesh. Based on information presented at the sentencing hearing,
Steel & Tube believes the mesh will perform in materially the same
way as mesh tested in full compliance with the requirements of the
standard."[GN]

SUFFOLK, NY: Court Denies Certification of Taxpayers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned BRUCE W. BROWNYARD, ANTON
BONDY, HARBOR CLUB, LLC, and those persons whose identities were
unknown at the time of this action was commenced and who are also
aggrieved as taxpayers of the Southwest Sewer District #3, herein
named as Plaintiffs listed in Schedules A and B annexed to the
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff(s), v. THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND THE
SOUTHWEST SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3, Defendant(s), Docket No. 1596-2015,
Mot. Seq. Nos. 005-MD; 006-MG; 007-MD; 008-MD (Sup. Ct. Nassau
County).

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs' counsel alleges that
the plaintiffs are comprised of over 340,000 residents and over
75,000 taxpayers/ratepayers of the Suffolk County Southwest Sewer
District #3, who have been overtaxed and overcharged by the
defendants in the collective amount of more than $259,000,000.00 as
of the adopted 2017 Suffolk County Operating Budget and the
County's adopted 2017-2019 Capital Budget and Program. According to
plaintiffs' counsel, an average taxpayer in the District is
entitled to a refund of $3,419.16.

Pursuant to CPLR Section 901(a), one or more members of a plaintiff
class may act in a representative capacity on behalf of all other
members if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members; (3) the claims of the representative
parties are typical of the claims of the class; (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class; and (5) a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.

The plaintiff class representative has the burden of establishing
compliance with the statutory requirements for class action
certification under CPLR 901 and 902, and mere general or
conclusory allegations in the pleadings or affidavits are
insufficient to sustain this burden.

In support of plaintiffs' motion, counsel submits an attorney
affirmation with no affidavit from a party plaintiff. Since the
plaintiffs' motion is supported merely by an attorney's
affirmation, and since the plaintiffs' pleadings are unverified by
a party and consist of general and conclusory allegations, the
plaintiffs have failed to sustain the burden of establishing
compliance with the statutory requirements for class action
certification   

Therefore, plaintiffs' motion for class action status is denied.

A full-text copy of the Nassau County Supreme Court's July 13, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycudkzf7 from
Leagle.com.

Reilly, Like & Tenety, Paul Sabatino, II, Esq., Attorneys for
Plaintiff.

Arnold & Porter Kay Scholer LLP, Berkman, Henoch, Peterson, Peddy &
Fenchel, P.C., Attorneys for Defendants.

SUNWING VACATION: Faces Class Action on Use of Term "Champagne"
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2018, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class
action brought by the Plaintiff against Sunwing Vacations Inc. and
Sunwing Airlines Inc. on behalf of all Quebec consumers alleging
the use of the word "champagne" in various ways without serving
Champagne, engaging in an alleged deceptive commercial practice in
contravention of the Consumer Protection Act. These allegations
have not been proven in Court.

The class action includes all consumers in Quebec who purchased (or
obtained) tickets or travelled with Sunwing Vacations Inc., also
doing business as Signature Vacations, or Sunwing Airlines Inc. for
a flight or vacation package presented, publicized or described
using the word "champagne" between February 10, 2014 and April 16,
2018.

         Contact:
         Mtre Sebastien A. Paquette,Esq.
         Mtre Jeremie Martin,Esq.
         Email: spaquette@champlainlawyers.com
                jmartin@champlainlawyers.com [GN]

SWAP.COM INC: Haefner Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney Haefner on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Swap.Com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-03682, (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2018), seeks collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for sixty calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Defendant was a Delaware corporation which maintains a facility at
850 Veterans Parkway, Bolingbrook, IL, where Haefner was an
employee until she was terminated as part of, or as a result of a
mass layoff in
March 30, 2018. Swap.com failed to provide at least 60 days'
advance written notice of termination, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Tel: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181

            - and -

     Blair R. Zanzig, Esq.
     John F. Hiltz, Esq.
     HILTZ & ZANZIG LLC
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 205
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 566-9008
     Fax: (312) 566-9015
     Email: bzanzig@hzlawgroup.com


T-MOBILE USA: Court Narrows Claims in P. Ames' RFDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Patrick Ames' (Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint
in the case captioned PATRICK AMES, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01666-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

This case arises out of T-Mobile's alleged practice of soliciting
personal information from potential customers and using it to open
unauthorized cell phone service accounts. The alleged purpose of
this practice is to generate revenue by billing the unauthorized
accounts.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint with the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging (1)
violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(RFDCPA), (2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
(3) violation of Cal. Bus. Code Section 17200, (UCL); (4) common
law fraud; and (5) invasion of privacy.

RFDCPA CLAIM

T-Mobile argues that the Plaintiff's RFDCPA claim fails because the
Plaintiff does not allege a consumer debt. The existence of a
consumer debt is a necessary element of the Plaintiff's RFDCPA
claim. Consumer debt, for purposes of the RFDCPA, means debt
stemming from a "consumer credit transaction."  Because the
Plaintiff thus fails to allege a consumer credit transaction, the
Court grants T-Mobile's motion to dismiss as to the RFDCPA claim.
Given that the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once and
he explicitly alleges that he did not purchase any goods or
services from T-Mobile, it is clear that the Plaintiff cannot cure
this defect through further amendment. This dismissal is therefore
with prejudice.

CLRA CLAIM

To state a CLRA claim, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant
caused him harm by employing a statutorily enumerated deceptive act
or practice in connection with a consumer transactionfor the sale
or lease of goods or services.

Here, the Plaintiff argues in his opposition that T-Mobile forced
the Plaintiff into a transaction and agreement without his
permission. This argument is unpersuasive. The premise that the
Plaintiff did not grant T-Mobile permission to charge him for
telephone services is logically inconsistent with the idea that the
Plaintiff and T-Mobile agreed to exchange telephone services for
money.  By thus alleging that he never entered into an agreement
with T-Mobile, the Plaintiff has negated the transaction element of
his CLRA claim.  The Court therefore grants T-Mobile's motion with
respect to the CLRA claim.

UCL CLAIM

T-Mobile argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his UCL
claim. Standing under the UCL requires (1) a loss or deprivation of
money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e.,
economic injury, and (2) a showing that the economic injury was the
result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice.

The Plaintiff here is subject to an imminent threat of injury from
the allegedly enforceable $46.66 debt. T-Mobile cites no authority
and presents no argument to the effect that the Court of Appeal in
Hale (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383-84
(2010), erred in holding that enforceable debt is independently
sufficient to qualify as economic injury.

Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
economic injury and therefore denies T-Mobile's motion to dismiss
as to the UCL claim.

COMMON LAW FRAUD CLAIM

T-Mobile argues the Plaintiff fails to allege a misrepresentation
because (1) he does not claim a credit report application was
unnecessary to obtain a price quote on T-Mobile's services; (2) he
fails to allege the representation of not being charged for a
credit report application was false; and (3) his claim that he
would not be charged for anything was implausible because telephone
companies do not provide free phones.

T-Mobile's arguments are problematic in that they ignore some of
the Plaintiff's central allegations. The Plaintiff clearly alleges
that T-Mobile represented to him that filling out the credit check
application, without more, would not cause the Plaintiff to incur
any charges. The Plaintiff alleges this representation was false
because, after he filled out the application, T-Mobile used the
information he provided to charge him for its services, despite the
fact that he never agreed to such charges. This allegation is
sufficient to state a misrepresentation.

Accordingly, the Court denies T-Mobile's motion to dismiss as to
the fraud claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmgf7gr from Leagle.com.

Patrick Ames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Baird Carpenter
-- david.carpenter@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth Anne Sperling -- elizabeth.sperling@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP & Kristine M. Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird, LLP, pro hac vice.

TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Lakatosh Sues over Sale of Gravity Knives
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL LAKATOSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES COMPANY, LTD.;
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC713875 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants have uniformly marketed and
offered for sale illegal gravity knives despite their illegality
and without representing them as such to consumers.

Techtronic, through its Milwaukee brand, manufactures, markets and
sells a popular model of utility knife known as Milwaukee Fastback
"Press and Flip" Knife.  According to the Milwaukee brand's own
publicity pieces, the Milwaukee Fastback Products are "[djesigned
to activate the blade 3X faster than a 2-handed opening [utility
knife]." The resulting "easy activation" confirms Techtronic's
"relentless commitment to provide innovative solutions to the end
user that will increase productivity."

The glaring trouble with Milwaukee Fastback Products, however, is
that they are illegal to possess or carry in many jurisdictions.
Defendants nevertheless market and sell Milwaukee Fastback Products
virtually everywhere, including through Defendant The Home Depot,
Inc. stores and various other retail outlets, including Amazon.com
and other online vendors.

Defendant The Home Depot, Inc., sells its own house-branded knives
under the "Husky" name that operate similarly to the Milwaukee
Fastback Products, and are similarly illegal in many jurisdictions.
Collectively, the Milwaukee Fastback Products and the similar Husky
knives, are referred to herein as the "Illegal Gravity Knives."

Techtronic, through Milwaukee, manufactures in China and sells in
the United States a series of foldable knives under the brand name
"Fastback." Some Fastbacks, referred to generally as "folding
knives," are more akin to a traditional folding-blade pocketknife,
while others are described as "utility knives." The Milwaukee
Fastback Products, and the similar Husky knives, may be activated
(meaning the blade is exposed and locked in an open, operable
position) by holding the knife in one hand, cocking the wrist,
depressing a button in the handle, and quickly uncocking or
flipping the wrist outward.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854 4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854 0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
                  koncius@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Joseph J. Zonies, Esq.
          Anthony L. Giacomini, Esq.
          Gregory D. Bentley, Esq.
          ZONIES LAW LLC
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 464 5300
          Facsimile: (720) 961 9252
          E-mail: jzonies@zonieslaw.com
                  agiacomini@zonieslaw.com
                  gbentley@zonieslaw.com

                - and -

          Benjamin B. Lieb
          TALUS LAW GROUP LLC
          816 South Adams Streets
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 246 4767
          E-mail: ben@taluslaw.com


TEVA CANADA: Valsartan Class Action Commences
---------------------------------------------
A proposed national class action has been commenced on behalf of
all Canadians who purchased or ingested one or more of the
valsartan medications which have been recalled. For more
information go to http://valsartanclassaction.com.

