CAR_Public/180814.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 162

                            Headlines

4C KINZIE: Luna Seeks to Recover Illegally Withheld Tips
ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Transferred Suits Still Pending
AGILANT SOLUTIONS: O'Conner Sues Over FLSA Violation
AGILITY ENERGY: Faces Hunter Suit in District of Utah
AGRI LABOUR: Seasonal Workers Launch Wage Class Action

ALLIANCE MMA: Oct. 15 Hearing in Class Action Settlement
ALTICE: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2017 IPO
AMAZON.COM: Paralegals File Misclassification Class Action
AMERICAN DG: Seeks to Certify Class of Former Shareholders
AMERICAN EXPRESS: April 2019 Trial in Anti-Steering Rules Suit

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Class Certification Bid Stayed
ANALOGIC CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
AT ASSOCIATES: Best's Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
AUDIT SYSTEMS: Stevens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AUSTIN, TX: 5 New Plaintiffs Added to Sexual Assault Suit

AZZ INC: Continues to Defend "Mullins" Class Action
BALBOA CAPITAL: Eco Farms Sues for Fraud and Breach of Good Faith
BARNEY'S INC: Davis Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
BERGEY PULLMAN: Richmond Sues Arby's Franchise over No-Poach Deals
BIOGEN INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in Massachusetts Suit Still Pending

BLUE APRON: Chute and Minshall Sue over 2017 IPO
BMW KOREA: Sedan Owners File Class Action Over Defective Engine
BNR THE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
BOGOPA SERVICE: Falcon Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
BOTTLING GROUP: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.2MM

BRUMBACH MANCUSO: Wettig Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
BULLET ENERGY: Gandy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CA INC: Harvey Balks at Merger Deal with Broadcom Inc.
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bid Due Fri. in Egg Product Suit
CALDER BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges

CANADA: 100+ Nursing-Home Patients Sign Up for Class Action
CARMAX INC: Still Defends California Wage and Hour Class Suits
CC LAST: Sullivan Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
CENTENE CORP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Sanchez" Suit
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Gudger-King Suit

CENTRAL MAINE: Faces PUC Probe Amid Ratepayers' Class Action
CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Aluminum Cryobiological Tank-Related Suit
CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit
CHEADLE LAW: Booker Seeks to Certify Class
CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Ambrosius Suit Alleges Breach of Contract

CHILDRENS ATHLETIC: Kohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
CJ STAR: Harris Sues Carl's Jr. Franchisees over No-Poach Deals
CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Sues over Background Checks
CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Deal Reached in Wabush Mines Pension Plan Suits

COINBASE: Investigation Finds No Wrongdoing, Class Action Pending
COMPLYRIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax Form Data Breach
CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends "Briseno" Class Action Suit
CONGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Wage and Hour Claims Still Ongoing
COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger

CUMMINS PACIFIC: Towle Seeks to Certify 5 Subclasses
DADA BHAGAVAN: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida
DEBT CARE: Ingersoll Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
DIAMOND RESORTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
DOUGH DOUGH: Stigar Sues over No-Poach Agreements

DPI SPECIALTY: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Edmond Suit Says
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Levitt Files Suit Over False Marketing Practices
ELITE FUNDING: Hardin Sues over Spam Advertisements
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Florida Class Suit for $1,215,000
ESA P PORTFOLIO: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida

EXTENDED LIFE: Hawkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
F. MILLER PROPERTIES: Hannon Class Certification Bid Denied
FABRICA INTERNATIONAL: MOU in Reached in "Garcia" Suit
FERRARA CANDY: Settles Packaging Class Action for $2.5-Mil.
FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Faces Jessica Stock Suit in C.D. California

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Amonoo Settlement Wins Initial Approval
FLINT, MI: State Dismissed From Water Contamination Class Action
FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid College Tuition Plans
FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settlement Proposed in Civil Lawsuit
FORD MOTORS: Judge Decertifies Consumer Protection Act Claim

FORTERRA INC: Maciuga, Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated IPO Suit
GCB SERVICES: Wren Seeks to Certify Class of Field Engineers
GDS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit
GOLDEN BAY TOWERS: Davison Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
GRANA & MONTERO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

GREENE CORRECTIONAL: Seelig Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class
HALIFAX-YARMOUTH: Diocese Faces Sex Abuse Lawsuit
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Coleman Suit in N.D. Illinois
HEALTH NET: Barkan Suit Moved to Central District of California
HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT: White Sues Over Storage of Biometric Data

HOHLA & WYSS: Court Approves Notice of Collective Action
ILLINOIS: DOC Settles Deaf Prisoners' Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
INTERSTATE REALTY: Brenda Jones Sues over Lease Contract
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Suit

JESSICA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ning Says
JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Amend Bid to Certify 2 Classes
JIM GOLDEN: Schnaidt Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Talcum Powder Cancer Link
KITOV PHARMA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2-Mil.

KOPPERSTON, WV: PSD Sued Over Failure to Monitor Water Quality
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Retirees
LEGACY BULK TRUCKING: Dispatchers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Seeks to Certify Class
MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class

MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class
MERCK CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Suit Over Propecia
MICHIGAN STATE: Insurers Fail to Reimburse Settlement Costs
MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Goodman Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
MITEL NETWORKS: Faces "Cuddihey"and "Witmer" Suits in New York

MONSANTO CO: Farmers Sue in Missouri Over Ruined Crops
MONSANTO CO: Wildy Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
MONSANTO CO: Wiseman Files Suit Over Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jons' Product Liability Suit Transferred to Mo.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries

MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Seeks Final Settlement Approval
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Carcamo Hits Illegal Debt Collection
NCAA: Poppy Livers Has 2nd Chance to Pursue Wage Suit
NEW DOMINION: Central Oklahoma Residents Won't Get Sept. Trial
NEWELL BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia
NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Understaffing
OCLARO INC: Lumentum Merger Deal Triggers Several Lawsuits
PARAGONCOINS: Rapper Among Defendants in Weed Cryptocurrency Case
PERDUE FOODS: Drew Seeks to Certify Class of Clerks

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Bid to Certify Class Okayed in Part
PROLOGIS INC: Faces Class Suits Challenging DCT Merger
QUALITY BEVERAGE: Teixeira Labor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
RED ROBIN: Outlaw Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action

SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Wins Conditional Class Certification
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Motion for Class Certification Granted
SILICON LABORATORIES: "Noyes" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
SONIC CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Malware-Related Suits

SPERIAN ENERGY: Corsale Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA De Minimis Doctrine Not in Cal. Statutes
STARBUCKS CORP: Squire Pattons Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
STEADYMED LTD: "Scarantino" and "Hoover" Suits Balk at Merger Deal
STEEL & TUBE: More Homeowners Join Suit Following Guilty Pleas

SURFSTITCH: Shareholders to Pursue Class Action Against Ex-CEO
SYNAPSE GROUP: Cruz False Advertising Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending
SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
T ROWE PRICE: Faces Class Suit over 401(k) Plan in Maryland

TACO BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action
TAURANGA CITY: More Homeowners Joining Lawsuit
TEZOS: Judge Allows Cryptocurrency Class Action to Proceed
TOLL ROADS LITIG: Motion for Class Certification Partly Granted
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Rodent-Damaged Wiring Tossed

TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Court Strikes Conditional Certification Bid
TRUGREEN LTD: Notice to Employees of Opt-in Rights Rejected
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
UNITED STATES: Father and Son Reunited Following Court Order
UNITED STATES: Garfield County Joins PILT Program Class Action

UNITED STATES: Luna County May Join PILT Program Class Action
UNITED STATES: Migrant Fathers Sue After Separation w/ Children
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Follow Up on Missing Migrant Parents
UNITED STATES: Victorville Detainees File Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Wazee Disputes Net Worth Sweep Dividend Payments

US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Suit Granted With Prejudice
WAL-MART STORES: Mays Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Stony Hollow Landfill Class Action
WITHCOIN: Faces Class Action in Japan Over Misleading Claims
YAYO RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Speed Enforcement Cameras May Spark Class Actions
[*] Bill Aims to Stop Student Loan Arbitration, Class Action Ban
[*] Initial Coin Offering-Related Lawsuits Hit Record High in 2018
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half of 2018

                            *********

4C KINZIE: Luna Seeks to Recover Illegally Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------
Erik Luna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 4C Kinzie Investor, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05165, (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover illegally
withheld gratuities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

4C Kinzie Investor, LLC operates as Highline Bar & Lounge where
Luna worked as a server. He claims that Defendant failed to give
waiters and servers tips they earned. [BN]

Luna appears pro se.


ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Transferred Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the motion to consolidate
two class action suits transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is still pending.

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

A motion to consolidate the cases has been filed and is presently
pending, unopposed. The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the Company's products
and (ii) overstated the Company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth. The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims. Estimating an amount or
range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is
inherently difficult, particularly where the matters involve
indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of
the proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been
resolved. For these reasons, the Company is currently unable to
predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate
the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from
the matters described above. The Company is insured, in excess of a
self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability.

Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


AGILANT SOLUTIONS: O'Conner Sues Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Javan O'Conner, Ramin Pena and Jonathan Cepada on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Agilant
Solutions, Inc. and Technical Staffing Professionals, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06937, (S.D. N.Y., August 1, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Agilant -- http://www.asisystem.com-- operates as ASI System
Integration and is independent provider of IT solutions. Technical
Staffing Professionals LLC -- www.techstaffingpros.com -- provides
staffing solutions through recruitment for direct hire, contract,
and contract-to-hire options. [BN]

Plaintiffs appear pro se.

AGILITY ENERGY: Faces Hunter Suit in District of Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Agility Energy. The case is
captioned Rickey Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Agility Energy; Perry Taylor,
individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal
of Agility Energy; Todd Hansen, individually and as officer,
director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy; Jessica
Hansen, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or
principal of Agility Energy; Dillion Ping, individually and as
officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy;
and Heather Stewart, individually and as officer, director,
shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy, the Defendants,
Case No. #: 2:18-cv-00618-TS (D. Utah, Aug. 3, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Ted Stewart.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE LLC
          1115 S 900 E
          Salt Lake City, UT 84105
          Telephone: (801) 415 9909
          E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com


AGRI LABOUR: Seasonal Workers Launch Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Saturday Paper reports that seasonal workers from Vanuatu have
launched a class action lawsuit accusing their labour hire employer
of exploitation, underpayment and mistreatment. The federal court
suit against labour hire firm Agri Labour -- the first under
increased penalties for labour hire companies introduced in the
2017 Vulnerable Workers Act -- alleges Agri Labour paid its workers
as little as $3.17 an hour after company deductions for rent, food,
transport and visas. In May the federal government suspended Agri
Labour's licence to import workers after The Sunday Age revealed
that agricultural workers being exposed to dangerous chemicals.
[GN]

ALLIANCE MMA: Oct. 15 Hearing in Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Alliance MMA, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 19, 2018, that a
hearing is set for October 15, 2018, to consider approval of a
class action settlement.

Pursuant to the order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (the "Court"), the Court will hold a hearing
on October 15, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining:  (1) whether the proposed settlement consisting of the
sum of $1,550,000 (the "Settlement"), which was preliminarily
approved by the Court on June 28, 2018, should be finally approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to $516,666.66, or one-third (33-1/3%) of
the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no
more than $25,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs not to
exceed $15,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the class
action should be dismissed with prejudice.

This order of the Court pertains to the previously filed action; no
new action has been filed against the Company.

The Company believes that the Settlement and related matters will
be finally approved by the Court at the Settlement Hearing.

The Company believes that the full amount of the Settlement, plus
related costs and expenses, will be paid for by the Company's
directors and officer's liability insurance policy, subject to the
applicable policy deductible of $250,000 and by the Company's
underwriter.

Alliance MMA, Inc. operates in the sports media industry. The
Company promotes, hosts, distributes, and sponsors mixed martial
arts (MMA) events and contents. Alliance MMA also offers
merchandising, ticketing, agency, and management services
throughout United States. The company is based in New York, New
York.


ALTICE: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2017 IPO
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Altice has lost more than
$860 million in market value since going public last year,
investors claim in separate class actions, noting that shares are
trading 40 percent below the IPO stock price of $30 a share.

AMAZON.COM: Paralegals File Misclassification Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class of paralegals accused Amazon.com in King County Superior
Court of willfully misclassifying them as exempt from overtime and
other labor laws.


AMERICAN DG: Seeks to Certify Class of Former Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEE VARDAKAS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DG ENERGY
INC., JOHN N. HATSOPOULOS, GEORGE N. HATSOPOULOS, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10247-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of:

      all former shareholders of common stock of American DG
      Energy, Inc. ("ADGE") who held their shares immediately
      prior to the effective time of the merger between ADGE and
      Tecogen, Inc. ("Tecogen") (the "Merger") and whose shares
      were converted in the Merger, except Defendants and any
      person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related
      to, or affiliated with, any of the Defendants";

   b. appointing Plaintiff May as Class Representative; and

   c. appointing the law firms of Wolf Popper LLP and Monteverde
      & Associates PC as Class Counsel, and Berman Tabacco as
      Liaison Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

           Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
           Norman Berman, Esq.
           BERMAN TABACCO
           One Liberty Square
           Boston, MA 02109
           Telephone: (617) 542 8300
           Facsimile: (617) 542 1194
           E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com

                - and -

           Carl L. Stine, Esq.
           Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
           Adam J. Blander WOLF POPPER LLP
           845 Third Avenue
           New York, NY 10022
           Telephone: (212) 759 4600
           Facsimile: (212) 486 2093
           E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

           Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
           BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
           155 Federal Street, Suite 400
           Boston, MA 02110
           Telephone: (617) 398 5600
           Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
           E-mail: jason@blockesq.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: April 2019 Trial in Anti-Steering Rules Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that trial has been scheduled
in the individual merchant cases for April 29, 2019, in the case,
In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation
(II).

American Express said "individual merchant cases and a putative
class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively
captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York
against us alleging that our anti-steering provisions in merchant
card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws."

The individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts
and injunctive relief. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio
v. American Express Co. in favor of American Express, the Court in
the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs in the
individual merchant cases leave to amend their complaint and trial
has been scheduled in the individual merchant cases for April 29,
2019.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products and travel-related services
to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through four
segments: U.S. Consumer Services, International Consumer and
Network Services, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant
Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Class Certification Bid Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EVELYN MEJIA, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-03415-JCZ-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jay C. Zainey
entered an order on July 31, 2018:

   1. dismissing without prejudice Defendant's motion to compel
      arbitration and stay proceedings; and

   2. staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "Following the resolution of Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, the Plaintiff shall move
to re-urge her Motion for Class Certification if necessary."


ANALOGIC CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 25 disclosed that a class
action has been filed on behalf of holders of Analogic Corporation
(NASDAQ:ALOG) common stock on May 11, 2018, the record date to vote
on the Agreement and Plan of Merger. This action was filed in the
District of Massachusetts and is captioned Burcaw v. Analogic
Corporation, No. 18-cv-11557. There is at least one other similar
case pending in the same court, Carr v. Analogic Corporation, No.
18-cv-11301.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who held Analogic shares on the record date to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. A class member's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from June
22, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Esther Lee of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. A copy of the
filed complaint can be viewed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/analogic/.

The complaint charges Analogic and its Board of Directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in
connection with the sale of the Company to affiliates of Altaris
Capital Partners, LLC ("Altaris"). Analogic designs, manufactures
and sells advanced medical imaging, ultrasound and security systems
and subsystems to original equipment manufacturers and end users
primarily in the healthcare and airport security markets.

On April 10, 2018, Analogic announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Altaris, pursuant to which each
share of Analogic common stock would be converted into the right to
receive $84 in cash (the "Transaction"). The Transaction
consideration represented a 12.5% discount to Analogic stock's
$96.05 per share closing price right before the Transaction was
announced. On May 16, 2018, defendants filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC (the "Proxy") to solicit
shareholder approval of the Transaction.

The complaint alleges the Proxy issued in connection with the
Transaction contained materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sec. 14(a) of the 1934 Act. According to the
complaint, in pursuing the unfair plan to facilitate the
acquisition of Analogic by Altaris for grossly inadequate
consideration, defendants made false and misleading statements in
the Proxy concerning the merger process and certain financial
forecasts prepared by Analogic and relied upon by its financial
advisor in support of its fairness opinion. By including the
statements in the Proxy, defendants induced stockholders to defer
to the Board's recommendation to vote in favor of the unfairly
priced Transaction. Pursuant to an uninformed shareholder vote,
defendants completed the Transaction on June 22, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of all holders of Analogic common
stock as of May 11, 2018 (the "Class"). The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is widely recognized as
a leading law firm advising and representing U.S. and international
investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With
200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For the
third consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total
amount recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class
action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller
attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation
and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of
dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only
secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements
significant corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN]

AT ASSOCIATES: Best's Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT BEST, the Plaintiff, v. A T
ASSOCIATES, ANDREW LUCHEY, and EVELYN LOONEY, the Defendants, Case
No. 9:18-cv-80696-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald
Middlebrooks entered an order on July 31, 2018, denying as moot
Plaintiff's one-sentence motion for class certification.

The Court said, "This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs
Motion for Class Certification, filed on July 3l, 20l8. On July 6,
2018, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff was instructed that any amended Complaint must be
filed by July 20, 20l8. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint
and this case was dismissed without prejudice on July 24, 2018.
Because this case has been dismissed, Plaintiffs one-sentence
Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot. If Plaintiff
would like to pursue this matter further, he must initiate a new
action by filing a new complaint."


AUDIT SYSTEMS: Stevens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINA STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUDIT SYSTEMS, INC., METAVANTE PAYMENT
SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00758-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to December 11, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Toyota Financial Services.
The Toyota obligation arose out of a transaction involving an
automobile loan which Plaintiff used to purchase a car used
primarily for personal and family reasons. The alleged Toyota
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Toyota is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4).
The Defendant Metavante, a debt collector and the alleged
subsequent owner of the Toyota debt, contracted the Defendant ASI
to collect the alleged debt. The Defendants collect and attempt 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:

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


AUSTIN, TX: 5 New Plaintiffs Added to Sexual Assault Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marloff, writing for The Austin Chronicle, reports that five
new plaintiffs have been added to a sexual assault federal class
action suit against the city of Austin, Travis County, and local
law enforcement. The more robust complaint, which now details eight
women's accounts of sexual assault and the subsequent abandonment
of their cases by local law enforcement, was filed on August 1
afternoon.

Elizabeth Myers, Esq. -- Elizabeth.Myers@tklaw.com -- one of
several lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said more than 40
women have reached out since the complaint was filed on June 18.
The suit alleges that systemic failures within law enforcement have
led to discrimination and mistreatment of women rape survivors in
Travis County.

The new accounts illustrate a "far-reaching, systemic problem that
needs to be fixed" by the defendants, said Myers, who noted that
while each woman's story is different -- one was kidnapped and
repeatedly raped for 12 hours by three men; another was violently
raped by her boyfriend while her child was in the house; a third,
assaulted by a nurse during a routine medical exam; a fourth,
drugged, raped, and left on train tracks; and the fifth, sexually
assaulted by another patient at Austin State Hospital -- the common
thread is their interaction with the system meant to protect them.

The updated complaint follows four motions to dismiss from the
defendants. One motion, filed jointly by D.A. Margaret Moore, Esq.
-- MargaretForDA@gmail.com -- and her predecessor, Rosemary
Lehmberg, Esq., argues that the "moral and legal duty of the
elected District Attorney [is] not to convict, but to seek justice.
... The District Attorney must exercise prosecutorial discretion to
balance the needs of a victim, the rights of an accused, and the
safety of the community. In so doing, the District Attorney
necessarily makes decisions that some agree with and some do not."
It goes on to say the "law affords District Attorneys protection
from lawsuits such as this."

The plaintiffs' response asserts: "Every Defendant in this lawsuit
is legally required to provide equal protection to the women of
Travis County. They have not done so, and for that -- and other
legal wrongs -- they can indeed be held to account." It also calls
the claims made in the D.A.s' motion "breathtaking," noting that
less than 0.2% of the approximately 1,000 sexual assaults reported
annually in the county "proceed to finality" on criminal charges.

Ultimately, the suit seeks an injunction ordering each defendant to
properly train and supervise employees handling sexual assault
cases; require and enforce trauma-informed approaches; submit,
test, and analyze all sexual assault kits obtained by (or sent to)
law enforcement; offer survivors a timeline for when they can
expect their sexual assault kit to be tested; begin prosecuting
cases without DNA evidence; and a string of other initiatives.
Myers reiterated that the case is not about the prosecution of
individual assailants, but a systemwide change that offers women
rape survivors the same respect and dignity given to men who
survive rape as well as victims of other violent crimes.[GN]

AZZ INC: Continues to Defend "Mullins" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
putative class action suit entitled, Logan Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00025-Y (N.D. Tex.).

On January 11, 2018, Logan Mullins, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the Company and two of its
executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and Paul W. Fehlman.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by the Company's alleged failure to properly
recognize revenue related to certain contracts in its Energy
Segment in purported violation of (1) Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages,
interests, attorneys' fees and costs.

AZZ Inc. said "The Company denies the allegations and believes it
has strong defenses to vigorously contest them. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of this action nor when it will be resolved. If
the plaintiffs were to prevail in this matter, the Company could be
liable for damages, which could potentially be material and could
adversely affect its financial condition or results of
operations."

AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding
solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining, and industrial markets. The company is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


BALBOA CAPITAL: Eco Farms Sues for Fraud and Breach of Good Faith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eco Farms Investments Holdings, LLC a California Limited Liability
Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Balboa Capital Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01339 (C.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks monetary damages,
restitution and injunctive relief resulting from tortious fraud and
intentional deceit, actual fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
violation of unfair competition law, breach of contract, breach of
good faith and fair dealing.

Eco Farms Investments Holdings currently owns a commercial
Freightliner truck financed by Balboa. The latter allegedly did not
disclose that it intended to charge substantial sums of money for
what it calls "prefund rent charges," nor that it intends to delay
the "commencement" of the loan so it could maximize its own profit.
ECO paid $46,660.52 that Balboa claims was rental payments instead
of its amortization.

Balboa offers various commercial financing products, such as
franchise financing and business cash advances. Its principal place
of business is 575 Anton Boulevard, 12th Floor, Costa Mesa,
California 92626. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
     James A. Tabb, Esq.
     ZAVERI TABB APC
     402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 831-6988
     Fax: (619) 239-7800
     Email: dev@zaveritabb.com
            jimmy@zaveritabb.com

            - and -

     Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
     WEBB KLASE AND LEMOND LLC
     1900 The Exchange S E, Suite 480
     Atlanta, GA 30339
     Tel: (770) 444-0998
     Fax: (770) 444-0271
     Email: matt@webbllc.com


BARNEY'S INC: Davis Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Corey Davis, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barney's, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. BC710733, (Cal. Super. June 20, 2018), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-06627.

Barney's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of high-quality men's and
women's clothing and accessories, as well as gifts, cosmetics,
fragrances, housewares, jewelry, antiques, stationery, and
luggage.[BN]

Plaintiff appears pro se.

Barney's Inc. is represented by:

      Miranda Alona Mossavar, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 553-0308
      Fax: (310) 553-5583
      Email: mmossavar@littler.com

BERGEY PULLMAN: Richmond Sues Arby's Franchise over No-Poach Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
MYRRIAH RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BERGEY PULLMAN, INC., a
Washington Corporation, ARBY'S FRANCHISOR, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00246-TOR (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018),
seeks millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and
interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual
non-solicitation agreements.  Defendants engaged in per se
violations of the Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman
Act by entering into non-solicitation agreements for the express
purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and
benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated
with the active solicitation of employees and workers in a
competitive industry.

According to the complaint, the non-solicitation agreements provide
that Arby's franchisees could not solicit for employment the staff
of Arby's and/or of other Arby's franchisees that were all entered
into by Arby's franchises throughout Washington State and that had
the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class
Members' wages and salaries.  The genesis of the non-solicitation
agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Arby's and
its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon
information and belief, Bergey. This illegal conspiracy among and
between Defendants and other Arby's franchisees to not solicit or
attempt to solicit one another's employees, in order to thereby
suppress their wages, was not known, to Plaintiff and the Class
Members until July 12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney
General revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into
illegal behavior by some of the largest fast food franchises in
Washington and the United States, including Arby's, that Arby's
would no longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that
prevented workers from being solicited by other Arby's franchisees.
While protecting and enhancing their profits, Defendants, through
their non-solicitation agreements, robbed Class Members millions of
dollars-worth of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek
relief.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 North Proctor Street, #387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212 7913
          Facsimile: (253) 276 0081
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Brian Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, No. 205
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  bd@ackermanntilajef.com


BIOGEN INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in Massachusetts Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30 , 2018, that the plaintiff's appeal from a ruling in
a class action lawsuit remains pending.