In the proposed class action, the plaintiff alleges that the five
defendant pharmaceutical companies who supplied contaminated
valsartan to Canadians across the country, were negligent in their
manufacturing of the drugs and in their failure to implement
appropriate quality control testing when they received raw material
from their supplier in China.

According to the Health Canada bulletin, NDMA is a potential human
carcinogen which means that it could cause cancer with long-term
exposure. According to Health Canada, the valsartan with the NDMA
impurity was supplied by a Chinese manufacturer Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceuticals. The defendants in the proposed class action are
five pharmaceutical companies whose products appear on the Health
Canada recall bulletin. The defendants are Teva Canada Limited,
Sandoz Canada Inc., Pro Doc Limitee, Sanis Health Inc., and Sivem
Pharmaceuticals ULC.

"It is horrifying that Canadians can never be sure what ingredients
are going into their medication. We have no way of knowing where
pharmaceutical companies are sourcing their ingredients, whether it
is China or other countries around the world who may not have
proper quality control measures in place. Maybe the time has come
to identify the country of origin for drugs being sold to
Canadians," said Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers PC.

         Contact:
         Ted Charney,Esq.
         Charney Lawyers PC
         Telephone: 416.964.7950 ext. 225
         Email: tedc@charneylawyers.com [GN]

TOSHIBA CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on July 24 disclosed that on July 17, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the dismissal of a putative securities class action, which alleged
that a technology company (the "Company") and its current and
former chief executive officers engaged in fraudulent accounting in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Japanese securities law. Automotive
Industries Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Toshiba Corp., No.
16-56058 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit
analyzed the second prong of the transaction test articulated in
Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010) and
adopted the Second and Third Circuits' "irrevocable liability"
test, which evaluates where the purchasers incurred the liability
to take and pay for securities, and where the seller incurred the
liability to deliver the securities. The Ninth Circuit remanded the
case to the district court so that plaintiffs could amend their
complaint to try to meet this standard.

The Company is based in Tokyo, Japan and its ordinary shares trade
on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Lead plaintiff is a U.S.-based pension
fund that purchased the Company's American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") on an over-the-counter market. At issue in the case is the
scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison, where the Court
held that the Exchange Act did not apply extraterritorially and
thus is limited to deceptive conduct in connection with the
purchase or sales of any securities (i) registered on a national
securities exchange, or (ii) domestic transactions in other
securities not so registered. In the district court, defendants
argued that, under Morrison, the putative securities fraud class
action should be dismissed because the over-the-counter market on
which the ADRs were sold is not a "national exchange" within the
meaning of Morrison, and there was not a domestic transaction
between the ADR purchaser and the Company. The district court
agreed and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit first ruled that lead plaintiff could
not satisfy the first prong of the Morrison test because the
over-the-counter market on which the Company's ADRs traded is not
an "exchange" under the Exchange Act. With regard to the second
prong of the Morrison test (i.e., domestic transactions in other
securities not so registered), the Ninth Circuit adopted the Second
and Third Circuits' "irrevocable liability" test, which looks to
where purchasers incurred liability to take and pay for securities,
and where sellers incurred the liability to deliver the securities.
The Court noted that lead plaintiff purchased the ADRs in the
United States and the depositary bank sold the ADRs in the United
States. Missing from the complaint, however, were specific factual
allegations regarding where the parties to the transaction incurred
irrevocable liability. As a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the
case to the district court to allow plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.

This decision is significant because it establishes in the Ninth
Circuit that non-U.S. companies can be subject to liability under
the Exchange Act in connection with the purchase and sale of ADRs,
even when the ADRs do not trade on a U.S. exchange.

The case is AUTO INDUS PENSION TRUST FUND V TOSHIBA [GN]

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Bid to Certify Terminated Policy Classes Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GORDON AND MARY FELLER ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01378-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Christina A. Snyder entered an order staying Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of terminated policy classes, pending the
outcome of the Ninth Circuit's decision of an appeal.  Once the
Ninth Circuit has ruled, the parties shall submit a stipulated
briefing schedule.

The Court said, "On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit granted defendant Transamerica Life Insurance
Company's petition for permission to appeal the Court's December
11, 2017 order granting class certification for classes of
policyholders with polices that remained in-force. On May 24, 2018,
plaintiffs Gordon and Mary Feller, et al., filed a motion for class
certification for classes of policyholders with terminated
policies. Plaintiffs seek to certify a national class and
California subclasses encompassing policies that were subjected to
MDR increases and thereafter terminated due to lapse or surrender.
Plaintiffs contend that the legal analysis required to address
plaintiffs' motion is "essentially the same" as the analysis used
in the Court's December 11, 2017 order. Given that the owners of
the terminated policies assert "legal claims identical to those
alleged with respect to the in-force [p]olicies," the Court
declines to rule on plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
classes of policyholders with terminated policies until the Ninth
Circuit has ruled on the pending appeal."


TURNER OIL: Approval of FLSA Suit Settlement Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN STANLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TURNER OIL &
GAS PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-386 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
recommended that the Court grants (i) the parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiffs'
counsel' motion for attorney's fees and reimbursement of costs.

This is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, in which the Plaintiffs allege that Turner failed
to compensate individuals it employed in the Landman position with
overtime pay in violation of the FLSA and, for each Landman working
in Ohio, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").  

The Plaintiffs maintain that Turner misclassified each Landman as
an independent contractor, rather than an employee, and required
them to work overtime without being properly paid.  Among other
defenses, Turner asserts that the Plaintiffs-Landmen were property
classified, treated, and paid as independent contractors.

On Jan. 13, 2017, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to conditionally certify an opt-in class under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), preliminarily certified the case as a collective action,
and authorized notice to be sent to the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs.  Thereafter, the parties reached a settlement of the
collective-action claims and moved the Court to approve their
settlement.

On Oct. 2, 2017, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
approval of the collective action settlement, which included the
class representatives as well as 25 other individuals who filed
opt-in notices ("the Section 216(b) class").  Pursuant to the
parties' agreement, Turner would pay a settlement fund of $344,850,
with $241,895 of that total amount paid to the individual opt-in
Plaintiffs and $102,955 of the total payment paid to the
Plaintiffs' attorneys for fees, expenses, and costs.

The parties also moved for preliminary approval of the Rule 23
class action claim.  In response to the Court's Order, the parties
submitted a revised class notice.  On March 6, 2018, the Court
preliminarily approved the parties' settlement and conditionally
certified the following settlement class of 106 individuals for
settlement purposes only: all individuals who provided contract
Landman abstract title and related services to Turner between May
20, 2014, and March 27, 2016 ("the Rule 23 settlement class").  The
Court directed that notice be provided to the class members and
referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Deavers to conduct a
fairness hearing and to issue a report and recommendation.

Consistent with Section 4 of the Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release, Turner, as the claims administrator,
provided notice to the members of the Rule 23 settlement class.
The notice period ran from March 27, 2018, through April 26, 2018.
No objections to the proposed settlement have been filed.

On June 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge conducted a fairness hearing.
The counsel for both parties appeared. Other than named Plaintiff
Stanley, no class members or objectors appeared personally.  The
parties have moved for final approval of the class action
settlement.  The Plaintiff's counsel has filed a motion for
attorney's fees and reimbursement of costs as well as supplements
to that request.

Magistrate Judge Deavers finds that the Plaintiffs have met their
burden of showing that the prerequisites for the certification of a
class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been
satisfied in the case, that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and, if certain conditions are met, that
the Plaintiffs' counsel's requested award of fees and expenses is
fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, she recommended that

     (1) because the proposed settlement of the action on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class, that
the Joint Motion for Approval be granted, and that the Settlement
Agreement be finally approved by the Court only on the condition
that the counsel submits the information identified in subparts
(5)(a)-(c)

     (2) the Rule 23 class be finally certified for settlement
purposes;

     (3) the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement;

     (4) the Rule 23 settlement class, the Representative
Plaintiffs, and Turner be bound by the release as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; and

     (5) the Plaintiffs' counsel's Motion for Fees and Costs be
granted, and that the Plaintiffs' counsel be awarded reasonable
attorneys' fees in the amount of $49,105.30, and reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $431.37, for a total combined amount of
$49,536.67, only on the condition that counsel file the following
information with the Court within seven days of the Report and
Recommendation: (a) a breakdown of the calculation reflecting how
counsel determined the proportionate reduction to the settlement
fund, including details of the amount of lost overtime for each of
the 55 class members who opted-out of the settlement; (b)atotal
list of anticipated payouts to the class members; and (c)
clarification of the dollar amount in the cy pres fund and the name
of the charity, if one has been mutually selected by the parties.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of the Report and
Recommendation, that party may, within 14 days, file and serve on
all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the
part in question, as well as the basis for objection.  The response
to objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with
a copy.

The Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties that the
failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a
waiver of the right to de novo review of by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court.
Even when timely objections are filed, the appellate review of
issues not raised in those objections is waived.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2018 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/2QwtWS from
Leagle.com.

Jonathan Stanley, Mary Elliott, Mark C. Ramach, Joshua Foote, Sean
Barber, Jason Wiemann, Michael W. Babin, Robert Stovall, Patti
Stovall, Sarabeth Yoder, Derek Dierkes, Maria Rizkall-Gerguis,
Shaun Weidman, Diana Carman, Catherine Sakla, Jason Bigley, Emily
Sullivan, Christina Hanna, Caroline Chesher & Heather Atkinson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Reilley Forman --
eforman@marshallandmorrow.com -- Marshall and Forman LLC, John
Spenceley Marshall -- jmarshall@marshallandmorrow.com -- Marshall
and Forman, LLC, Louis Abraham Jacobs , Marshall and Morrow LLC,
Samuel Micah Schlein -- sschlein@marshallandmorrow.com -- Marshall
and Forman LLC & Matthew A. Schwartz -- MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com --
Law Office of Matthew A. Schwartz.

Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan Rea Secrest -- jsecrest@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC & Sara H. Jodka -- sjodka@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC.

TWITTER INC: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned In Re TWITTER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Case
No. 16-cv-05314-JST. (N.D. Cal.)

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Twitter common stock between
February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015 against Twitter and two of its
officers for violations of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff Doris Shenwick alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period in press releases and filings with the SEC and in
oral statements to the media, securities analysts and investors.

Rule 23(a) provides: One or more members of a class may sue or be
sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Class certification is proper only if the
trial court has concluded, after a rigorous analysis, that

Rule 23(a) has been satisfied.