Biogen said "We and certain current and former officers are
defendants in an action filed by a shareholder in October 2016 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b)
and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeking a
declaration of the action as a class action and an award of
damages, interest and attorneys' fees."

In March 2018 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiff's appeal is pending. An estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Biogen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers
therapies for the treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative
diseases worldwide. Biogen Inc. was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BLUE APRON: Chute and Minshall Sue over 2017 IPO
------------------------------------------------
GARY CHUTE and TERRY MINSHALL, Individually and On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE APRON HOLDINGS,
INC., MATT SALZBERG, BRADLEY DICKERSON, BENJAMIN C. SINGER, JULIE
M.B. BRADLEY, TRACEY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN,
GARY R. HIRSHBERG and BRIAN P. KELLEY, the Defendants, Case No.
653844/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons, other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Blue Apron securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or
about June 29, 2017.

Blue Apron is a subscription-based, meal-kit delivery service
founded in 2012. Blue Apron sends weekly boxes of pre-portioned
ingredients with instructions for cooking meals at home.

According to the complaint, Blue Apron's Class A common stock was
offered in the IPO and thereafter traded on the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "APRN." Blue Apron's IPO
was conducted pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus.
In the IPO Registration Statement and the IPO Prospectus,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and its operational and compliance
policies. In addition, Defendants failed to disclose known material
trends that would have a material impact on net sales or revenues
or income from continuing operations, and that would cause reported
financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future
operating results.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490 9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986 0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


BMW KOREA: Sedan Owners File Class Action Over Defective Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kang Young-woon and Lee Eun-joo, writing for Pulse, report that a
group of BMW owners in South Korea have filed a class suit against
the Korean unit of the German automaker on July 30 over a defective
engine part that has led to a series of fires.

Four owners of BMW sedans filed a representative suit with a Seoul
Central District Court against BMW Korea and its official dealer
Deutsche Motors Inc. on July 30 to claim damages for the
destruction in their cars that caught fire while being driven.

An unnamed official from Barun Law LLC representing the plaintiffs,
said that each individual asked for 5 million won ($4,480.1) in
compensation that include damages from user benefit infringement.
Total compensation amount may increase depending on the outcome of
a safety inspection, the official added. The number of BMW sedan
drivers joining the legal move may increase as well.

The collective suit, meanwhile, comes after BMW Korea belatedly
announced a plan to recall 106,317 vehicles from 42 models after a
defective engine part led to a series of fire. The automaker
presumes the fire to have been caused by a faulty exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) module based on its initial inspection using an
endoscope.

Consumers, however, claimed the recall plan as "inadequate."

In the petition submitted by the BMW sedan owners, the plaintiffs
noted that they weren't able to drive their BMW vehicles until they
were completely repaired and remained fretful while driving. They
would fear fire-prone vehicle unless all parts are replaced.

The plaintiffs also challenged the recall plan that could be
delayed due to shortage of supplies as more than 100,000 vehicles
are subject to the recall. The delay would ultimately lead to
continued interruption in vehicle operation, they said. The
plaintiffs also claimed they must be compensated for the
devaluation of their used cars due to fire concerns.

The drivers also suspected the automaker would have long been aware
of the faulty issue as it used a differently-designed EGR module
for 2017 BMW sedans. They said that BMW tried to cover up the
defect even though it was aware of the faulty component. They also
asked for compensation over psychological trauma as they have been
exposed to fire risk without protection. [GN]

BNR THE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAQUIN C. HERNANDEZ, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BNR THE BRIDGE, LLC, and BOBBY RISHER, individually,
Jointly and severally, Case No. 2:18-cv-12361-PDB-SDD (W.D. Mich.,
July 30, 2018), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act alleging that the
Defendants:

   -- failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers
      their proper wages, overtime pay, and at times failed to
      pay any wages at all;

   -- failed to make payments as promised;

   -- failed to ensure sufficient funds in payroll accounts; and

   -- unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of their
      workers.

BNR The Bridge LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized
and registered under the laws of Texas with its corporate
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas.  Bobby Risher is the owner,
president, and director of BNR and resides in San Antonio.

BNR is a residential and commercial remodeling firm that does
business throughout the United States, including the state of
Michigan.  BNR provides residential and commercial building
services, including interior and exterior painting, drywall
hanging, finishing and repairs, plaster repairs, concrete and wood
staining, caulking, scraping, glazing, texturing, spray brush and
roll finishes, power washing and insulating.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
          John Philo, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: tparis@sugarlaw.org
                  jphilo@sugarlaw.org

               - and -

          Jack W. Schulz, Esq.
          SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC
          P.O. Box 44855
          Detroit, MI 48244
          Telephone: (313) 652-1906
          E-mail: jackwschulz@gmail.com



BOGOPA SERVICE: Falcon Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
SERVERIANO FALCON, on behalf of himself and the Class, the
Plaintiff, v. BOGOPA SERVICE CORP. d/b/a FOOD BAZAAR, JOHN DOE
CORPS 1-25, and SPENCER AN, the Defendants, Case No. 515875/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and
overtime wages due to an impermissible policy of rounding hours
worked, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated; have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions; and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the
proper wages for all hours worked due to impermissible rounding.

Food Bazaar Supermarkets operate as a single integrated enterprise.
Specifically, they are engaged in related activities, share common
ownership and have a common business purpose.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          New York, NY
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


BOTTLING GROUP: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.2MM
----------------------------------------------------
Employment Screening Resources, citing Top Class Actions, reports
that a subsidiary of food and beverage giant PepsiCo has agreed to
pay $1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the
company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) "by procuring
background reports for employment purposes without making certain
required disclosures".

A former employee claimed PepsiCo subsidiary Bottling Group LLC
violated the FCRA -- a federal law that regulates background checks
in the U.S. -- by failing "to disclose that it would obtain a
consumer report for employment purposes in a document consisting
solely of the disclosure," Top Class Actions reports.

Plaintiff Altareek Grice claimed that when he applied for a job at
Bottling Group LLC in August of 2016 that the company allegedly
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA by failing to
make necessary disclosures prior to obtaining background checks for
employment purposes. Specifically:

   * 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §
1681b] (b) Conditions for Furnishing and Using Consumer Reports for
Employment Purposes. (2) Disclosure to Consumer. (A) In general.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a
consumer report, or cause a consumer report  to be procured, for
employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless – (i) a
clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the
consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be
procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
(ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization
may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the
procurement of the report by that person.

Top Class Actions reports that the defendants denied any wrongdoing
but agreed to the settlement -- which was preliminarily approved on
May 23, 2018 -- to avoid the burden and expense of litigation.
Approximately 23,133 Class Members who may be entitled to a payment
from the settlement include:

   * Job applicants for whom Bottling Group LLC, Grayhawk Leasing
LLC or New Bern Transport Co. (collectively referred to as "Pepsi
Beverages Company") procured a background report for employment
purposes from June 19, 2015, through December 1, 2016.

   * Employees subject to Department of Transportation DOT
background checks and for whom Pepsi Beverages Company procured a
background report for employment purposes from June 19, 2015,
through September 4, 2017.

   * All other employees for whom Pepsi Beverages Company procured
a background report for employment purposes from June 19, 2015,
through October 2, 2017.

FCRA violations may result in fines of up to $100 to $1,000 per
violation. The final approval hearing will be held on November 15,
2018. The class action lawsuit is Altareek Grice v. Pepsi Beverages
Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08853, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy,
fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the
files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and is intended to
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their credit reports.

In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled consumers must prove
"concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of
federal statutes like the FCRA in the case Spokeo v. Robins that
involved a man who claimed he suffered an injury when Spokeo
published incorrect information about him on its website.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion: Article III standing
requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory
violation. For that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a
bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.

In January 2018, the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of
certiorari that sought a review of its opinion following a ruling
in August 2017 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on remand
from the Supreme Court that found Robins had sufficient concrete
injury under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that employers are still targeted in FCRA class action
lawsuits for technical violations of the statute even after the
Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo is one of the "ESR Top Ten
Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected by leading global
background check firm Employment Screening Resources® (ESR).

"In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers
could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," said ESR founder and
CEO Attorney Lester Rosen. "Employers must ensure they comply with
the FCRA and work with a background screening firm that understands
the FCRA inside and out." [GN]

BRUMBACH MANCUSO: Wettig Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
SCOTT WETTIG v. BRUMBACH, MANCUSO & FEGLEY P.C. DBA BMF LAW GROUP,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03231-EGS (E.D. Pa., July 30, 2018), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, accusing
the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Brumbach Mancuso is an entity that uses mails and telephone, in the
business of attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff and
others.  Brumbach Mancuso regularly collects or attempts to
collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to
be owed or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ruggiero, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400
          Newton, MA 02466
          Telephone: (888) 332-7252
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: DRuggiero@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


BULLET ENERGY: Gandy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Gandy, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Bullet Energy Services and
Christopher Hays, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00732, (W.D. Okla.
July 30, 2018), seeks to recover to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act.

Bullet Energy Services paid Gandy an hourly rate, but did not pay
Gandy and the other workers for all hours worked or an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Bullet provides salt water disposal services for its clients in
support of oilfield operations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     PARMET HEDGPETH LLP
     800 Sawyer St.
     Houston, TX 77007
     Tel: (713) 999-5228
     Email: matt@parmethedgpeth.com


CA INC: Harvey Balks at Merger Deal with Broadcom Inc.
------------------------------------------------------
KELLI HARVEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CA, INC., MICHAEL GREGOIRE, JENS ALDER,
RAYMOND BROMARK, JEAN HOBBY, ROHIT KAPOOR, JEFFREY KATZ, KAY
KOPLOVITZ, CHRISTOPHER LOFGREN, RICHARD SULPIZIO, LAURA UNGER,
ARTHUR WEINBACH, COLLIE ACQUISITION CORP., and BROADCOM INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06996 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2018),
alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt
to sell the Company to Broadcom Inc. through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Collie Acquisition Corp.

According to the complaint, the Defendants caused a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018. The
Proxy recommends that CA shareholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby CA is acquired by Broadcom. The Proposed
Transaction was first disclosed on July 11, 2018, when CA and
Broadcom announced that they had entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Broadcom will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of CA for $44.50 per share. The
deal is valued at approximately $18.9 billion and is expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The Proposed Transaction makes little sense. CA is a software
company; Broadcom is a hardware company. There are few, if any,
synergies expected with the Proposed Transaction. Analysts have
noted that this may just make Broadcom harder to manage. And
Broadcom is known for "wringing" value out of acquired companies by
drastically cutting costs and selling off business units. If the
Board believed that stockholder value could be maximized by cutting
costs or selling off segments, it could have chosen to do so.
Instead, stockholders are being shut out of a business that has
existed for over 40 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514
          E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com
                  drl@rowleylawpllc.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bid Due Fri. in Egg Product Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended June 2, 2018, that the defendants' motion for
summary judgment is due August 17, 2018, in the non-class lawsuits
related to the Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases --
the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect
Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases."

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased
eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be
similarly situated.  In November 2014, the District Court approved
the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class
and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class
members' claims against the Company.

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in these cases are individuals or companies
who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or
more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers
that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties --
and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
others who claim to be similarly situated.

The District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into
a settlement agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for
an immaterial amount, and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an
order dismissing all indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims against
the Company and other defendants.

The Non-Class Cases

In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of
the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not
on behalf of a putative class. On April 4, 2018, the Court entered
a final judgement dismissing all claims against the Company brought
by the following non-class plaintiffs: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super
Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E.
Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.;
Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice,
pursuant to the Company's previously announced $80.8 million
settlement with the named plaintiffs.

The only non-class plaintiffs that are not included in the
settlement agreement are the following companies that sought
substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg
products (as opposed to shell eggs): Conopco, Inc., Kraft Food
Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company.

The egg products plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the UEP
animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many
other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed with
prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That
ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed
the District Court's grant of summary judgement and remanded the
case to the District Court.

Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the
Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit
declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings,
including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether
the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation
and damages to submit the case to a jury.

On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court
seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the
remand statements in the Third Circuit's opinion. Plaintiffs
opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a
reply in support of the motion.

On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for
leave allowing the defendants to re-file a motion for summary
judgment no later than August 17, 2018.

The Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment by this
deadline based on the non-class egg products plaintiffs' failure to
present any triable issue of fact on the elements of causation and
damages in their claims related to the purchases of processed egg
products.

Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of
eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege
that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs
by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg
antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of
the settlements and rulings, there is still a reasonable
possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg
antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not
possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to
the Company because of these cases.  Adjustments, if any, which
might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters,
have not been reflected in the financial statements.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and
distributes shell eggs. The company offers specialty shell eggs,
such as nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic, and brown eggs
under the Egg-Land's Best, Land O' Lakes, Farmhouse, and 4-Grain
brand names, as well as under private labels. The company was
founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CALDER BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Moreno v. Calder Brothers Corporation, Case No.
6:18-cv-02085-HMH (D.S.C., July 30, 2018), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendant arising from its alleged failure to pay overtime in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Calder Brothers Corporation is a South Carolina corporation, which
manufactures heavy equipment sold in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Stephenson, Esq.
          Brian P. Murphy, Esq.
          STEPHENSON & MURPHY, LLC
          207 Whitsett Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 370-9400
          Facsimile: (864) 240-9292
          E-mail: Tom@stephensonmurphy.com
                  Brian@stephensonmurphy.com


CANADA: 100+ Nursing-Home Patients Sign Up for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Derfel, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that in less
than three weeks, more than 100 nursing-home patients and their
families have come forward to sign up for a class-action lawsuit
against the government over the "shameful" treatment of residents
of long-term care centres.

Daniel Pilote, the lead plaintiff in the $500-million class action
that must still be authorized by the courts, said he's heartened by
the "phenomenal" response so soon after his July 10 news
conference.

"This shows that there is a big problem to fix, and that the
population has for a long time denounced the mistreatment in
CHSLDs," Mr. Pilote said on July 24, alluding to the government
network of nursing homes known as Centres d'hebergement de soins de
longue duree.

"Despite this systemic mistreatment, the government's response has
been inaction."

The Conseil pour la protection des malades (CPM), arguably the most
active patient-rights group in the province, is behind the court
action, months in the planning. The court documents cite 22
examples of purported abusive living conditions in CHSLDs -- from
shoddy quality of care and food to poor hygiene and spotty
maintenance.

The CPM is seeking compensatory damages of $250 to $750 per CHSLD
resident, as well as exemplary damages of $100 per individual, for
each month spent living in the nursing-home network. In total,
lawyers estimate the class action would cover 37,000 users during
the past three years.

The total compensation being sought would reach at least $500
million. Although the class action hasn't yet received the go-ahead
from a judge, the province's ombudsman has repeatedly criticized
the management of CHSLDs, accusing the government of reducing such
basic services as hygiene to the point that bed sores have become a
rampant problem.

And one month before the CPM held its news conference, Health
Minister Gaetan Barrette visited the CHSLD Ste-Dorothee in Laval,
where patients' relatives complained that residents were being
neglected because of a lack of staff.

The reports of mistreatment prompted the Parti Quebecois opposition
to demand that the ombudsman hold an inquiry into all CHSLDs in the
province.

Paul G. Brunet, executive director of the CPM, said his
organization has been receiving dozens of phone calls from patients
and families since the news conference.

"Clearly, through the dozens of messages we're getting at the CPM
and the 110 already-registered cases at the law firm, (the
response) overwhelmingly confirms the issues alleged in the
action," Brunet said by email.

The class action dates back three years to the time when Barrette
launched his massive cost-cutting reforms to the health system. The
class action not only targets CHSLDs but some private nursing homes
where the CPM has gathered complaints from residents.

Mr. Pilote, who is 56, has been living for the past four years in a
CHSLD in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu because he's paralyzed from the neck
down as a result of muscular dystrophy. He said the mistreatment
all boils down to a lack of human resources and poor management.

Although the Liberal government has added 14 new nursing homes to
the CHSLD network since 2014, families have complained of lengthy
waits to get into nursing homes, especially in the Montreal area.

Anyone who is interested in the class action can contact the
lawyers at CHSLD@larochelleavocats.com. [GN]

CARMAX INC: Still Defends California Wage and Hour Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
four class action lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims.

CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in
California.  The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum
wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay
statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses
and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition;
and Private Attorney General Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer.  The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles.  The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory
relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.  

Carmax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. It
offers customers a range of makes and models of used vehicles,
including domestic, imported, and luxury vehicles; vehicles that do
not meet its retail standards to licensed dealers through on-site
wholesale auctions; and extended protection plans to customers at
the time of sale. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CC LAST: Sullivan Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TERRICK SULLIVAN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COURIER CONNECTION,
INC., CC LAST MILE, LLC, and JOHN F. LAUTH, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04655-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court an
Order granting the Parties' stipulation and joint motion for
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and staying discovery until the status
conference after the opt-in notice period closes.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

           Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
           John L. Mays, Esq.
           POOLE HUFFMAN LLC
           315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 344
           Decatur, GA 30030
           Telephone: (404) 855 3002
           E-mail: dustin@poolehuffman.com
                   john@poolehuffman.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

           Kathryn S. McConnell, Esq.
           Ryan B. Sheffield, Esq.
           LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
           3344 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 1500
           Atlanta, GA 30326-4803
           Telephone: (404) 233 0330
           E-mail: kmcconnell@littler.com
                   rysheffield@littler.com


CENTENE CORP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Sanchez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the case entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al.,
is still pending.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court
entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July
2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September
2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject
to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States.
Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Gudger-King Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JODY GUDGER AND RHONDA KING, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated others, the Plaintiffs, v.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT CO., LLC and SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14281-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Jose E. Martinez has entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
      collective action, consistent with the instructions set
      forth in Magistrate Judge Maynard's Report and
      Recommendation; and

   2. denying Defendants' motion to strike.


CENTRAL MAINE: Faces PUC Probe Amid Ratepayers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tux Turkel, writing for Press Herald, reports that in a ditch,
half-hidden in weeds, is a remnant of the storm Mainers won't soon
forget. It's a cut-up utility pole, one of hundreds that were
destroyed in the October 2017 wind and rain storm that left a
record 470,000 customers in the dark.

"That pole snapped, broke in two," said Gordon Weil, who lives at
the end of a narrow, woodsy lane and gets electrical service via
the pole. "And the wire sat on the ground for 10 days."

Mr. Weil's house was among the last in Maine to get power restored,
and when crews working for Central Maine Power replaced the broken
pole, they made an important improvement. The new pole has a larger
circumference than the old one in the weeds. It's designed to
handle a heavier load. It also has a wooden side-support anchored
in the ground to stabilize the structure, which also carries phone
and cable lines.

Stouter utility poles are one feature likely to be highlighted in a
plan announced in June by CMP's parent company, Avangrid, to reduce
the cost and frequency of storm-related power outages.

Avangrid is pursuing a $2.5 billion effort to beef up its
distribution system over the next 10 years in Maine and New York.
Storm damage and recovery over the last 16 months in the two states
and Connecticut, where Avangrid is headquartered, have cost more
than $450 million. And as a changing climate fuels storms that are
more frequent and intense, the company said, it needs to harden its
electric grid to maintain reliable service.

Over the next few months, Avangrid will zero in on exactly where
upgrades should take place in each state and how much they will
cost. Besides stronger poles, measures may include more-aggressive
tree trimming, greater use of a special coated wire that resists
falling branches and putting more portions of the system
underground. Also being considered are emerging technologies such
as microgrids, which involve small service areas with their own
power supplies that can keep energy flowing when the wider system
goes down.

Avangrid said it will release specific details this fall for its
plan, called Transforming Energy. For Avangrid to go forward, the
Maine Public Utilities Commission will have to find that the level
of investment and the strategies selected are reasonable and should
be recovered over time in customer bills.

"You have to have a varied approach," said Michael West, a
spokesman for Avangrid. "No one solution will fit all."

HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY

But it's already clear that Avangrid's plan will face hurdles.

The PUC is in the midst of investigating how the state's power
companies responded to the October storm. Many residents and some
politicians have criticized CMP for taking too long and for
downplaying problems with an online portal meant to show when power
was restored. CMP has calculated that recovering from the storm
cost $69 million. If regulators agree the spending was justified,
customers will pick up much of the tab over several years.

At the same time, the PUC is conducting a probe into what caused
bills to spike for thousands of customers last winter, hundreds of
ratepayers are seeking a class-action lawsuit over the issue, and
the PUC has begun a separate inquiry into whether CMP is
overcharging customers.

Taken together, these and other events are fomenting a growing
public mistrust and skepticism about the motivations of
CMP/Avangrid, and to what degree they could raise electric bills.

Barry Hobbins, the state's consumer watchdog, said that with
Avangrid's ongoing problems with its current infrastructure and
business management, the company should step back and get input
from other stakeholders, before charging ahead with a costly new
venture.

"It is my opinion," Mr. Hobbins, Maine's public advocate, said,
"that they need to 'get their act together' before they even
consider putting more future, long-term financial obligations on
the backs of Maine ratepayers."

The plan also may come under scrutiny in the Legislature,
specifically by Democrats. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham,
immediately criticized Avangrid's proposal in June as continuing to
favor a centralized electric system over microgrids and distributed
generation, in which batteries, fuel cells, solar panels and other
alternatives supply power closer to where it's being consumed.

In Maine, a microgrid at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station is
being developed to tap a large solar farm and methane gas digester
and to power industrial and commercial space. A small microgrid is
trying to get up and running on Isle au Haut, six miles off the
coast of Stonington. In Connecticut, an Avangrid affiliate has
built a microgrid that can power the town of Woodbridge's public
safety buildings, aided by a $3 million state grant.

In a follow-up interview, Mr. Berry, who co-chairs the legislative
committee that handles energy and utility matters, acknowledged
that microgrids are expensive and won't help residents on far-flung
roads, such as the one Mr. Weil lives on.

"The larger point," he said, "is that CMP/Avangrid came out with a
proposal that they want to make the grid more reliable. But there's
no detail and, to be clear, that generally means they want more
money from ratepayers."

In the absence of detail, these misgivings show the tension that's
building in Maine between the conficting desires to reduce
storm-related blackouts and not to raise electric bills.

SEEING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES

In a place called the Pine Tree State, where more than 90 percent
of the land is forested, the leading cause of storm-related outages
isn't a mystery. Trees falling on or touching the electric
distribution system are responsible for 80 percent of problems,
Avangrid estimates.

One solution is to install wire with a protective, insulated layer.
Most electric wire spans are bare and vulnerable to falling
branches or leaning trees. That can cause short circuits. In the
past, CMP has run tree wire sparingly, because it's up to four
times more expensive. But that may be changing, under Avangrid's
new calculus.

More-expensive wire that reduces service calls can make long-term
economic sense, said Mr. Weil, a former Maine public advocate and
state energy director. Walking along his lane, Mr. Weil pointed up
to the black, coated tree wire that CMP installed years ago, at his
request. It runs from the new pole, past other neighbors, to his
house, through a narrow right of way flanked by dense woods. It's
easy to see how the electric lines are at risk from wind-blown
limbs or falling trees. Stringing more tree wire might make a
difference in heavily wooded communities such as Harpswell, where
most of the 5,000 or so residents live on three bridge-connected
islands and a 10-mile long peninsula that reach like bony fingers
into Casco Bay.

Harpswell's power is fed from two substations in neighboring
Brunswick, Weil said. If something happens between a substation and
Harpswell, power to half the town goes down.

One solution Avangrid is expected to propose in Transforming Energy
is shortening long, radial circuits, like the two feeding
Harpswell. That way, if a tree falls on a power line halfway along
the system, it doesn't black out everyone on the circuit.

NATURAL CONFLICT

More than a decade ago, the PUC ordered CMP to increase its trim
schedule for trees within power line rights of way to once every
five years. That has reduced outages.

But after crunching recent data, Avangrid determined that half of
the storm outages were triggered by trees outside the public right
of way, where CMP isn't authorized to prune branches.

There's no easy answer to this problem, which is evident when
driving from Brunswick to Mr. Weil's road along Route 123. This is
a narrow byway, with utility lines running along the sides and
crossing the roadway here and there. The rights of way directly
above and adjacent to the poles are trimmed. But many stretches are
flanked by tall pine and spruce trees that can fall into the power
corridor, if buffeted by wind or weighed down with heavy ice.

One idea, Mr. Weil said, is to seek more cooperative agreements
with landowners, which allow for trimming outside the right of way.
That's what he negotiated with CMP, so he can preserve trees
desirable for privacy but also identify and prune so-called danger
trees that become threatening.

There's a natural conflict, he added, between living in a forested
landscape and having reliable electrical service.

"It's not realistic to expect urban, underground service," he said.
"But if you know something's going to happen repeatedly, it's a
good idea to harden the system."

Expectations aside, after the 1998 ice storm that took out power
for days, Mr. Weil did what four of his eight neighbors have done
-- he installed a propane-fired generator.