Second, a plaintiff must also establish that one of the bases for
certification in Rule 23(b) is met. Here, the Plaintiffs invoke
Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that the Plaintiffs show that the
presence of questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITION

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons and entities
that, during the period from February 6, 2015, through July 28,
2015, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
publicly traded common stock of Twitter, Inc. and were damaged
thereby.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

Numerosity

The numerosity requirement is satisfied when a plaintiff shows that
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. The Plaintiffs contend that Twitter had an average
of 659.2 million shares outstanding and actively trading on the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE) during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs
have satisfied their burden to show the number of putative class
members is sufficiently numerous that their joinder would be
impracticable.

Commonality

The commonality requirement is satisfied when a plaintiff shows
that there are questions of law or fact common to the class.

The Plaintiffs contend, and the Defendants do not dispute, that
questions of law or fact common to the putative class include: (1)
whether the Defendants' statements to the investing public during
the Class Period misrepresented material facts about Twitter  (2)
whether the Defendants' statements omitted material facts necessary
to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading; (3) whether the Defendants acted
with the requisite state of mind and (4) whether Twitter's stock
price was artificially inflated as a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations and/or omissions. These questions are sufficient
to fulfill the commonality requirement.  

Adequacy of Representation

To determine whether named plaintiffs will adequately represent a
class, courts must resolve two questions: (1) do the named
plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with
other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their
counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?

The Plaintiffs argue KBC and National Elevator are adequate
co-class representatives because they were injured by Twitter's
misstatements and omissions in the same way as other class members,
and will vigorously represent the class. KBC is an asset management
company which purchased 647,544 Twitter shares, held 344,410 shares
on the date of Twitter's 1Q15 earnings call, and held 20,870 shares
at the end of the class period. KBC suffered substantial losses as
a result of Twitter's omissions and misstatements. KBC reviewed the
complaint, did not purchase shares at the direction of counsel, is
willing to serve as a representative, and will not accept payment
beyond that ordered by the Court.  National Elevator provides
retirement benefits for members for the International Union of
Elevator Constructors. National Elevator purchased and held 91,700
Twitter shares during the class period including during the 1Q15
earnings call, then held 16,920 at the end of the class period.
National Elevator is similarly involved in the case.

Motley Rice and Robbins Geller seek appointment as co-class
counsel.  In appointing class counsel, the Court considers
counsel's work in identifying or investigating potential claims in
the action, experience in handling class actions, knowledge of the
applicable law and the resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class. Both firms have extensive class action
securities litigation experience. Motley Rice and Robbins Geller
have both vigorously prosecuted this case by investigating claims,
preparing the complaint, defending the complaint against dismissal,
conducting discovery, and pursuing class certification.  

Twitter argues it is unnecessary to appoint Robbins Geller because
Motley Rice is adequate on its own. This argument is not
persuasive. First, Twitter cites an out-of-circuit district court
case for the proposition that the Court should reject Plaintiffs'
request for co-lead counsel.  Even that case, however, recognized
that in certain situations, the appointment of multiple lead
counsel may better protect the interests of the plaintiff class.

Second, to state the obvious, Twitter's interests in this
litigation are not aligned with those of the class.  Thus, it is
unlikely that Twitter has the class's interests in mind when it
argues against the appointment of additional counsel. Lastly,
courts in this district and circuit have appointed co-class counsel
in PSLRA cases. This is a large securities case defended by
experienced, knowledgeable counsel, and it is appropriate for
Motley Rice to call upon additional resources. The appointment of
co-class counsel is appropriate.

The Court finds that KBC and National Elevator are adequate class
representatives, and Motley Rice and Robbins Geller are adequate
class counsel.

Typicality

Typicality exists if the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

The Plaintiffs contend that typicality is satisfied because both
KBC's and National Elevator's claims and injuries arise from the
same events and conduct that gave rise to the claims of other Class
members. Defendants do not contest typicality, nor does it appear
that KBC and National Elevator are subject to unique defenses which
would threaten to become the focus of the litigation.  Accordingly,
the typicality requirement is satisfied.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Predominance

The predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on the
relationship between the common and individual issues' in the case
and tests whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to
warrant adjudication by representation.

The Defendants attack not the methodology of the proposed model,
but the fact that the Plaintiffs' expert has not yet calculated
damages for the Class's alleged claims. But the Plaintiffs' burden
at this stage is only to demonstrate that the questions of law or
fact common to the class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs' measure of damages here constitutes a
sound methodology and they have satisfied the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  

Superiority

The second Rule 23(b)(3) requirement is superiority. In determining
superiority, courts must consider the four factors of Rule
23(b)(3): (1) the class members' interests in individually
controlling a separate action; (2) the extent and nature of
litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against
class members; (3) the desirability of concentrating the litigation
in the particular forum; and (4) the manageability of a class
action.  

Courts in this district have recognized the utility of the class
action device in securities cases. Not only are all factors met
here, but Defendants also do not contest superiority. The Court
therefore concludes that a class action is superior to other
methods for resolving this controversy.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court certifies a class defined as follows:
all persons and entities that, during the period from February 6,
2015, through July 28, 2015, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of Twitter,
Inc. and were damaged thereby.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 16, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y84xqbao from Leagle.com.

Doris Shenwick, as Trustee for the Doris Shenwick Trust,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel S. Drosman --
dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle
Suzanne Myers -- denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, Juan Carlos Sanchez --
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Matthew Sinclair Weiler -- mweiler@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld LLP, Scott H. Saham -- scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Susannah Ruth Conn -- scoon@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Richard Costolo & Anthony Noto, Defendants,
represented by James Glenn Kreissman -- jkreissman@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Alexis Susan Coll-Very --
acoll-very@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Dean
Michael McGee , Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet
A. Gochman -- jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com
-- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Simona Gurevich Strauss --
sstrauss@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

John P. Norton, Movant, represented by Michael Walter Stocker --
mikes@hbsslaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christopher J. Keller ,
Labaton Sucharow LLP & Francis P. McConville , Labaton Sucharow
LLP.

U.S. XPRESS: I. Nunez's Suit Remains in District Court
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, adopts the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand in the case captioned ISA NUNEZ, v. U.S. XPRESS LEASING,
INC., ET AL, Civil Action No. 2:17-1322 (W.D. La.).

The Plaintiff argues that removal is untimely under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(c)(1). Under the removal statute, a case that is not
initially removable may be removed within 30 days after receipt by
the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an
amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may
first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become
removable.

As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, Defendant Mountain Lake
Risk Retention Group, Inc., removed the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1). Under this provision, a defendant may
remove an action within thirty days of service of the initial
pleading. The Fifth Circuit has held that this provision also
allows an unserved defendant to remove a commenced action prior to
being served. The instant action commenced when the Plaintiff filed
her petition in state court in January 2016, but the Plaintiff
never served Mountain Lake.

Under Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 231 F.3d 165, 177 (5th Cir. 2000),
Mountain Lake could thus remove the action at any time. Because
removal in this case occurred pursuant to the right of removal in
advance of service and not the right of removal following receipt
of a document indicating the existence of grounds for removal the
one-year time bar in Section 1446(c)(1) does not apply. This Court
may properly exercise removal jurisdiction.

Because Mountain Lake's notice of removal was timely, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and for Attorney Fees is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yapslz49 from Leagle.com.

Lisa Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Erin M. Alley , Baggett
McCall et al.

U S Xpress Leasing Inc, Total Transportation of Mississippi L L C,
Wallace Dalton Graham & Mountain Lake Risk Retention Group Inc,
Defendants, represented by James M. Dill , Dill Law Firm.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Beckman, writing for BridgeTower Media Newswire, reports
that a putative class-action accusing the ride-share service Uber
of imposing fictitious fees was not subject to arbitration, the 1st
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: London Taxi Drivers Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kate Holton, writing for Reuters, reports that London taxi drivers
are exploring whether they could bring a class action lawsuit
against Uber, their trade body confirmed on July 24, after the
mobile app was granted a temporary licence renewal to operate in
Britain's capital.

"We've been approached by a number of members to help them explore
whether there would be grounds for a potential class action on
behalf of all taxi drivers against Uber," Steve McNamara, General
Secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, said in a
statement.

"We are in the very early stages of obtaining legal advice from
leading law firm Mishcon de Reya on whether this is a possibility,"
he added.

Sky News had previously reported the plan. [GN]

UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies R. Holl's Writ of Mandamus
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Writ of Mandamus in the case
captioned RANDALL HOLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05856-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Randall Holl filed a putative class action complaint
against Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.  The complaint
alleges that the Defendant violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Interstate Commerce Act,
49 U.S.C. Section 13708(b), and asserts federal and state law
unjust enrichment claims.

The Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court
to vacate its order compelling arbitration and enter an order
denying defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration.

The Court does wish to respond to the Plaintiff's assertions that
(1) the Court's exercise of its discretion to stay rather than
dismiss the case was based on an incorrect reading of the law, and
(2) the Court's statement that a party challenging an order
compelling arbitration and staying the action may proceed
immediately to a direct appeal by simply dismissing his claims
under Rule 41 is legally incorrect.

As to the first point, the Court's order denying leave to seek
reconsideration, which cited Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763
F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014), did not make a claim. Instead, it
quoted, verbatim, binding circuit precedent. Plaintiff does not
argue that the Court inaccurately quoted Nguyen, or that Nguyen in
turn inaccurately cited Section 3 of the FAA.

In any event, the Court recognized that dismissal could be granted
as a matter of discretion, but found that Plaintiff failed to show
any manifest failure to consider his argument raised in passing in
a footnote at the very end of his opposition brief) so as to
warrant reconsideration. The Court's order compelling arbitration
was unambiguous, and granted the precise relief that the moving
party had requested: a stay. The Court thus found that Plaintiff
failed to meet his burden of showing that reconsideration was
warranted under this district's local rules.

As to the second point, the Court submits that a close reading of
Plaintiff's footnote 21, and the cases cited in it, does not
establish that the statement that Plaintiff could have voluntarily
dismissed his case if he wanted to appeal immediately was legally
incorrect. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that
voluntary dismissals with prejudice that produce an adverse final
judgment may be appealed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 7, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaq9cvcf from Leagle.com.

Randall Holl, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and as a representative of the class,, Plaintiff, represented by
Matthew C. Helland -- helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, Adam
William Hansen -- atadam@apollo-law.com -- Apollo Law, LLC, Brock
J. Specht -- bspecht@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, pro hac vice &
Kai Richter -- KRichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac
vice.

United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey
Michelle Sprenkel -- ssprenkel@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP
& Gregory Bryant Koltun -- gkoltun@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

UNITED STATES: Dismissal of VOA Contractors' FAC Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, affirmed the
Court of Federal Claims' judgment granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned SEH AHN
LEE, IRINA RYAN, AHMAD NARIMAN, MARK PEACH, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, No. 2017-1643 (Fed. Cir.).

The Plaintiffs each entered into agreements to provide services to
Voice of America (VOA), a U.S. government funded broadcast service.
The agreements were in the form of a series of individual purchase
order vendor (POV) contracts.  Unhappy with the terms of their
contracts, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging
that, along with other individuals who have served as independent
contractors for VOA, they should have been retained through
personal services contracts or appointed to positions in the civil
service.

On appeal, the plaintiffs raise several contract-based claims,
seeking damages for the loss of the additional compensation and
benefits to which they contend they were entitled.

In support of the breach of express contract theory presented in
their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs argue on appeal that
the scope of their work was materially limited by the use of terms
such as independent contracting and non-personal services in their
contracts.

In asserting that the breach of their contract rights consisted of
the failure to compensate them for providing personal services, the
plaintiffs ignored the fact that their contracts specifically
designated them as independent contractors who were not providing
personal services and set forth their compensation accordingly.

For that reason, the trial court properly concluded that the BBG
did not breach any contractual obligations with respect to the
plaintiffs' compensation, and that the alleged contract breaches
were necessarily based on an implied contract to provide and be
compensated for personal services, rather than on their express
contracts. The Claims Court therefore properly dismissed the
allegations of breach of express contract contained in Count II of
the first amended complaint.

The plaintiffs next argue that the trial court erred in concluding
that the proposed second amended complaint failed to state a claim
for breach of express contract, and that the proposed amendments
were therefore futile.

The Court discerns no error in the trial court's assessment of the
proposed second amended complaint and the language of the
plaintiffs' express contracts. On appeal, the plaintiffs fail to
identify any specific provision of the representative contracts
that was breached, instead, they rely on general allegations
regarding the rights normally enjoyed by independent contractors.

The plaintiffs' argument that the government breached the contracts
by requiring the plaintiffs to provide services that were integral
to its governmental mission and to perform services of the type
performed by federal employees is general in nature and is not
based on any particular provision in the contracts. The plaintiffs'
only allegation on that score is that independent contracts do not
allow for such work, according to provisions of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

That allegation, however, is directed to the requirements of the
regulation, not the provisions of the plaintiffs' contracts. The
proposed second amended complaint contains no allegation that any
provision in the plaintiffs' express contracts specifically
prohibited such arrangements or that the government breached any
such provision in the course of administering the contracts.

The Claims Court correctly held that the proposed second amended
complaint failed to set forth a cognizable theory of breach of
express contract.

The plaintiffs alleged as part of their overall breach of contract
claim that they served under implied-in-fact contracts and that the
BBG was liable to them under the implied-in-fact contract theory of
quantum meruit for the value of the personal services they
provided, together with their costs of performance and a reasonable
profit.

The trial court determined that the plaintiffs' implied contract
and quantum meruit claims could not survive a motion to dismiss. In
reaching that conclusion, the court ruled that the express
contracts between the parties were not void, and that the terms of
the express contracts covered the same subject matter as the
alleged implied-infact contracts. The court therefore concluded
that the respective rights of the parties were defined not by any
implied-in-fact contracts or the principles of quantum meruit, but
by the terms of their express contracts.

The Court finds no error in the trial court's determination that
the alleged implied-in-fact contracts do not deal with subject
matter that is separate from and unrelated to the valid express
contracts. Because the plaintiffs had express contracts with the
government to provide the services they rendered, and because the
plaintiffs have not alleged that they performed additional work
entirely unrelated to their express contracts, there is no force to
their theory that they had implied-in-fact contracts to perform the
same work that was the subject of their express POV contracts.5
Accordingly, in order to prevail on their implied-in-fact contract
claim, the plaintiffs must show that their express contracts were
void.

The plaintiffs separately allege that they are entitled to relief
under a quantum meruit theory. It appears, however, that the
plaintiffs' quantum meruit theory is in essence the same as their
implied-in-fact contract theory.

Because the plaintiffs seek to model their quantum meruit theory of
relief on the Amdahl case, we treat their argument as being based
on an implied-in-fact contract theory over which the Claims Court
has jurisdiction. As indicated above, however, the plaintiffs'
implied-in-fact contract theory cannot survive a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The
assertion of quantum meruit as a basis for calculating damages
cannot rescue an implied-in-fact theory of recovery that is
otherwise not cognizable. The trial court therefore properly
dismissed the plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim as well.

A full-text copy of the Federal Circuit Court's July 13, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6uqbpc5 from
Leagle.com.

DAVID LEO ENGELHARDT , Themis, PLLC, argued for
plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by JOHN PIERCE , MICHAEL
CONE.

HILLARY STERN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD A. READLER , ROBERT E.
KIRSCHMAN, JR. , REGINALD T. BLADES, JR.

UNITED STATES: Iraqi Files Citizenship Suit Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Altman, writing for TBO, reports that Haeder Alanbki, an
Iraqi living in Orlando, applied to become a U.S. citizen in 2016.

Given his years as an interpreter for U.S. forces in Iraq, he
thought it would be a simple formality. But in a lawsuit he filed
last month against the government, Mr. Alanbki claims he is the
victim of a secretive background screening policy that has been
used to keep thousands of Muslims from obtaining U.S. citizenship
since 2008.

According to troops he worked with, Mr. Alanbki, 36, risked his
life serving with Americans, accompanying them on scores of
dangerous missions. He said he was stabbed by insurgents. His
brother was killed while on a mission with Americans.

Just to get to Orlando, Mr. Alanbki had to obtain a coveted Special
Immigration Visa, given to Iraqis and Afghans who helped the U.S.
They are issued only after a stringent background check that
includes proving no involvement in illegal, unethical or terrorist
activities. Once here, he obtained four state security officer
licenses, each of which also requires vetting.

And as a private first class with the Florida Army National Guard
now doing annual training, Mr. Alanbki passed additional background
checks.

Despite all this, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has
yet to grant Mr. Alanbki his wish to become an American citizen. So
last month, he decided to sue.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Alanbki claims the government's "Controlled
Application Review and Resolution Program'' secretly blacklisted
him as a national security concern when he is not.

The same program is at the heart of a class-action lawsuit
challenging provisions of President Donald Trump's 2017 executive
order preventing people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan and Yemen from obtaining visas. All are majority Muslim
countries.

The program is not new. It was created in 2008 by the George W.
Bush administration and also used under President Barack Obama.
Opponents say it is aimed at keeping people from Muslim-majority
nations from gaining U.S. citizenship.

Between 2008 and 2012, more than 19,000 people from 21
Muslim-majority countries or regions were brought under this
program, according to both lawsuits. It is unclear how many
eventually were denied citizenship or how long their applications
were delayed.

Mr. Alanbki's lawsuit states that he hasn't been given an
opportunity to address immigration officials' concerns, or even
told what those concerns are.

The bulk of the 19,000 cases came during the Obama administration.
But Mr. Alanbki's attorney James Hacking says he is seeing an
uptick under Trump of already-screened applicants having their
citizenship requests delayed. His suit seeks to have the program
ruled unconstitutional.

Immigration officials would not comment on the lawsuit or the
policy, but say they judge each request individually and that
factors other than national security concerns also are considered.
Officials from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security,
also named as defendants, declined to comment.

Meanwhile, with his Green Card set to expire in 18 months and still
facing active death threats from insurgents for his work helping
Americans, Mr. Alanbki waits and worries.

"If I have to go back to Iraq," he said, "I am dead, and so are my
children."

Mr. Alanbki grew up southwest of Baghdad during the reign of Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein.

Though his father was a colonel in the Iraqi army, times were tough
for his family, who were members of the Shia sect of Islam brutally
oppressed during the rule of Hussein, a Sunni.

Mr. Alanbki said money was tight and opportunities were limited so
he spent his childhood splitting time between school and
supplementing the family's income through construction work and
cutting hair.

Things got even harder in the late 1990s after his father was
killed by Hussein's forces.

Meanwhile, Mr. Alanbki, spurred on in part by the 1986 Vietnam War
movie Heartbreak Ridge, starring Clint Eastwood, had developed a
fondness for America, seeing the far-off nation as a beacon of
hope.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq that
followed, Mr. Alanbki began working as a translator for U.S.
forces.

Though strongly believing "it was the right thing to do because
Iraq was so messed up," he said working with Americans exacted a
heavy toll.

"I got stabbed four times by terrorists," he said. "I got shot by
al-Qaida. I lost the toe on my left foot and had injuries in close
combat in the fight in Fallujah."

U.S. soldiers who served with Mr. Alanbki say he faced the same
dangers they did.

"When I say I trust Haeder with the lives of my team as well as
mine or my grand-kids, it is because from December of 2005 to
November of 2006, me and my folks lived, ate, slept and fought
beside him that whole time, night and day," said John McFarlane, a
retired Army first sergeant whose unit used Mr. Alanbki as an
interpreter.

David Catani, a sergeant first class in the Army Reserve who served
with Mr. Alanbki between 2004 and 2005, said the interpreter
provided useful intelligence.

"In Iraq, there are three different factions but 228 different
tribes," Catani said. "He had insight into things we were getting
into that maybe we didn't want to get into. We had no doubts where
his loyalties stood fighting terrorism."

Like other interpreters, Mr. Alanbki had a $25,000 price tag on his
head, Catani said.

"I am on the death squad lists," Mr. Alanbki said.

So in 2011, he obtained the Special Immigration Visa and, with his
wife and young son, left Iraq for the United States. The couple had
another child before divorcing in 2014.

Mr. Alanbki is now a security guard at Orlando International
Airport, holding three state security guard licenses, and attends
classes to become a diesel mechanic. He enlisted in the Army in
2013 but said he was told he could not serve as a full-time soldier
because he had custody of his two children after his divorce.

In 2016, Mr. Alanbki enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard
and applied for citizenship. Last year, while at Fort Benning for
boot camp and advanced infantry training, Mr. Alanbki had his
naturalization interview. He thought everything was proceeding as
planned until June 23, 2017, when he arrived for a naturalization
ceremony at the sprawling Georgia Army base.

He said he was pulled out of line and told he wouldn't be receiving
his citizenship that day even though soldiers from other countries,
including Muslim countries, were allowed to proceed.

Mr. Alanbki has regularly checked with USCIS officials since then.
Despite an inquiry from U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's office, his request
remains on hold.