FOCUS ON ACCOUNTABILITY

Efforts to harden the electrical system against storms in Maine and
New York are part of a national trend that includes customer
expectations of 24/7 power in the digital age and mounting cyber
threats, according to Scott Aaronson, vice president of security
and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute. The industry
trade group prepared a report in 2014 on best practices called
Before and After the Storm that highlights general strategies,
several of which are being proposed by Avangrid.

In terms of natural events, Mr. Aaronson said, the focus in the
Northeast is on trees. In the West, it's wildfires. In Florida,
it's hurricanes.

Investments in grid hardening can make a difference in storm
recovery. In Florida, Mr. Aaronson said, it took 13 days to restore
all power after Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Following a similar storm
last year, Hurricane Irma, power was back in five days. Since 2005,
he said, Florida Power & Light has spent $3 billion for concrete
poles, smart meters, flood monitors in substations and better
mutual aid and recovery plans.

Increasing customer bills to pay for these upgrades remains
controversial, Mr. Aaronson said, but state utility regulators are
feeling the same pressure as power companies.

"They don't want to be blamed for not approving prudent investments
to keep the lights on," he said.

But any investments Avangrid proposes to reduce storm outages will
receive intense scrutiny.

For instance: In its $2.5 billion estimate, Avangrid notes that
$500 million of the total is earmarked for a full rollout of smart
meters for its New York utilities. Among the touted benefits of
digital, networked meters during storms is the ability of utilities
to detect outages, make faster repairs and share information with
customers.

But that promise so far has fallen short in Maine. CMP installed
smart meters seven years ago, with a $200 million investment split
equally between a federal grant and ratepayers. But according to
comments filed in June by the Public Advocate's Office in the PUC
storm-response inquiry, only 48 percent of the meters worked
properly on Oct. 31, when the storm hit. Hobbins' office wants CMP
to file a report on what steps it's taking to improve smart meter
performance.

Berry said Avangrid has to be held accountable for new spending, to
assure it will make a real difference in future storms.

"We were promised that the massive public investment in the (smart
meter) system would help with resiliency, and that clearly didn't
happen," he said. "So we all are rightly skeptical and want to see
the details." [GN]

CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Aluminum Cryobiological Tank-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending
a purported class action suit related to the alleged failure of an
aluminum cryobiological storage tank.

Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.

Chart Industries said "We have confirmed that the tank in question
was part of the aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on
April 23, 2018. We are currently evaluating the merits of the
claims. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may
result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a potential
loss is not currently probable or estimable."

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment,
packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas,
energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three
segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S),
and BioMedical. The company is based in Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a
purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged failure of
stainless steel cryobiological storage tank.

During the three months ended June 30, 2018, Chart was named in
lawsuits (including a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) filed
against Chart and other defendants with respect to the alleged
failure of a stainless steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE
808AF-GB) at the Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco,
California.

No monetary damages related to the alleged failure have been
specified or communicated to Chart at this point, and  Chart is
evaluating the merits of such claims in light of the limited
information available to date regarding use, maintenance and
operation of the tank which has been out of the company's custody
for the past six years when it was sold to the Pacific Fertility
Center through an independent distributor.

Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.

Chart Industries said "We plan to assert various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since
manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation,
ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility
center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of
the tank."

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment,
packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas,
energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three
segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S),
and BioMedical. The company is based in Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHEADLE LAW: Booker Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SHERRY BOOKER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEADLE LAW,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-01394 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on August 14, 2018, for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all person between, October of 2016 to the present who
      received a letter from Defendant, where the letter listed
      attorneys' fees in the amount of one third of the
      obligation and the original creditor and the borrower did
      not agree to this amount of attorneys' fees"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for
      appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Ambrosius Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDY AMBROSIUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHICAGO ATHLETIC CLUBS LLC, EVANSTON ATHLETIC CLUB,
INC., LINCOLN PARK ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., LPAC HOLDINGS LLC, WESTLOOP
ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, LAKEVIEW ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., LINCOLN SQUARE
ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, WICKER PARK ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, BUCKTOWN ATHLETIC
CLUB LLC, and WEBSTER PLACE ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, Case No. 2018CH09598
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), is brought for alleged
breach of contract, breach of contract via breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act.

The Defendants own and operate athletic clubs in and around
Chicago, Illinois.  The Plaintiff and thousands of other
individuals are members of the Defendants' gyms.  For the last 2
and a half years, all of the Defendants' gyms provided to their
members a rewards program (the "CAC Rewards Program") as a term of
membership, in which gym members earn points ("CAC Rewards Points")
for various activities, such as going to the gym.

On July 16, 2018, at approximately 12:11 a.m., the Defendants
announced that they had unilaterally terminated the CAC Rewards
Program effective immediately.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants refused to allow CAC Members to redeem unused CAC
Rewards Points, and the Defendants did not compensate gym members
for the unused CAC Rewards Points they had accrued.

Evanston Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.  EAC
owned and operated the gym known as Evanston Athletic Club, located
in Evanston, Illinois.

Lincoln Park Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois corporation, and
LPAC Holdings LLC was an Illinois limited liability company, with
their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois.
LP AC and LP ACH owned and operated the gym known as Lincoln Park
Athletic Club, located in Chicago.

Westloop Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Chicago.
WAC owned and operated the gym known as West Loop Athletic Club,
located in Chicago.  Lakeview Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Chicago.  LAC owned and operated the gym known as Lakeview Athletic
Club, located in Chicago.

Lincoln Square Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Chicago.
LSAC owned and operated the gym known as Lincoln Square Athletic
Club located in Chicago.  Wicker Park Athletic Club LLC was an
Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Chicago.  WPAC owned and operated the gym known
as Wicker Park Athletic Club located in Chicago.

Bucktown Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Chicago.
BAC owned and operated the gym known as Bucktown Athletic Club
located in Chicago.  Webster Place Athletic Club LLC was an
Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Chicago.  Webster Place owned and operated the
gym known as Webster Place Athletic Club located in Chicago.

Chicago Athletic Clubs LLC was an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Gyms were part of the overall CAC enterprise, such
that all of the gyms were owned and operated, in part, by CAC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com


CHILDRENS ATHLETIC: Kohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MATTHEW KOHEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CHILDRENS ATHLETIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. a not for profit
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21884, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn) on Aug. 3, 2018. The New York Eastern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-04404-CBA-CLP to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon.

The case is a class action stemming from Defendant's invasion of
privacy, which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection.
Specifically, Defendant sent unsolicited, invasive, advertising
text-messages, using an autodialer to the cellphones of Plaintiff
and the class.

The Defendant owns and operates sports camps in New Jersey and, in
its persistent efforts to advertise solicit business, Defendant
regularly engages in these text-message-advertising campaigns,
without regard for the law or consumers' privacy rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP
          110 SE 6 Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595 6063
          Facsimile: (954) 595 6063
          E-mail: kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Scott Lance Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755 4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755 4684
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE
          110 SE 6th St, suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 361 3633
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com

Attorneys for Childrens Athletic Development Association, Inc.:

          Dale Lyn Friedman, Esq.
          CONROY SIMBERG GANON KREVANS & ABEL
          3440 Hollywood Boulevard, 2nd Floor
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 961 1400
          Facsimile: (954) 967 8577
          E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Jean Williams, Esq.
          CONROY, SIMBERG, GANON, KREVANS,
          ABEL, LURVEY, MORROW & SCHE
          3440 Hollywood Blvd., Second Floor
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 518 1384
          Facsimile: (954) 967 8577
          E-mail: rwilliams@conroysimberg.com


CJ STAR: Harris Sues Carl's Jr. Franchisees over No-Poach Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLIE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CJ STAR, LLC AN IDAHO LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, CARL'S JR.
RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Plaintiff, v. the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00247-TOR (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and
interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual
non-solicitation agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr.
franchisees could not solicit for employment the managerial-level
employees of Carl's Jr. and/or of other Carl's Jr. franchisees) and
no-hire agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees
could not hire the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or
other Carl's Jr. franchisees) that were all entered into by Carl's
Jr. franchises throughout Washington State for decades and that had
the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class
Members' wages and salaries.

According to the complaint, the genesis of the no-hire and
non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements
between Carl's Jr. and its franchisees, and between its
franchisees, including, upon information and belief, CJ Star.  The
illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Carl's
Jr. franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to recruit one
another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their wages, was
not known, to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July 12, 2018,
when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as part of its
then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by some of the
largest fast food franchises in Washington and the United States,
including Carl's Jr., that Carl's Jr. would no longer enforce
provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented
managerial-level workers from being hired or solicited by other
Carl's Jr. franchisees.  In sum, Defendants engaged in per se
violations of the Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman
Act by entering into no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, for
the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based
wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically
associated with the active recruitment of employees and workers in
a competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their
profits, Defendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation
agreements, robbed Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages
for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LA W
          2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212 7913
          Facsimile: (253) 276 0081
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Brian Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, #205
          Tacoma, WA, 98406
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  bd@ackermanntilajef.com


CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
ADRIENNE L. PADGETT, individually and behalf of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLARITY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01918-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges
that Defendant has allegedly reported illegal, void, and
uncollectible loans from installment loan and "payday" lenders,
such as Plain Green, LLC, as having balance due on Plaintiff's
consumer report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Clarity Services operates as a real-time credit bureau addressing
fraud detection and credit risk management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          John B. Scofield, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston TX 77007 1722
          Telephone: (713) 751 0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  jbs@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com


CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEARONE ADVANTAGE, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06693
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur unwanted and
unnecessary charges and invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to complaint, beginning in or around March of 2018, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
numbers ending in -4086 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendants' services. The Defendants contacted or
attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to
Defendants, including without limitation (443) 692-5455. The
Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. Furthermore, at one or more
instance during these calls, Defendant utilized an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's
calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming
calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Plaintiff is not
a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided any
personal information, including her telephone number, to Defendant
for any purpose whatsoever.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Deal Reached in Wabush Mines Pension Plan Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company and its
affiliate have made cash contributions as part of the settlement of
employment-related class action lawsuits.

On May 31, 2017, an action captioned Johnson, et al. v. Cliffs
Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (General) under the Class
Actions Act (Newfoundland) by certain former employees of Wabush
Mines on behalf of all non-union employees and retirees of Wabush
Mines, against the defendants Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Cliffs
Mining Company, and certain former and current officers, directors
and employees.

The Salaried Employees Action sought, among other things, various
declarations and damages relating to the "Contributory Salaried
Plan for Salaried Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company,
Managing Agent, Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway
Company, Limited".

On or about June 23, 2017, a separate action captioned Skinner, et
al. v. Cliffs Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Newfoundland
Court under the Class Actions Act (Newfoundland) by certain former
employees of Wabush Mines on behalf of all unionized employees and
retirees of Wabush Mines against the same defendants.

The Union Employees Action sought, among other things, declarations
and damages relating to the "Pension Plan for Bargaining Unit
Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company, Managing Agent,
Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway Com6pany, Limited".

On May 10, 2018, the parties reached a settlement of both the
Salaried Employees Action and the Union Employees Action, which
will be implemented as part of the Amended Plan within the CCAA
proceedings involving the Bloom Lake Group and the Wabush Group.

Cleveland-Cliffs said "Under the terms of the Amended Plan, we and
certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have made a C$19.0 million
cash contribution to the Wabush Group pension plan and will
contribute into the CCAA estate any distributions or payments we
may be entitled to receive as creditors of the Bloom Lake Group and
the Wabush Group for distribution to other creditors within the
CCAA proceedings. Upon implementation of the Amended Plan, each of
the Employee Actions will be discontinued and the defendants in the
Employee Actions will be released from those claims contained in or
which could have been raised in the Employee Actions."

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the
United States. The company operates four iron ore mines in Michigan
and Minnesota; and Koolyanobbing iron ore mining complex located in
Western Australia. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


COINBASE: Investigation Finds No Wrongdoing, Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CCN reports that a Coinbase internal investigation into alleged
insider trading before it listed Bitcoin Cash has found no evidence
to support the allegations.

The exchange, which hired two law firms to carry out an in-house
investigation of the accusations, has stated that no wrongdoing was
found, and it will take no further action.

Bitcoin Cash Allegations
Since December 2017, America's largest cryptocurrency exchange has
been dogged by a series of accusations surrounding the events of
December 20, when it surprised the market by announcing the listing
of Bitcoin Cash.

The trouble started when Bitcoin Cash prices suddenly spiked in a
heavy and unprecedented manner, driven primarily by a surge in
demand from south Korean buyers on December 20.