Army Capt. Adam Sudbury, Mr. Alanbki's commander, described him as
a good soldier and person and said his unit has offered to assist
him with the citizenship process by meeting with immigration
officials and vouching for him.

During its reviews, USCIS investigates applicants to ensure they
aren't alcoholics, drug offenders, gamblers, convicts or someone
who lied to obtain immigration benefits or who participated in
genocide, torture or extrajudicial killings.

Court records show Mr. Alanbki did have problems during his
marriage.

In March 2014, an Orange County judge granted a temporary
restraining order against Mr. Alanbki, ruling that his wife was a
victim of domestic violence or had reason to believe she was in
danger of becoming a victim. That order expired in December 2014.

Mr. Alanbki's attorney, Jim Hacking, said the issue should have no
impact on his client's citizenship application.

"There is zero indication that I am aware of that USCIS has
factored this in to delay his case," he said.

Mr. Alanbki denies the allegations.

"I earned my way to come over here and . . .  now I'm doing my best
to raise my kids and build a future for them and me," he said. "My
citizenship is to complete my dream. I fought for this land of
freedom." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Sheridan to Consider Joining PILT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Palmer, writing for SheridanMedia.com, reports that Sheridan
County's Commissioners will consider joining a class action lawsuit
to try to recover underpayments by the Federal government for
"Payments in Lieu of Taxes" or PILT funds that were not paid to
local governments.

According to the US Department of the Interior's website, Payments
in Lieu of Taxes' (PILT) are Federal payments to local governments
that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable
Federal lands within their boundaries. Local governments cannot
collect property taxes on Federally-owned land, and PILT payments
help local governments carry out vital services like firefighting
and police protection, construction of public schools and roads,
and search-and-rescue operations.

The PILT fund underpayments are from fiscal years 2015, '16 and
'17, and the Sheridan County Commission will discuss the
possibility of joining a class-action lawsuit by other counties in
the state and throughout the country that are owed payments through
the program during their regular meeting on July 17. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Wilmington City Joines PILT Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mays, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reports that Select
Board members voted unanimously on July 10 to join in a
class-action lawsuit in hopes of recovering additional funds from
the federal government.

Wilmington will be joining municipalities throughout the United
States looking to receive more money for "underpayments" over the
last three fiscal years related to the Payment In Lieu of Taxes
Act.

"It's sort of like no harm, no foul," Town Manager Scott Tucker
told the Reformer.

On July 10, Tucker brought the lawsuit up to the Select Board after
receiving a letter in the mail. The town has until September to
fill out a form to participate in the lawsuit.

According to the National Association of Counties, Congress in 2018
amended the PILT statute by mandating full funding through 2014 and
repealed original language considering the program discretionary
and subject to annual congressional appropriations processes.

"Due to insufficient appropriations for 2015 through 2017, PILT
recipients did not receive the full amount to which they were
entitled under the PILT statute based on the Department of the
Interior's full payment calculation," an article from NACo says.

Town Treasurer Christine Richter said the lawsuit started with Kane
County in Utah which had officials who "felt they were being
underpaid by the federal government."

"So if it works, we'll be getting more money," she told the
Reformer. "But I don't think we'll be getting a lot more."

Kane County filed the suit in the United States Court of Federal
Claims last summer, "seeking to recover its own underpayments and
the underpayments of all other PILT recipients nationwide for those
years," according to NACo. "In December, the court ruled in Kane
County's favor for FY2015 and 2016 underpayments and issued a
similar ruling on FY2017 underpayments in March 2018."

Last month, NACo began inviting others to join the lawsuit at no
cost or fee.

"As of this moment, in excess of 400 counties have opted into the
case," Alan Saltman, Esq. -- aisaltman@smithcurrie.com -- lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, told the Reformer. Debby Kingsley,
lister's assistant, provided a spreadsheet of 14 state-owned
properties exempt from tax payments. Their combined property value
total is $1,728,139. Of highest value is a garage with a shed at
Haystack Road worth $730,807 and the Medburyville Bridge worth
$214,286.[GN]

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Requests Gag Order v. Plaintiffs' Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WKYC reports that University Hospitals on July 16 asked a judge for
a gag order against counsel for the plaintiffs suing the hospital
amid the hospital's fertility center failure that occurred in
March.

According to the motion, hospital attorneys feel some plaintiffs'
attorneys have made "inflammatory and prejudicial statements" to
the media regarding the case.

As a result, the motion requests that attorneys for all parties
involved be barred from making public statements related to the
case.

"The inflammatory media statements of some counsel have been
clearly designed to taint public opinion and undermine the ability
of potential jurors to reach an unbiased verdict based on the
evidence presented at trial," the motion states.

Victims are suing University Hospitals after a failure occurred
inside its fertility treatment center in March.

Temperatures inside a cryo tank started to rise, compromising 4,000
eggs and embryo belonging to nearly 1,000 patients. The tank's
temperature change should have triggered an alarm, but the hospital
says the system was shut off, meaning human error is to blame.

Lawsuits were consolidated in April, paving the way for a class
action case.

On July 16, University Hospitals issued the following statement
after the gag order was filed.

"We have asked the court to consider an order that would ensure
this important matter will be addressed in the legal process, not
through attorneys' comments to the news media. If the judge
approves, the order would prohibit any comments to news media from
attorneys working on this matter." [GN]

UNUM GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Unum Group ("Unum" or the "Company") (NYSE:UNM) and certain
of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, and docketed under
18-cv-00154, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Unum
securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Unum securities between
January 31, 2018, and May 2, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until August 13, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com

Unum purports to provide financial protection benefits in the
United States and the United Kingdom. The Company represents that
its products include disability, life, accident, critical illness,
dental and vision, and other related services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Unum was experiencing a higher
claims incidence for its long-term care business; (ii) Unum was
experiencing less favorable policy terminations in connection with
its long-term care business; (iii) accordingly, Unum's long-term
care business loss ratio would foreseeably reach the upper 90%
range; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Unum's business, operations, and prospects,
including statements related to Unum's long-term care reserves and
capital management plans, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 1, 2018, after the market closed, Unum issued a press
release entitled "Unum Group Reports First Quarter 2018 Results".
Therein, Unum reported that its first-quarter 2018 loss ratio for
its long-term care business was a disappointing 96.6%, compared to
only 88.6% for the first quarter of 2017. The first quarter 2018
loss ratio also far exceeded the Company's earlier-stated
expectation of 85-90%.

On May 2, 2018, the Company held a conference call to discuss its
first quarter 2018 financial results. On the call, Defendant John
F. McGarry, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, elaborated on
the Company's disclosures in the May 1, 2018 press release, stating
that "[b]enefits experience this quarter was driven by new claim
incidence that ran much higher than expected" and "the higher loss
ratio this quarter was negatively impacted by a lower level of
policy terminations."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $8.12 per share, or
nearly 17%, to close at $39.78 per share on May 2, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

         Robert S. Willoughby,Esq.  
         Pomerantz LLP   
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

USA DIVING: 2 Former Divers File Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ESPN reports that two former divers are bringing a class-action
lawsuit against USA Diving, accusing the organization of ignoring
or obstructing sexual abuse allegations.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on July 11 and accuses
former Ohio State University Diving Club coach Will Bohonyi of
coercing two divers into having sex with him. The suit also names
Mr. Bohonyi and Ohio State as defendants.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs told the Indianapolis Star that other
divers were coming forward with allegations and that USA Diving was
"worse than gymnastics, worse than swimming," referring to rampant
sexual abuse that has affected both sports in recent years.

"This is just the beginning for USA Diving," attorney Jon Little
told the newspaper.

In a statement responding to the allegations July 16, a USA Diving
spokeswoman said that "providing a safe environment for our members
is of tremendous importance to USA Diving, and we take these
matters very seriously. USA Diving is unable to comment further at
this time."

The lawsuit states that Mr. Bohonyi forced one plaintiff to perform
sex acts and send him naked photos while she was a minor. The
diver, who competed in the U.S. Olympic trials, was sent home from
a swim meet after a teammate informed the head coach of the diving
club about the allegations in 2014.

"Bohonyi psychologically coerced [the woman] into believing that
she was required to perform sexual services in exchange for her
continued involvement in diving," the lawsuit says. "He preyed on
her age, vulnerability, and dreams of becoming an Olympian, and
used the power structure and imbalance of power to make her believe
she was required to sexually service him in exchange for her
involvement in diving for Team USA."

Mr. Bohonyi was fired by the diving club two weeks after the
allegation, but he was not added to USA Diving's list of banned
coaches until six months later in 2015.

A police investigation into the alleged abuse was dropped in 2014
at the request of the diver, but the case was reopened in January
with the diver's cooperation.

The other diver accuses Mr. Bohonyi of starting an abusive
relationship with her in 2009 that included him coercing her into
daily sex.

Mr. Bohonyi did not respond to a request for comment by the
newspaper.

Ohio State has also come under fire after several former Ohio State
wrestlers accused university doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse
during medical treatments. The accusations reach as far back as the
1970s. Strauss committed suicide in 2005.

"The Ohio State University has no interest in hurting their brand,"
Little told the Indy Star. "This is part of a massive problem at
Ohio State that's not just isolated to Dr. Strauss." [GN]

VUZIX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Secondary Public Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Vuzix Corporation (NASDAQ:VUZI):
(i) pursuant and/or traceable to Vuzix's registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Vuzix's January 2018 secondary public offering;
and/or (ii) between November 9, 2017 and March 20, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Vuzix investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Vuzix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1306.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Vuzix used unlawful stock promotion tactics to boost its
stock price; (2) Vuzix used misleading stock promotion tactics to
raise nearly $30 million at an all-time high share price; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements in the
Registration Statement regarding Vuzix's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
24, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1306.htmlto join the class action.
You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

WAL-MART STORES: Must Face Cashiers' Seating Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in California has rejected Wal-Mart Stores Inc's bid to toss out a
nearly decade-old statewide class action claiming the company
illegally refused to provide cashiers with seating.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose on July 13 said
Wal-Mart had not proven its claims that stools would pose a safety
hazard or make workers less productive, and denied the retail
giant's motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.
[GN]


WATERLOO, ON: Judge Rules on Jurisdictional Issue for WRPS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Baltman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that
the Court has no jurisdiction to hear a proposed class action
against the Waterloo Regional Police Service and Waterloo Police
Association seeking compensation for decades of gender based
discrimination and sexual harassment. The Court held that previous
rulings from the Court of Appeal required the women to use the
internal mechanisms created to address the issues.

"We are disappointed in this ruling, but it's important to note
that the judge's decision was not based on the validity of the
plaintiff's claims," said Douglas Elliot, Esq. --
delliott@cambridgellp.com -- lead counsel for the plaintiff's legal
team. "This was purely a procedural ruling based on previous Court
of Appeal rulings. We intend to appeal this decision in order to
allow this case to proceed."

Of interest in the judge's ruling was her position on the
seriousness of the issues this case raises. Taken directly from her
ruling; "The Defendants should not regard this result as a
vindication of current practices . . . . it is apparent that this
case raises serious, triable issues relating to the workplace
culture. The allegations are very troubling and will require close
scrutiny should this matter proceed to another forum for
adjudication."

Retired Superintendent Barry Zehr, a proposed representative
plaintiff in the case, spent years trying to make the existing
system work to address pervasive problems of misogyny and sexism.
"I do not believe that the existing system is capable of addressing
these issues, said Zehr. "It is run by the men for the men. That's
why we need the courts to step in."

"Women will continue to experience gender discrimination at the
Waterloo Regional Police Service," said Angie Rivers, another of
the proposed representative plaintiffs in the case. "The internal
processes to deal with these issues are broken. That's why we came
to the courts."

The legal team for the plaintiffs will be filing an appeal with the
Ontario Court of Appeals within 30 days.[GN]

WESTERN POWER: Parkerville Bushfire Class Action Trial Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Clarke, writing for The West Australian, reports that lawyers
for the dozens of families who lost homes in the Parkerville
bushfire have launched a blistering opening attack on Western
Power, saying the power company's incompetence left a power pole in
such a "deplorable and disgraceful" condition it was able to be
blown over by a gust of wind -- sparking the blaze which devastated
the hills community.

The long-awaited class action over the 2014 blaze, which destroyed
57 homes and wrecked many more, began in WA's Supreme Court on July
16, on behalf of 189 affected residents and property owners.

Garry and Sandra Elwood are the only devastated homeowners formally
going up against Western Power and their contractor Theiss.

But their experience is being used as the example by lawyers Slater
and Gordon, who intend to prove that it was up to Western Power to
make sure the privately owned power pole was safe enough to carry
their cables, even though it was not owned by them.

That pole was on land owned by long-time resident Noreen Merle
Campbell, who was in her 80s at the time of the fire and is now
also being sued.

Lachlan Armstrong QC, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, spent two
hours this morning going through the outline of the case that is
set to span seven weeks scheduled for the trial.

Mr Armstrong described how the pole at the centre of the trial,
parts of which lay on a table in the court, had been in place since
at least 1985, but would appear to have never been inspected.

By 2014, it had become so rotten and riddled with termites that
only four per cent of the wood remained at its base.

As winds blew and temperatures soared on January 12, 2014 the pole
collapsed causing arcing in a box lower down the pole which sparked
the fire which swept through the area with devastating effect.

"There were no fatalities, but that was just good fortune," Mr
Armstrong said.

"It went from an ordinary Saturday morning to a cataclysm on a
Saturday afternoon  . . . and this was not an act of God."

Instead, the plaintiffs say it was a combination of Western Power's
lack of inspections and the lack of guidance and training given to
Theiss linesmen which left the pole in such a state it collapsed.

Theiss had carried out work around the pole twice in the months
leading up to the pole, including two days prior to the fire, Mr
Armstrong said.

That work should have been preceded by a basic safety check of the
pole which would have to take more tension -- which would have
simply required it being hit with a hammer hard enough to make it
ring.

But Mr Armstrong said that simply did not happen and if it had, the
rotten, cracked, pole would have clearly been seen as not safe.

Mr Armstrong also pointed out Western Power's appalling record of
inspection of wooden poles, which were twice criticised by power
regulators in 2006 and 2008.

He also said when they finally did agree to send out pamphlets
urging private pole owners to get them checked regularly, they did
not send one to Mrs Campbell because they were trying to save money
on the mailout.

Speaking ahead of the trial, Slater and Gordon Practice Group
Leader Rory Walsh said Western Power's aged wooden "have caused a
pole failure rate ten times that of other utilities".

"Alarmingly, that figure excludes poles on private property, which
Western Australia does not inspect or maintain unlike every other
bushfire-prone state in Australia,' he said

"We will argue that the Parkerville blaze was not a natural
accident that residents simply have to accept as an ordinary risk
of living in a bushfire-prone region.

"Western Power's attitude to private poles poses a very real risk
for the public and one which the energy regulator appears unable or
unwilling to address."

Mr and Mrs Elwood, who were in court, said her family and the
broader community had been waiting a long time for this case to
finally be heard.

"It has been four long, hard years and so many people in the
community are still waiting for their insurance money and they're
doing it really tough," Mrs Elwood said.

"We have all banded together and tried to stay optimistic, but it
is definitely time the Perth Hills community had its day in court.

"The dangerous condition of the pole was completely missed by
linesmen employed by Thiess doing contract work for Western Power,
six months before the pole collapsed and again as recently as 36
hours before it fell and sparked the blaze.

"In our view, these decisions and actions amount to deplorable
incompetence and are inexcusable in the circumstances."

"This was a wholly avoidable bushfire".

The trial is also being live streamed via the court website, the
first time that has happened in WA courts. [GN]

WESTERN POWER: WA at Far More Risk of Bushfire from Electric Pole
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Caporn, writing for The West Australian, reports that a class
action lawsuit over the disastrous Perth Hills bushfire will argue
that WA is at far more risk of a bushfire sparked by an electrical
pole than anywhere else in the country.

The Weekend West can reveal lawyers for the 189 residents affected
by the 2014 Parkerville bushfire will make the claim when the trial
for the class action against Western Power starts.

In the trial, which will be the first in WA to be streamed online,
Slater and Gordon will also argue both Western Power and regulator
EnergySafety failed to provide adequate community awareness
material about the need to have poles on private property inspected
and maintained because of a cost-saving measure.

They will also argue that the dangerous condition of the pole at
the centre of the case was missed by inspectors doing contract work
for Western Power as recently as 36 hours before it fell and
sparked the blaze.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Rory Walsh, Esq., said the plaintiffs'
argument revolved around the idea that the utility was responsible
for the maintenance of the poles, and contractors had failed to
conduct correct inspections.

"(Inspections were) undertaken six months and again a second piece
of work was undertaken two days before the pole collapsed -- we say
both of those works were undertaken negligently," Mr Walsh said.

"Western Power already has a pole failure rate which is 10 times
that of their own utilities in relation to their own network, and,
unlike NSW and Victoria, it doesn't inspect or maintain privately
owned poles, which means they don't know anything about these
private poles -- they don't know the age of them, they don't know
if they've been inspected and they don't know what condition
they're in."

Sandra and Garry Elwood, whose Stoneville house was destroyed, said
they had not fully recovered from the trauma.

While they have since rebuilt their house, it took six months for
them to start the clean-up, and another 10 months to rebuild while
they lived in a shed.

"It's pretty bad, it's 4-1/2 years down the track and I still
haven't got over it," Mrs Elwood said. "Just imagine you wake up
one morning and you've got everything and you go to bed that night
and it's not there anymore."

A spokesman for Western Power, which has maintained it is not
responsible for poles on private property, said it would be
inappropriate to comment on a matter due before court.[GN]

WESTJET AIRLINES: Former FA Protests Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Wadhwani, writing for 100 Mile Free Press, reports that a
B.C. woman and former flight attendant at WestJet was told to leave
Vancouver International Airport for infringing on airport policy,
after handing out anti-sexual harassment pamphlets to travellers in
early July.

Mandalena Lewis is leading a class action lawsuit against the
airline alleging it failed to protect flight attendants from
systemic sexual harassment following her own alleged sexual assault
by a pilot.

On July 6, Lewis said she was handing out pamphlets about her
#crewmetoo campaign outside the U.S. and International departures
terminal.

But shortly after arriving, Lewis was approached by YVR personnel
and communications staff, who asked her to leave.

"Initially, I was told by security that my expression was fine,"
Lewis said in a letter she has since sent the Vancouver Airport
Authority.

"Shortly thereafter, I was told that I had to stop handing out
pamphlets on the basis of a ‘conflict of interest' with a major
airport tenant. I asked for more information about that conflict,
but it was never provided."

In an emailed statement to Black Press Media, Vancouver Airport
Authority communication specialist Tess Messmer said the airport
was not aware that Lewis would be protesting ahead of July 6.

#MeToo At Work: Sexual assault and harassment in the B.C.
workplace

"We typically ask individuals or groups who plan to protest, picket
and/or strike at YVR to work closely with our operations team in
advance of their activities to ensure minimal disruption to our
passengers and operations," Messmer said, adding that if a group
does give notice, the airport authority will help find a spot near
the terminal building.

According to the airport authority, handing out pamphlets is
generally prohibited, Messmer said, as most of the paper and other
materials end up being discarded, and can negatively impact YVR
roadways and building cleanliness.

"More significantly, these materials, if caught by the wind and
carried, could also pose a possible risk YVRs airside operations,"
Messmer said.

Lewis said she plans to return on July 20, and Messmer said the
airport has been in touch with Lewis.

In January, WestJet filed an appeal after a B.C. Supreme Court
judge refused to throw out the lawsuit in December, 2017.

The airline argues Justice Mary Humphries was wrong to have
dismissed the company's application to strike the legal action,
repeating its argument that the dispute belongs before a human
rights tribunal and workers' compensation board.

In addition to the class-action lawsuit, Lewis earlier filed
another legal action against the company. In that claim, which has
been placed on hold while the class action proceeds, Lewis says was
sexually assaulted by a pilot while on a stopover in Hawaii in
2010.

None of these allegations have been proven in court.[GN]

WHOLE FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in S. Kellman's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHOSHA KELLMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS
MARKET, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06584-LB (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beller of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and (ii) denied their motion to strike.

Kellman, a California resident, and Abigail Starr, a New York
resident, are suing four corporate entities associated with the
Whole Foods supermarket chain.  The Plaintiffs allege that Whole
Foods has been mislabeling certain household and body-care products
that it sells as "hypoallergenic" despite the fact that they
actually contain known allergens.

The Plaintiffs bring the suit as a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and other consumers
who bought these "hypoallergenic"-labeled products.  They define
three classes: a nationwide class, a California class, and a New
York class.

The Plaintiffs' operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserts
claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) unjust enrichment,
(3) unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (4) violations
of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (5) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (6) violations of New
York's General Business Law Seciton 349, and (7) violations of New
York's General Business Law Section 350.