The same day, Coinbase put out a surprise announcement revealing
its decision to list Bitcoin Cash on its platform, despite having
previously stated that it would not support the cryptocurrency
until January 2018. Traders who bought BCH before the announcement
saw their assets more than double in price in just a few minutes.
Naturally it did not take long for industry players to begin
insinuating that Coinbase knew something about the inexplicable BCH
spike just before its announcement.

Bitfury Vice Chairman George Kikvadze was one of such people.

Coinbase immediately announced the launch of an internal
investigation, promising to get to the bottom of the matter. To
this end the company hired two "well known national law firms" to
check whether any of its employees took part in such practises.

Not Out Of The Clear Yet
Following months of investigation by the law firms, the all-clear
comes as a boost to Coinbase, which stood to suffer a great amount
of reputational damage as a result of the matter.

The company is eager to point out that the probe completely cleared
Coinbase employees of all insider trading allegations and
recommended no further action.

In a statement released to Fortune, Coinbase said:

"We would not hesitate to terminate an employee or contractor
and/or take appropriate legal action if evidence showed our
policies were violated. We can report that the voluntary,
independent internal investigation has come to a close, and we have
determined to take no disciplinary action."

The company however is not quite out of the woods yet. In March
2018, Arizona resident Jeffrey Berk filed a class action lawsuit
alleging professional negligence on the part of Coinbase. The suit
seeks a payout of at least $5 million to Berk and other investors
like him.

It also places attention on the so-called "Coinbase Effect" where a
listing announcement for any digital asset on the exchange results
in sharp price increases, such as with Ethereum Classic in June
2018.

Bitcoin Cash 'Scandal' Timeline

July 2017 -- Coinbase announces that it will not support BCH and
advises investors to redeem their funds.

August 2017 -- Coinbase announces partial support for BCH.

December 20, 2017 -- Bitcoin Cash records a sudden price spike due
to a sharp and unexpected rise in demand from South Korea.

December 20, 2017 -- Coinbase makes a surprise announcement
informing the market that it is listing Bitcoin Cash

December 20, 2017 -- Accusations of insider trading begin to
surface as investors and observers smell a rat.

December 20, 2017 -- Coinbase announces that it has launched an
internal investigation into insider trading accusations.

March 2018 -- Arizona resident Jeffrey Berk files a class action
lawsuit against Coinbase in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking a payout of more than $5 million on
allegations that Coinbase tipped off its employees about its
decision to list Bitcoin Cash, enabling them to carry out insider
trades ahead of the listing announcement. [GN]

COMPLYRIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax Form Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Jones, writing for Komando.com, reports that data breaches are
commonplace in today's digital world. It seems we're finding out
about major new breaches every week.

The Equifax breach that we learned about last year was particularly
harsh. Critical information from over 145 million Americans was
exposed in that breach, making it one of the worst ever.

Even though breaches are happening constantly, we shouldn't sit
back and accept it as the norm. Something needs to be done to stop
these from happening, and I'm talking sooner rather than later. A
group of recent victims have decided to fight back.

Are you part of this breach?
One of the latest major data breaches happened at an HR and tax
service company called ComplyRight. The company helps employers
streamline administrative tasks and takes care of tax forms like
your W-2.

It recently announced that it was the victim of a data breach from
earlier this year. The breach began sometime in April and lasted
through May.

Over 660,000 people have been impacted by this breach. Exposed data
includes: names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and
Social Security numbers of individual tax form recipients. This is
bad!

What happened was, at the end of May, ComplyRight was notified of a
security issue with its website. After an investigation, it
determined that there was unauthorized access to its site.

The company says that it sent notification letters through
snail-mail to everyone who was affected. It also set up a dedicated
response line that you can call if you were a victim of the
breach.

That number is 844-299-7772 and can be reached Monday through
Friday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. ComplyRight is offering affected
individuals free credit monitoring services for 12 months through
TransUnion.

How victims are fighting back
Victims of this breach aren't taking it lightly. In fact, some have
filed lawsuits against ComplyRight for allegedly not properly
protecting its data and not immediately notifying victims.

The lawsuits seek damages for the improper disclosure of personal
information, including time and effort to clean-up the data breach.
It's possible these lawsuits could turn into class action suits, so
all victims could join in.

This is an interesting response to a data breach. If it works, will
it be the new way to handle breaches in the future? [GN]

CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends "Briseno" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended May 27, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Briseno v. ConAgra
Foods, Inc.

Conagra Brands said "We are party to a number of putative class
action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the
Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for
Wesson® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the
oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms."

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.

Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CONGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Wage and Hour Claims Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended May 27, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in the case, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.

Conagra Brands said "We are party to matters challenging the
Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number
of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege
a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several
current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the
State of California."

Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains pending.  On
the court's own motion, the Motions to Certify Class were taken off
the August 9, 2018, calendar and placed under submission.

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News, reported that directors
are selling Cotiviti Holdings too cheaply through an unfair process
to Verscend Technologies, for $44.75 per share or $4.9 billion,
shareholders of the tech company say in a federal class action.

CUMMINS PACIFIC: Towle Seeks to Certify 5 Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JUAN TOWLE, on behalf of himself and all
other aggrieved non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. CUMMINS
PACIFIC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-LAB-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:

   1. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative;

   2. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel and

   3. certifying subclasses:

      Unlawful Meal Period Policy Subclass:

      "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who
      were subject to Defendant's Meal and Rest Breaks policy and
      who were not relieved of all duties for a first meal period
      by the end of the fifth hour of work and/or a second meal
      period by the end of the tenth hour of work between
      December 4, 2013 and May 31, 2016";

      Unlawful Meal Period Premium Pay Practice Subclass:

     "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who were
      not relieved of all duties for a first meal period by the
      end of the fifth hour of work and/or a second meal period
      by the end of the tenth hour of work, and who were not
      compensated with one hour of pay for all such instances
      between December 4, 2013 and the date of judgment";

      Unlawful Rest Period Policy Subclass:

      "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who
      were subject to Defendant's Meal and Rest Breaks policy and
      who did not receive a first, paid 10-minute rest period
      during work shifts of 3.5 but less than 4 hours, a second
      rest period during shifts greater than 6 hours but less
      than 8 hours, or a third rest period during shifts greater
      than 10 hours but less than 12 hours, any time between
      December 4, 2013 and May 31, 2016";

      Unlawful Rest Period Premium Pay Practice Subclass:

      "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who
      were not compensated with one hour of pay for all instances
      where they did not receive a first, paid 10 minute rest
      period during work shifts of 3.5 but less than 4 hours, a
      second rest period during shifts greater than 6 hours but
      less than 8 hours, or a third rest period during shifts
      greater than 10 hours but less than 12 hours, any time
      between December 4, 2013 and the date of judgment"; and

      Unlawful Derivative Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

      "all of Defendant's former non-exempt California employees
      who were not provided timely payments of all final wages as
      required by the California Labor Code upon separation of
      employment during any time between".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
          Erik A. Dos Santos, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 4720
          Facsimile: (619) 270 9856
          E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  edossantos@hoguebelonglaw.com


DADA BHAGAVAN: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dada Bhagavan
Hospitality LLC. The case is captioned as LANIE QUARTERMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DADA BHAGAVAN HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendant Case No.
1:18-cv-00132-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 12, 2018). The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker and referred to
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.

Dada Bhagavan Hospitality, LLC is engaged in the Hotels and Motels
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L KERR PA
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


DEBT CARE: Ingersoll Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL INGERSOLL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEBT CARE USA, INC. d/b/a
DEBT CENTER OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06674 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3,
2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around November 2017,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -3875, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone numbers belonging to Defendants, including without
limitation (775) 223-1629 and (702) 749-4288, confirmed to be
Defendant's number.

Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's
calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming
calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Defendant did
not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -3875 was added to the National Do-Not-Call
Registry on or about July 6, 2010. Defendant placed multiple calls
soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
ending in -3875 in or around November 2017.  Those calls constitute
solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as
they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services. The
Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant
within a 12-month period.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed
that on July 23, 2018, it filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of its client Local 705 International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Pension Fund ("Local 705") against Diamond Resorts
International, Inc. ("Diamond" or the "Company") (NYSE:DRII), and
certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").  The
action, which is captioned Local 705 International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Pension Fund v. Diamond Resorts International Inc., No.
18-cv-01355 (D. Nev.), asserts claims under Sections 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
on behalf of all shareholders who held, sold, or tendered Diamond
common stock, or derivative securities convertible into,
exercisable for, or exchangeable against Diamond common stock, from
the period beginning on July 14, 2016 through September 1, 2016.

The Company owns a network of international vacation destinations
and sells vacation ownership "points," which entitles the owner to
reserve rooms in one of Diamond's resort or hotel properties.  On
July 14, 2016, Dakota Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of private equity firm Apollo Global Management LLC ("Apollo"),
commenced a cash tender offer to acquire Diamond at a purchase
price of $30.25 per share (the "Tender Offer").

The Complaint alleges that Diamond issued a materially incomplete
and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
(the "Recommendation Statement") related to the Tender Offer.
Among other things, Defendants omitted the critical fact that the
Stephen J. Cloobeck ("Cloobeck"), Diamond's founder, Chairman, and
largest stockholder, had abstained from voting on the sale of
Diamond for reasons that directly contradicted the Board's
recommendation to the stockholder. Further, the Complaint alleges
that Apollo offered consulting agreements or co-investment
opportunities to Cloobeck, Diamond's Vice Chairman Lowell Kraff,
and Diamond's President and Chief Executive Officer David Palmer to
support the sale of Diamond to Apollo, additional consideration not
provided to any other stockholder in the Company.

If you held, sold, or tendered Diamond common stock, or derivative
securities convertible into, exercisable for, or exchangeable
against Diamond common stock, from the period beginning on July 14,
2016, through September 1, 2016, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada no later than September 24, 2018.  The
Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint here.

Local 705 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on
its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60
full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been
recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is
consistently ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are
located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.  More
information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
[GN]

DOUGH DOUGH: Stigar Sues over No-Poach Agreements
-------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH STIGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOUGH DOUGH, INC., a Washington
Corporation, AUNTIE ANNE'S FRANCHISOR SPV, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00244 (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018),
seeks millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and
interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual
non-solicitation agreements (i.e., agreements that Auntie Anne's
franchisees could not solicit for employment the employees of
Auntie Anne's and/or of other Auntie Anne's franchisees) and
anti-poach agreements (i.e., agreements that Auntie Anne's
franchisees could not hire the employees of Auntie Anne's and/or
other Auntie Anne's franchisees) that were all entered into by
Auntie Anne's franchises throughout Washington State and that had
the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class
Members' wages and salaries.

According to the complaint, the genesis of the anti-poach and
non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements
between Auntie Anne's and its franchisees, and between its
franchisees, including, upon information and belief, Dough Dough.
This illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other
Auntie Anne's franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to
recruit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their
wages, was not known, to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July
12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as
part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by
some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington and the
United States, including Auntie Anne's, that Auntie Anne's would no
longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that
prevented workers from being hired by other Auntie Anne's
franchisees. In sum, Defendants engaged in per se violations of the
Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman Act by entering
into anti-poach and non-solicitation agreements, for the express
purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and
benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated
with the active recruitment of employees and workers in a
competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their profits,
Defendants, through their anti-poaching agreements, robbed Class
Members millions of dollars worth of wages for which Plaintiff and
the Class now seek relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212 7913
          Facsimile: (253) 276 0081
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Brian Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, #205
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  bd@ackermanntilajef.com


DPI SPECIALTY: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Edmond Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FONTAINE EDMOND, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DPI SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., DPI SPECIALTY
FOODS MIDWEST, INC., DPI DEDICATED LOGISTICS, INC., DAYFORCE, INC.,
CERIDIAN HCM, INC., and CERIDIAN HCM HOLDING, INC., Case No.
2018CH09573 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), wants
redress and to curtail the Defendants' alleged unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric
data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  DPI Specialty Foods
Midwest, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Illinois.  DPI Dedicated Logistics, Inc., is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware.

DPI is a sales, marketing, and logistics provider for food products
in eight locations across the United States, including a
distribution center in Hodgkins, Illinois.

Dayforce, Inc., is a Canadian corporation and a subsidiary of
Ceridian HCM, Inc.  Ceridian HCM, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.  Ceridian HCM
Holding, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware.  Ceridian HCM Holding, Inc. is the
parent company of Ceridian HCM, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Levitt Files Suit Over False Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK LEVITT, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated in Florida v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC. and
DR. PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Case No. CACE-18-018098 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., July 30, 2018), is a consumer protection class action
alleging that the Defendants misrepresented certain products as
"Made from Real Ginger."