They name as the Defendants (1) Whole Foods Market, Inc. ("WFMI"),
the parent Whole Foods holding company, (2) Whole Foods Market
California, Inc. ("WFM California"), a subsidiary that operates
Whole Foods retail stores in northern California, (3) Whole Foods
Market Services, Inc. ("WFM Services"), a subsidiary that provides
various administrative services to other Whole Foods entities, and
(4) Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. ("WFM Group"), a subsidiary that
operates Whole Foods retail stores in various eastern states,
including New York.

The Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).  First, they argue that
the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the
non-Californian defendants WFMI, WFM Services, and WFM Group, or
over Ms. Starr's non-Californian claims, and that the court should
dismiss these defendants and claims under Rule 12(b)(2).  Second,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged plausible
claims for false or misleading advertising or for breach of express
warranty and that the court should dismiss these claims under Rule
12(b)(6).  Third, they argue that the Plaintiffs do not have
standing to pursue claims for any products other than the ones that
the Plaintiffs themselves purchased and that the Court should
dismiss these claims under Rule 12(b)(1).

The Defendants also move to strike allegations about products that
the Plaintiffs themselves did not purchase and product
representations that the Plaintiffs themselves did not see or rely
on from the SAC under Rule 12(f).

Magistrate Judge Beller finds that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over WFMI, WFM Services, and WFM Group.  She finds
that the Defendants have submitted a sworn declaration that WFMI
and WFM Services do not in fact have any employees in California,
do not operate any stores in California, do not design,
manufacture, distribute, or sell and goods in California, and do
not dictate WFM California's business.  Even if one set aside the
defendants' declaration and credited the Plaintiffs' allegations
about employees in California, store operations in California,
product designs or sales in California, and dictating operations in
California, their general-jurisdiction arguments would fail.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs do not
establish that WFMI, WFM Services, or WFM Group purposefully
directed any of their activities or consummated some transaction
with California or a California resident or performed some act by
which they purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of
conducting activities in California.  As the Plaintiffs have not
met their burden of establishing either general or special
jurisdiction over WFMI, WFM Services, or WFM Group, the Magistrate
Judge will dismiss them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2).

Given that Ms. Starr alleges only that she bought products in New
York and alleges only that WFM California operates stores in
Northern California, it does not appear that Ms. Starr pleads a
plausible claim against WFM California.  The Magistrate Judge will
court dismiss Ms. Starr's claims, with leave to amend.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Ms. Kellman has pleaded plausible
claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL.  Each of the complained-of
products bears a label that it is "hypoallergenic."  Ms. Kellman
alleges that a reasonable consumer would believe that a product
labeled as hypoallergenic will not cause skin irritation, skin
corrosion, or eye damage when used as directed.  Ms. Kellman
further alleges that a reasonable customer would believe that a
hypoallergenic product does not contain a significant amount of
ingredients known to cause skin irritation, skin corrosion, and/or
eye damage.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that Ms. Kellman has pleaded a
plausible claim for breach of express warranty.  Ms. Kellman
plausibly alleges that the Defendants' labeling of their products
as "hypoallergenic" constituted an affirmation of fact or promise
or a description of the goods as being hypoallergenic, that the
statement was part of the basis of the bargain, and that the
defendants breached their warranty because their products were in
fact not hypoallergenic.

She further finds that Ms. Kellman lacks standing to pursue claims
for unpurchased products for which she identifies no ingredients or
allergens.  This is insufficient to plead that there were any
misrepresentations regarding these products, much less that any
misrepresentations are substantially similar to the alleged
misrepresentations for the two products that she bought.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge will dismiss these claims, with
leave to amend.

By contrast, she holds that the unpurchased products for which Ms.
Kellman does allege ingredients are sufficiently similar to the
products that Ms. Kellman bought to give rise to standing.  The
unpurchased body-care products are an easier case.  Like the
purchased products, all are either lotions or cleansing products.
All come into direct contact with the body.  All bear the same
representation as the purchased products: that they are
"hypoallergenic."  All of them share common ingredients with the
purchased products that Ms. Kellman alleges are known allergens and
skin sensitizers.  And the type of claim and alleged consumer
injury is substantially the same as between the purchased and
unpurchased products: that people buy them believing them to be
hypoallergenic when in fact they contain sufficiently high
concentrations of skin sensitizers that they may cause reactions in
a substantial number of people.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge will deny the Defendants' motions to
strike because they've not met the standard for a motion to strike.
Among other things, the Defendants' argument that allegations
regarding unpurchased products should be stricken is unavailing in
light of the Court's ruling that Ms. Kellman has standing to pursue
claims for unpurchased products.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Beller granted the
Defendants' motion in part and (1) dismissed WFMI, WFM Services,
and WFM Group for lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) dismissed Ms.
Starr's claims for failure to state a claim against WFM California,
and (3) dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for products for which
they identify no ingredients (and therefore identify no allergens)
for lack of standing.  In all other respects, she denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  She also denied the Defendants'
motion to strike.  The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint
within 14 days of the date of the Order.  If they file an amended
complaint, they must also file a blackline of their amended
complaint against their SAC as an attachment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8vyAnk from Leagle.com.

Shosha Kellman, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles, Francis
& Mailman, James A. Francis, Francis and Mailman, P.C., Yvette Y.
Golan -- info@tgfirm.com -- The Golan Firm & Stephanie R. Tatar --
Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC.

Abigail Starr, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles, Francis
& Mailman, James A. Francis, Francis and Mailman, P.C. & Stephanie
R. Tatar, Tatar Law Firm, APC.

Whole Foods Market, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R.
Blackman, Blaxter & Blackman LLP & J.T. Wells Blaxter, Blaxter &
Blackman LLP.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Whole Foods Market Services,
Inc. & Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Brian R. Blackman, Blaxter & Blackman LLP.

WITHCOIN: Japanese Class Action Claims $12 Million Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Stucky, writing for Bitcoin News, reports that Withcoin, a
virtual currency reportedly designed for casinos, and listed on the
Hitbtc exchange around May, is accused of selling coins using a
promotional video propagating alleged lies and misleading
information. In April 2018, a video promoting Withcoin went viral
on the internet, inviting investors to purchase in advance a coin
that was going to be listed on a crypto exchange in May, the
message said.

"If You Buy It Today You Can Become a Millionaire"

The propaganda video was spread by an individual called Matsuyama.
Matsuyama, also known on other sites as Koichi Matsuyama,
enumerated attractive selling points for buyers, but it was later
discovered that most of what he was saying was a lie, according to
an overview explanation listed on the Enjin crowdfunding Class
Action site. In a project called "Final ICO," Matsuyama aimed at
pre-selling a listed fixed coin that had the potential to increase
its price a thousand times. The pre-sale allegedly started in
January of 2018 with 1 Withcoin valued at 0.5 yen. However, it was
reportedly only possible to purchase the coins by large chunks of
10 million yen. Buyers therefore seemingly purchased Withcoin in
groups.

Matsuyama allegedly operated his business without disclosing any
company name, and reportedly claimed having a career as a system
engineer. He also made affirmations stating that Withcoin would be
listed on Binance, then changed the exchange to Hitbtc. He also
allegedly claimed in his project that the coin could be exchanged
at Okada Manila, a casino in the Philippines, which denied any
involvement with cryptocurrencies on its homepage.

Soon after the coin was listed on the crypto exchange, its price
fell to about 1/10 of the ICO price, which made purchasers suffer
large losses. Enjin explains on its class action page that the
business was selling a cryptocurrency giving false information
therefore, the sales contract being invalid, the victims can now
claim a full refund in Japanese yen at the rate of the time when
the coins were sold.

Coin Crashed to 1/20th Its Price

About two weeks after being listed, Withcoin crashed to 0.139 yen.
Many investors were tricked and directed to a site after viewing a
Youtube video that was inviting viewers to purchase the seemingly
attractive coin. As of June, more than 420 victims gathered on the
crowdfunding class action litigation project Enjin for reported
damages of over 1.3 billion yen ($12m). The number of victims
claiming to have been duped in the same case has grown ever since.
The question now lies in whether Matsuyama was intentionally aiming
at tricking investors, which is seemingly difficult to prove.
However, testimonies show the Withcoin management team could be
proven as having given false explanations to its clients. Youtube
is also accused of expanding the damage by introducing Withcoin,
according to FXinspect.com, a site that verifies and reviews
information on commodity materials mainly sold on the internet.

"I will introduce a very attractive coin," the man allegedly said,
"you can buy it now for 3 yen, but after the coin will be listed,
it will be valued at 5 yen. The price will never break [. . . .]"
the man in the video promised. The investors who viewed the video
where guided to a mail magazine online, where the actual trades
were carried out.

Considering the lowest offering price as an opportunity, the
manager behind Withcoin sold a massive amount of his coins, whose
price later fell to 0.14 yen. If the value of the coin had risen
from its initial 3 yen, it was theoretically possible to make an
expected profit of about 20 times the price of the coin, FXinspect
explains. WithCoin had existed since about the end of 2017 or
February 2018, however publicity for it started on Youtube around
March 2018, the site explaining the class action stated.

Its white paper says that Withcoin is a digital currency
"specialized in casinos," and mentions a casino in the Philippines,
without naming any specific venue. "We will realize a
digital-currency platform for anyone to easily participate in
casinos," the white paper boldly states.

"It is not true that any cryptocurrency can be used in Okada
Manila," Universal Entertainment Corporation confirmed to
news.Bitcoin.com by e-mail. Okada Manila's homepage also states
that it does not offer or allow the use of bitcoin or other
cryptocurrency in its casino or anywhere else in its property.
"Okada Manila has never authorized or partnered with anyone
regarding the use of bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. Any claim or
report that Okada Manila is offering or allowing the use of bitcoin
or other cryptocurrency is false, inaccurate and unauthorized," the
hotel homepage says.

A Digital Currency "Specialized in Casinos"

"Okada is well-known as a casino mogul in Japan and Asia, and using
his name is clearly an attempt to add an air of legitimacy to an
allegedly fraudulent scheme. It also ironically illustrates that
for many cryptocurrency isn't seen primarily as an investment, but
more like a gamble," Jake Adelstein, an investigative journalist
and yakuza expert based in Tokyo told news.Bitcoin.com by email.

FXinspect said most videos and websites allegedly created by
Withcoin were removed from the internet since the collapse of
Withcoin.[GN]

[*] VLRC Issues Final Report on Class Action Reform
---------------------------------------------------
Simon Frauenfelder, Esq., of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, reported
that in December 2016, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC)
was asked to consider measures to ensure that litigants seeking to
enforce their rights using litigation funding and class actions
were not exposed to unfair risks or disproportionate cost burdens.

Hot on the heels of a Discussion Paper on a similar topic from the
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), the VLRC has recently
released its Final Report and recommendations for reform,

HOW WOULD THE VLRC'S RECOMMENDATIONS AFFECT YOU?
   * for plaintiffs and group members, the VLRC's recommendations
are aimed at providing more efficient access to justice through a
mix of:

   * changes to procedural measures to better protect group
members' interests, such as better costs disclosure and more
supervision of settlement distribution processes; and

   * larger-scale proposed reforms to the class action industry,
most notably, recommendations to allow contingency fees in class
action proceedings.

While the VLRC's recommendations appear to provide little, if any,
direct benefit to defendants, some measures designed to make class
actions more efficient for the benefit of group members may have
knock-on positives for defendants.

Except for contingency fees, the VLRC's Final Report focuses on
different issues and makes different recommendations to those in
the ALRC's Discussion Paper. As a result, plaintiffs and defendants
will need to stay abreast of both Victorian and Federal changes,
because reforms may well involve duplication (or even dislocation)
rather than co-ordination.

THE VLRC'S NARROW, CAUTIOUS APPROACH
Three elements appear to have influenced the VLRC to take a much
narrower and more cautious approach than the ALRC:

1. Terms of reference: The VLRC's terms of reference were focused
on better access to justice for plaintiffs, with the VLRC asked to
consider specific issues 'to ensure that litigants who are seeking
to enforce their rights using the services of litigation funders
and/or through group proceedings are not exposed to unfair risks or
disproportionate cost burdens'.[1]
In contrast, the ALRC was asked to take a broader look at
industry-wide regulation of class actions and litigation funding --
'whether and to what extent class action proceedings and third
party litigation funding should be subject to Commonwealth
regulation'.[2]

2. Different cases and less litigation funding: The issues most
urgently requiring reform—such as competing shareholder class
actions funded by litigation funders—are not so prevalent in
Victoria because the Victorian Supreme Court tends to deal with
different types of cases. In particular, the VLRC observed that:
The Victorian Supreme Court deals with more mass tort claims than
it does large commercial cases, such as shareholder class
actions.[3]

Litigation funding is not a prominent feature of the Victorian
regime like it is in the Federal Court. Of the 85 class actions
commenced in Victoria since the regime began in 2000, only ten have
been funded by a litigation funder.

3. Preserving national consistency: The VLRC expressly rejected any
reform that would see the Victorian class action regime depart from
the core structure that is common to the Commonwealth, Victoria,
New South Wales and Queensland class action regimes. The VLRC
believed that national consistency was too valuable to sacrifice
because it reduces the incentive for plaintiffs or defendants to
'forum shop'[4] and means that decisions by one Australian court
can usefully be applied by other courts.

Once these three features were taken into account, the VLRC was
left with little scope (or indeed, apparent need) to propose large
scale substantive reform.

THREE PROPOSED CATEGORIES OF PROCEDURAL REFORM
Save for its proposals in respect of contingency fees, the VLRC
proposed three categories of modest procedural reforms aimed at
protecting the interests of unrepresented group members. These
three categories are:

1. Recommendations for simpler and clearer disclosure to group
members about costs and the class action process, including:

   * mandatory disclosure to group members of changes in funding
arrangements including a 'Funding Information Summary Statement'
setting out key litigation funding charges;

   * powers for the Court to require that the plaintiffs' lawyers
provide an estimate of legal costs; and

   * more high quality information to be displayed on the Supreme
Court website, such as plain English opt-out and settlement
notices.

2. New powers recommended to enable the Court to exert greater
oversight over settlement approval and distribution. This is a key
example of where the VLRC's concerns differ from the ALRC's because
of the different types of cases run in their respective
jurisdictions.

For shareholder class actions, settlement approval and distribution
is less of an issue, because generally all group members have
suffered financial loss, which can often be calculated relatively
simply. However, in mass tort and consumer claims, the settlement
distribution process can take as long as or even longer than
reaching trial or a settlement, as the process requires an
individual assessment of the type and amount of loss a group member
has suffered. These difficulties have seen criticisms of what some
have perceived as unfairness or excessive costs in settlement
distribution.[5]

The VLRC recommends that the Court more readily appoint
contradictors to test the fairness of settlements, and require more
detailed disclosure in the affidavits made in support of
settlement, including greater disclosure about:

   * mechanisms for how the Court will review disputed distribution
decisions;

   * how group members will be informed about progress of the
distributions; and

   * measures taken to ensure distribution is efficient, timely and
cost-effective.
Further, even after settlement is approved, those administering the
distribution scheme would be required to report to the Court
regarding:

   * the performance of the settlement distribution scheme;
   * what distributions have been made and the time taken; and
   * the amount charged for the distributions.

Changes to the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and Court practice
notes to give express form to existing discretionary Court powers.
These proposals are not intended to give the Court any radical new
powers, but rather make the situation for parties clearer by
clarifying or giving statutory expression to existing powers, such
as:

   * removing the representative plaintiff where their interests do
not represent those of the class;
   * ordering a common fund for all costs;
   * reviewing and varying legal costs and litigation funding fees;
and
   * statutory enunciation of the principles for approval of
settlements.

CONTINGENCY FEES
Contingency fees involve lawyers charging fees calculated as a
percentage of the amount successfully recovered by a plaintiff.
Litigation funders can do this, but currently, lawyers in all
Australian jurisdictions are prohibited from doing so. The ALRC
proposed that contingency fees be allowed in class actions, subject
to certain conditions.

The VLRC goes further, and is in favour of contingency fees across
the legal profession, but only as a national change. It recommends
that Victoria propose to the national Council of Attorneys-General
the national adoption of contingency fees for all matters
throughout the legal profession. It acknowledges that reform of
such magnitude should only be done nationally, and that Victoria
should not introduce such fees unilaterally.

The process of agreeing a uniform national approach to contingency
fees would likely be a long and drawn out one, with low prospects
of delivering meaningful reform quickly. This is particularly the
case given the difficulty in agreeing a uniform law for other
aspects of the legal profession,[6] to which only Victoria and New
South Wales have signed up currently.

As a fall-back position, the VLRC recommends that lawyers acting
for plaintiffs in class actions in the Victorian Supreme Court be
permitted to charge contingency fees, subject to lawyers
indemnifying the representative plaintiff and also paying
disbursements. This fall-back position closely mirrors the ALRC's
proposal for also allowing contingency fees, in that it is limited
to class actions and requires the lawyers to bear the risk of
disbursements and adverse costs orders.

Importantly, however, the VLRC specifically contemplates Victoria
going it alone on contingency fees in class actions, even if
national reforms for contingency fees across the legal profession
do not go through. The VLRC suggests that Victorian class actions
procedures are currently 'underutilised', which contingency fees
might remedy. Further, it considers class actions are particularly
appropriate for contingency fees because:

   * the representative plaintiff generally takes on a
disproportionate exposure to the financial risk of an unfavourable
outcome, compared to the value of their claim; and
   * the Court already closely scrutinises the proposed terms of
any settlement, allowing the Court to supervise and control the
percentage fees charged.

The VLRC's proposal raises the possibility that, unless the ALRC's
national proposal is also adopted, then lawyers in class actions in
the Victorian Supreme Court could charge contingency fees, but
lawyers in other jurisdictions could not. This could lead to
Victoria becoming a jurisdiction of choice for lawyers seeking to
bring actions funded on a contingency basis, and draw a greater
proportion of class actions in Australia towards the Victorian
Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LESSER CONCERN TO VICTORIA
A number of the proposals in the ALRC report were not addressed in
great detail in the VLRC report because the VLRC decided that the
issues were not as pressing for the Victorian jurisdiction.
Therefore, the VLRC made either no recommendations or more limited
recommendations in relation to the following:

   * Competing class actions: The VLRC's view is that competing
class actions have not been a problem in Victoria to date.
Therefore, unlike the 'selection hearing' process proposed by the
ALRC, the VRLC believes that the Court already has sufficient
powers to deal with competing class actions and that there needed
only to be greater guidance for the Court set out in the Court's
practice note.

However, the VLRC did propose that there be a 'cross-vesting
judicial panel' to deal with the more difficult circumstance where
competing class actions were commenced in different jurisdictions.
This standing panel would have judicial members from each
jurisdiction, and would make a decision about which court was most
suitable to run a particular class action proceeding.

   * Licensing of litigation funders: The VLRC's view was that
industry-wide regulation of litigation funding was appropriate but
that 'industry-wide issues require national responses'.
Accordingly, the VLRC recommended that Victoria not seek to license
or regulate litigation funders alone but instead advocate for
strong national regulation through the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG). This is in line with the ALRC proposing
national regulation of litigation funders through a licensing
regime administered by ASIC.

   * Economic impact of continuous disclosure laws: One of the
ALRC's more controversial proposals was for the Federal Government
to commission a review of continuous disclosure and misleading or
deceptive conduct laws, given the 'economic and legal impact' these
laws and shareholder class actions were having on Australian
companies. The VLRC did not venture into this territory, most
likely because shareholder class actions are not a prominent
feature of Victoria's class action regime.

WHAT'S NEXT?
As far as the VLRC is concerned, there appears to be only minor
cause for reform in relation to class actions in Victoria. This
view seems out of step with seemingly routine calls for major
overhauls of the system, particularly in respect of shareholder
class actions.

However, there is much to be said for the VLRC's incremental
approach, especially where current issues around competing funded
shareholder class actions do not affect Victorian class action
practice. The incremental, cautious approach also seems to be
supported by recent figures from Professor Vince Morabito, which
suggest that the number of class actions in Australia has not
substantially increased compared with earlier periods in
Australia's recent history, and is not out of step with a country
of Australia's population size.[7]

Reform proposals in the class action area will be in a state of
flux for some time yet.

The ALRC is not due to deliver its final report until 21 December
2018, and given the VLRC's focus on co-ordinated national reform on
a number of issues, detailed proposals or reform legislation are
unlikely to be forthcoming until well into 2019.

However, many of the VLRC's smaller scale recommended changes to
Victorian practice notes and practitioners' guidelines provide
sensible mechanical responses to particular issues, and could be
adopted sooner rather than later, and separately, to the
larger-scale national reform. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***