The crux of this case is based on the Defendants' alleged
deceptive, unfair, and false marketing practices regarding its
Canada Dry brand Ginger Ale that claims to be "Made from Real
Ginger," according to the complaint.  The label of the Products
uniformly and prominently represent that the Products are "Made
from Real Ginger," which leads Florida consumers to believe that
the Products are comprised of real ginger, ie: ground up ginger
root ("Real Ginger").  The Plaintiff argues that the Products are
not made from Real Ginger.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., is a corporation existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of
business in Plano, Texas.

Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in
Plano, Texas.  It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dr. Pepper
Snapple Group, Inc.

The Defendants manufactured, advertised, sold, and distributed the
Products to the general public throughout the state of Florida,
including to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, who
purchased the Products from retail stores located throughout the
state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELITE FUNDING: Hardin Sues over Spam Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------
TENLEY HARDIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELITE FUNDING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06686 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, in or about January of 2018, the
Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message from Defendant on
her cellular telephone number, ending in -2480. During this time,
Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the
purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional
offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and
received by Plaintiff in or around January of 2018 from Defendant's
phone number, (631) 782-8770. These text messages sent from
Defendant to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were automated
messages, asking Plaintiff to contract Defendant in order to obtain
more information for business funding and underwriting. This text
message placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A). The telephone number that Defendant, or its agent, sent
unsolicited a text message to was assigned to a cellular telephone
service, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1). These
unsolicited text messages constituted text messages that were not
for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff was never a client of Defendant's and
never provided her cellular telephone number to Defendant for any
reason whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant and its agent never
received Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited
text messages. These text messages by Defendant, or its agents,
violated 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Florida Class Suit for $1,215,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K report with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 5, 2018, that the
parties in the class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement for a settlement amount equal to
$1,215,000.

In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ERBA
Diagnostics, Inc. and certain of its current or former executive
officers. The original Complaint was replaced by an Amended
Complaint that added, as defendants, certain other of the Company's
former executive officers, the Company's executive chairman, the
entity that is the Company's majority stockholder (ERBA Diagnostics
Mannheim GmbH), the company that owns the majority stockholder
(Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd.), and the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm at the time the Amended Complaint
was filed (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.).

The Amended Complaint alleged generally that during the purported
class period of June 14, 2013 through November 20, 2015, the
Company and the other Company-related defendants knowingly or
recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's
financial position and results of operations, business operations,
and prospects that were materially false and misleading or lacked a
reasonable basis. The Amended Complaint asserted claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in the amount that the
class members allegedly lost on account of the allegedly false and
misleading statements.

The Company, together with those of its current and former officers
and directors who were named as defendants and served, filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; the Company's former
auditors also moved to dismiss. On February 16, 2017, the court
heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench (i) granting the
motions to dismiss; (ii) denying the plaintiff's request for
permission further to amend the Amended Complaint; and (iii)
dismissing the case. On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

On June 28, 2018, the Company, the other named defendants and the
plaintiff entered into a Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to
which the parties agreed to settle and resolve the matter, subject
to court approval, for a settlement amount equal to $1,215,000, of
which $1,100,000 will be paid by the Company and the Company's
current and former officers and directors named as defendants, and
$115,000 will be paid by Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.

The settlement amount to be paid by the Company and the Company's
current and former officers and directors is within the limits of
the Company's insurance coverage and is expected to be paid either
directly by the Company's insurance provider or by the Company
subject to reimbursement from its insurance provider.

As consideration for the payment of the settlement amount, the
plaintiff agreed, on behalf of himself and the settlement class, to
release any and all claims related to the subject matter of the
Amended Complaint and such additional claims as set forth in
further detail therein.

The settlement remains subject to the approval of the district
court. However, the timing of any approval from the district court
is uncertain because the plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit divested the
district court of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, on June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved the district
court for an indicative ruling that preliminary approval of the
class settlement raises a substantial issue that warrants further
consideration. If the district court grants the motion, then the
parties will move the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit for a stay and limited remand of the action so
that the district court can proceed with considering whether to
preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. If preliminary
approval is granted, then class members will receive notice and an
opportunity to object to or opt out of the settlement. The district
court will then consider final approval of the settlement and
conduct a fairness hearing.

The Company, its current and former directors and officers and all
of the defendants in this action denied and continue to deny that
any of them violated any laws or committed any wrongdoing
whatsoever, and this Stipulation of Settlement should not be deemed
to be an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability,
or wrongdoing whatsoever by any of the defendants.

ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets test
kits, laboratory instruments, and raw materials such as antigens.
The Company's products perform diagnostic tests for the detection
of disease.  ERBA's products are sold to hospitals and clinical
laboratories. The company is based in Miami Lakes, Florida.


ESA P PORTFOLIO: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESA P Portfolio
Operating Lessee Inc. The case is captioned as LANIE QUARTERMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESA P PORTFOLIO OPERATING LESSEE LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-00130-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 12, 2018). The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker and referred to
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.

ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee Inc. operates as a hotel. The
Company offers short term lodging and resort services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L KERR PA
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


EXTENDED LIFE: Hawkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Extended Life
Home Care, LTD, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective:

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "all current and former employees and independent
      contractors of Defendants who: (i) worked as home health
      aides, support associates, caregivers, or other employees
      or independent contractors who provided companionship
      services, rehabilitation services, domestic services, home
      care, and/or other in-home services; (ii) worked over 40
      hours in any workweek; and (iii) were not paid one and one
      half times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours
      they worked during three years preceding the filing date of
      this Motion and continuing through the date of final
      disposition of this case (the "216(b) Class" or the "216(b)
      Class Members"); and

   3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      Order, to provide a list in electronic and importable
      format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of
      all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants
      at any time from three years preceding the filing of this
      Motion through the present.

Attorneys for Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787 4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923 7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


F. MILLER PROPERTIES: Hannon Class Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SHANNON HANNON, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
F. MILLER PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00304-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John W.
DeGravelles entered an order:

   1. granting a motion to suspend briefing; and

   2. denying a motion for provisional class certification,
      without prejudice to that Motion's refiling following the
      appearance of newly added Defendant, with any revisions
      necessary to reflect the current scope of the case.


FABRICA INTERNATIONAL: MOU in Reached in "Garcia" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 2, 2018, that the
parties in the case, Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc.
et al, agrees to file a motion for approval of the memorandum of
understanding.

As of June 25, 2018, the Company and the Class Representative have
agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of the
class action litigation styled Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica
International, Inc. et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No.
30-2017-00949461-CU-OE-CXC.

The parties agreed to file a motion for approval of the memorandum
of understanding with the court in which the case is pending, and
to finalize a definitive agreement subject to court approval.  The
parties intend to file the memorandum of understanding with the
Court within the next three to four weeks. The Company expects to
incur costs of approximately $1.5 million upon final resolution of
the matter.

The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells
floor-covering products for residential and commercial applications
primarily in the United States. It offers residential carpets and
custom rugs, specialty carpets and rugs, residential tufted
broadloom and rugs, and broadloom and modular carpet tiles. The
company is based in Dalton, Georgia.


FERRARA CANDY: Settles Packaging Class Action for $2.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Mealey, writing for News4JAX, reports that the Ferrara Candy
Company will pay $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit settlement.
The lawsuit was over packaging alleging the company boxed its
products in oversized packaging with excessive space.

Ferrara Candy makes jujyfruits, jujubes, Now & Later, Lemonhead,
Applehead, Cherryhead, Grapehead, RedHots, Trolli, Chuckles, Black
Forest, Jawbuster, Jawbreaker, Brach's, Boston Baked Beans, Super
Bubble, Rainblo and Atomic Fireball candies.

If you bought one of those candies from Feb. 21, 2013 to June 21,
2018, you may be entitled to a cash payment.

In addition to payments, Ferrara agreed to modify quality control
procedures and fill levels.

People who do not have proof of purchase can claim up to 15 boxes
for a maximum refund of $7.50. [GN]



FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Faces Jessica Stock Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstmark Services.
The case is captioned Jessica Stock, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Firstmark
Services, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01363 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3,
2018).

FirstMark engages in originating and servicing privately funded
education loans for financial institutions, borrowers, and schools.
Its service cycle includes loan application entry, automated credit
decisioning, loan disbursement, and document management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Amonoo Settlement Wins Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DOMONIQUE AMONOO, PAOLA PAZYMINO, and ROSA
M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01601-SCM (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge
Steven C. Mannion has granted preliminary approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement, at the Plaintiff's behest.

The Complaint alleged that Defendant committed violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court held that these
Settlement Classes are certified for purposes of settlement:

     Class A: All natural persons with an address within the State
of New Jersey, to whom Firstsource Advantage. LLC sent one or more
collection letters from March 22, 2015 to November 11, 2017 in an
attempt to collect a consumer debt on behalf of Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., which were not returned as undeliverable, which letter
contained the statement: As a result of settling a debt for less
than the balance owed, the creditor may be required to report the
amount forgiven to the Internal Revenue Service on a 1099C
form[.]"

     Class B: All natural persons with an address within the State
of New Jersey, to whom Firstsource Advantage, LLC, sent one or more
collection letters from March 22, 2015 to November 11, 2017 in an
attempt to collect a consumer debt on behalf LVNV Funding LLC,
which were not returned as undeliverable, which letter contained
the statement: "Please be advised that interest will continue to
accrue on this account."

The Court appoints Yongmoon Kim of Kim Law firm LLC as Class
Counsel; and Dahl Administration, LLC, as the Settlement
Administrator.

A fairness hearing is set for Nov. 6.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

Attorneys for Firstsource Advantage, LLC:

          Dinesh U. Dadlani, Esq.
          SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
          15 Exchange Place, Suite 1020
          Jersey City, NJ 07302

               - and -

          Jordan S. Yu, Esq.
          YU MOHANDESI LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071


FLINT, MI: State Dismissed From Water Contamination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge has dismissed the state of Michigan and Gov. Rick
Snyder from a consolidated class action brought over water
contamination in the city of Flint, while allowing some claims to
go forward.

On August 1 order, by U.S. District Judge Judith Levy in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, significantly pared down the lead case brought on behalf
of Flint residents who suffered health problems and businesses that
saw diminished property values after government officials switched
the source of their drinking water. But she kept several former
state officials and the city of Flint in the case.

"During this period, some governmental officials disregarded the
risk the water posed, denied the increasingly clear threat the
public faced, protected themselves with bottled water, and rejected
solutions that would have ended this crisis sooner," Levy wrote.

Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Ted Leopold, Esq. --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- praised the decision.

"The case, for purposes of moving forward, is a lot cleaner and
concise," said Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. "The takeaway is the case is not
going away. There are plenty of claims that survived that will be
litigated, prosecuted and tried at the end of the day."

A spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, which is
representing the state and the former treasurer, did not respond to
a request for comment. Snyder spokeswoman Ari Adler declined to
comment.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said the state got a "free pass."

"The Flint water crisis, as we all know, occurred while the city of
Flint was in financial receivership and controlled by state
officials who were appointed by the governor," she said in a
statement. "The decision to use Flint River water, and the response
to the water crisis, required the direction and approval of the
MDEQ [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality] and other state
officials. The state of Michigan certainly has moral responsibility
for this crisis. It would be manifestly unjust for the city to be
left holding the bag for these state decisions."

In 2014, state officials decided to shift the city's water supply
from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite studies warning the
corrosive nature of the river could risk lead getting into the
drinking water.

Lawsuits have faced jurisdictional and procedural hurdles. The
consolidated class action brought 13 claims by 12 individuals and
three businesses against more than 20 defendants.

Levy heard oral arguments on July 11 on several motions to
dismiss.

Levy found the state of Michigan was entitled to sovereign
immunity, but that several former employees of the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality and Flint officials were not.

Among the claims the judge tossed were constitutional claims based
on race. Plaintiffs had alleged government officials violated the
14th Amendment's equal protection claims and the federal Civil
Rights Act by shifting the water supply for Flint residents, who
are predominantly poor African-Americans—but not for the more
affluent white residents of Genesee County. Levy, however, pointed
out that not all Flint residents are black.

"In short, the common thread of the plaintiffs' proposed equal
protection class is not race, but association," she wrote. "Here, a
class of people are alleging that, regardless of race, they were
equally punished based on animus toward the African-American
members of the class. Despite undertaking significant research, the
court can find no case asserting claims for race discrimination
under the equal protection clause by a class of individuals where
at least a 34 percent are not members of the protected class."

The judge also tossed claims that Snyder, the state of Michigan and
several individual defendants violated the 14th Amendment's
substantive due process clause against a "state-created danger."

She also dismissed claims alleging substantive due process
violations of bodily integrity against Snyder and former Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality director Dan Wyant. But she
allowed them to go forward against Dillon, who plaintiffs have
alleged "took affirmative–and decisive–steps to expose Flint
water users to contaminated water," as well as Michigan Department
of Health and Human Services director Nick Lyon and a dozen other
governmental officials, many of whom face criminal charges.

One of those individual defendants is Howard Croft, Flint’s
former director of public works, who is now charged with
involuntary manslaughter.

"We believe Judge Levy correctly dismissed the substantive due
process claim based upon an alleged state-created danger against
Mr. Croft," said Croft’s lawyer, Alexander Rusek,Esq.--
alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com-- of White Law in Okemos, Michigan.
"However, we intend to pursue our right of appeal in regards to the
substantive due process bodily integrity claim as plaintiffs have
failed to allege specific acts committed by Mr. Croft that would
avoid his qualified immunity in this matter."

Levy also dismissed some negligence claims against two engineering
firms—Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam and Veolia. They still face
claims of professional negligence.

Lockwood Andrews attorney Wayne Mason, Esq. -- wayne.mason@dbr.com
-- a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in Dallas, said in a
statement: "We believe the decision is consistent with the
court’s past rulings. LAN is generally pleased with the court’s
decision to dismiss all but one of the claims against it. LAN will
continue to defend itself against the remaining, baseless claim."

The ruling does not affect a separate class action in the Michigan
Court of Claims, which handles tort claims against the state. In
that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals refused to dismiss claims
against Snyder and the state of Michigan earlier this year.

"Although the court has narrowed the focus of the Flint water
crisis class action, it is important for the people of Flint to
understand that the heart of the case is very much alive and well,"
said Michael Pitt, Esq. -- mpitt@pittlawpc.com -- co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs in both cases, and a partner at Pitt McGehee
Palmer and Rivers. "With this ruling, the pace of the case will
pick up dramatically so that there will be no further delays in
getting our clients the justice to which they are entitled."[GN]

FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid College Tuition Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Solochek, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that
Susan Snyder remembers the day well.

Her younger son was 5, and the older one 7. The family had just
moved to Tampa, and came upon a glossy brochure touting the
benefits of Florida Prepaid college tuition plans.

"It was clear that costs were possibly going to double, and it
would be a good idea to pay today's rate," said Ms. Snyder, who now
lives in Ohio.

The Snyders bought two plans.

When they tapped into the accounts a decade later, though, they
didn't get everything they thought they had purchased.

So now Susan Snyder is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit
that contends Florida Prepaid has violated its agreement when it
comes to students who attend universities outside the state. At
stake: Potentially millions of dollars that could be owed to about
20,000 families who used their plans at out-of-state schools.

At issue is the "tuition differential fee," adopted by lawmakers in
2007 to allow the state's five largest universities -- later
expanded to all of them -- to charge an undergraduate fee that
would help bolster program funding.

The state distinguished the fee from tuition, which it wanted to
keep low. And so, too, did Florida Prepaid.

It exempted families with tuition plans purchased before 2007 from
responsibility for the fee, while incorporating the amount into
plans bought afterward.

For families like the Snyders, whose children attended universities
outside Florida, that meant they'd get the value of Florida tuition
-- but not that of the differential fee. Students who attend
out-of-state schools make up about 10 percent of Florida Prepaid's
approximately 112,450 active plan holders, according to the latest
annual report.

What's the difference?

Florida Prepaid contributed $116 per credit hour toward Snyder's
older son's tuition at The Citadel, while the average cost per
credit at the University of Florida was about $202.

"I paid in $13,000 (per plan). They said the value of my plan was
roughly $14,000," Susan Snyder said, suggesting the agency
initially made it seem like families would see a greater return. "I
would have been better off setting up my own private investment
plan."

She contended the differential fee is no different than tuition, as
it essentially pays for the same thing, just with a separate name.
The plans she bought promised to transfer "current" rates to
out-of-state schools, and that didn't happen, in her view.

"The folks that stay in state get their value. The folks that
don't, don't get their value," said Ed Zebersky, the lawyer leading
the class action suit. "They're just stealing the benefit from
these folks, and the time value of money."

In court documents and public statements, Florida Prepaid
representatives have rejected the notion that they've violated the
contracts.

They contended the families are getting the full value of their
tuition plan, and are asking for benefits they never purchased.

"The tuition plan specifically defines which fees plaintiff is
purchasing, and provides that all other fees are plaintiff son's
responsibility," Florida Prepaid lawyers wrote in one motion. "The
tuition differential fee and the technology fee are not part of the
benefits she purchased."

Shannon Colavecchio, a spokeswoman for Florida Prepaid, further
noted that families who buy a tuition plan are not making an
investment, but rather locking in a tuition rate with guaranteed
repayment.

Newer plans account for the differential, she stressed, and older
ones do not.

"The trial court upheld the fact that a subscriber using her plan
at an approved out-of-state institution is entitled to nothing more
and nothing less than what the subscriber would have received had
the beneficiary . . . attended a Florida institution," Ms.
Colavecchio said.

In an October 2017 ruling, Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper
found that the plan purchasers are bound by the Florida Prepaid
master contract, which when signed was clear that it could be
amended from time to time.

That meant the families were bound to any adopted changes to the
terms.

Even so, Judge Cooper noted, the language regarding use of the
benefits at qualified out-of-state schools did not materially
change. And, he continued, the agreement was "plain" in not
including the tuition differential or technology fees.

"No matter which version of the master contract applies, plaintiff
is not entitled to recover the value of a plan she never purchased,
to compensate her for a cost that she will never incur," he wrote.

He also noted that students attending Florida universities on a
plan bought before 2007 do not get the differential fee, either.

And he added that relying on marketing language to infer Florida
Prepaid's intent is not relevant. Some of the materials Snyder said
she received indicated she was buying "the cost of college at
today's prices. What you pay now is guaranteed . . . no matter how
much college costs increase in the future."

The master contract, Judge Cooper wrote, is clear and unambiguous
and the only intent that matters.

Ms. Snyder has appealed the case in the 1st District Court of
Appeal. The sides are still submitting briefs, and have received an
extension to complete that work.

Mr. Zebersky said he anticipates a different outcome.

"This is such an important case. It's one of those head-scratchers
where you're like, I can't believe this is happening," he said. "It
makes a big difference to those folks who are on a much more
limited income."

Florida Prepaid stands by its interpretation.

"We are confident that the 1st DCA considering this will rule the
same," Ms. Colavecchio said.

Florida Prepaid | by the numbers

$126.7 million: Total tuition and fee payments from Florida Prepaid
to Florida's state universities and colleges in 2016.

510,566: Number of children with a Florida Prepaid college plan, at
last count.

464,000: Approximate number of students who have attended college
using a Florida Prepaid plan.

157,182: Number of children in the Tampa Bay area with a Florida
Prepaid college plan, at last count. (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco
and Hernando counties)

17,200: Approximate number of students now using Florida Prepaid
benefits at a private, out-of-state or technical school.

30: Number of years Florida Prepaid has existed. The program has
been around since September 1988.

Source: Florida Prepaid College Board annual report, 2017 [GN]

FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settlement Proposed in Civil Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Wise, writing for Donathan Eagle, reports that a settlement
has been proposed in the class-action lawsuit filed against Flowers
Hospital after one of its former employees stole patient
information.

According to federal court filings, parties on both sides of the
issue have filed a motion for settlement. In the settlement,
Flowers Hospital agrees to set aside $150,000 in a fund to address
claims from the 1,208 people or parties potentially affected by the
data breach.

Flowers also agrees to pay for all attorney fees and related costs,
which will be a minimum of $125,000. A judge in the Middle District
of Alabama's federal district court system must approve the
settlement before it becomes final. A hearing on the matter has not
yet been scheduled.

The lawsuit followed the arrest of former Flowers phlebotomist
Kamarian Millender, who was convicted in 2014 of using patients'
personal information to file false tax returns. Millender
participated in the scheme between January 2013 and February 2014,
obtaining information on more than 700 patients, a federal
prosecutor said following Millender's conviction.

If the settlement gains approval, those who are a part of the
class-action suit will be entitled to compensation from the
purchase of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services up to $250. The claimants can also be reimbursed up to
four hours of time they lost battling data theft or alleged
identity fraud, though in extreme cases, a claims administrator can
award damages for up to 16 hours.

Claimants can also receive reimbursement for credit reports they
purchased as a result of the incident, any unreimbursed interest
related to a delayed tax refund and any other damages attributable
to the data theft.

Each individual claimant can receive a maximum of $5,000, but
Flowers Hospital will not pay more than the $150,000 set aside in
the funding as part of the agreement. If claims top the established
limit, they will be prorated in order to adhere to the figure.

Flowers Hospital admits no wrongdoing as a part of the proposed
settlement.

The claims administrator has until Aug. 15 to mail notices of the
proposed settlement to those involved in the lawsuit. Class members
have until Nov. 1 to submit written objections or comments
regarding the settlement to the court.[GN]

FORD MOTORS: Judge Decertifies Consumer Protection Act Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge agreed on Aug. 1 to decertify a Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act claim in a consumer class action about the
allegedly defective MyFord Touch auto software system.  Claims
involving express warranty and used car purchases remain
certified.




FORTERRA INC: Maciuga, Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wladislaw Maciuga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Forterra, Inc., Jeffrey Bradley,
William Matthew Brown, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz, Kevin
Barner, Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint Mcdonnough, John
Mcpherson, Chris Meyer, Jacques Sarrazin, Chadwick Suss, Grant
Wilbeck, Forterra US Holdings, LLC, Mid Holdings, Concrete
Holdings, LSF9 Concrete Ltd, LSF9 Concrete II Ltd, Stardust
Holdings, LSF9 Stardust GP, LLC, Lone Star Fund IX (U.S.), L.P.,
Lone Star Partners IX, L.P., Lone Star Management Co. IX, Ltd.,
John P. Grayken, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01957 (E.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018), is a consolidation of
related actions seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933 in connection with Forterra's October 21, 2016 initial
public stock offering (IPO) with movant Wladislaw Maciuga as lead
plaintiff.

Forterra allegedly failed to disclose that organic sales in its
drainage and water segments had significantly declined in the
months leading up to the IPO, that the Company was relying on
highly-leveraged, expensive acquisitions to make up for those lost
sales, that the Company was experiencing increased pricing pressure
to significantly lower prices due to competition, that its concrete
and steel pipe business softened, accounting for 10% of its annual
sales, that Forterra had not accrued expenses for in the months
leading up to the IPO, thus understating its expenses and
overstating its profits and control deficiencies related to
physical inventory counts.

Forterra common stock is trading below $5 per share, a decline of
approximately 75% from the IPO price.

Forterra is a manufacturer of pipes and various precast products
for water-related infrastructure applications, including water
transmission, distribution and drainage. It operates 96
manufacturing facilities located across North America. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Tel: (770) 392-0090
     Fax: (770) 392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
            mdees@holzerlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Melissa Colon-Bosolet, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP
     787 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: (212) 839-5543
     Fax: (212) 835-5100
     Email: mcolon-bosolet@sidley.com

GCB SERVICES: Wren Seeks to Certify Class of Field Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CORNELIUS WREN on Behalf of Himself and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GCB
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168-LMB-MSN (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification and approving a Court-approved notice of
the lawsuit to:

   "all field engineers and similarly situated workers of GCB
   Services, LLC"

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: GAssaad@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


GDS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
GDS Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GDS) from March 29, 2018 through July
31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for GDS Holdings investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the GDS Holdings class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1388.html

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, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GDS Holdings
overstated the value of certain data centers it had acquired; (2)
GDS Holdings failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (3)
as a result, defendants’ statements about GDS Holdings’
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1,
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-1388.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653
or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

         Contacts:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]

GOLDEN BAY TOWERS: Davison Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
CALBERT DAVISON, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN BAY TOWERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-18-018506 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Aug. 3,
2018), seeks to recover damages exceeding &15,000 excluding
attorney's fees or costs resulting from Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants had or should have had full
knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff including those worked
in excess of 40 in a given work week. The Plaintiff was not paid at
the proper overtime rate and minimum wage rate for all hours
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          319 Clematis Street, Suite 606
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 225 1970
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: rrgueiro@rgpattorneys.com


GRANA & MONTERO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grana & Montero S.A.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a consolidated class action suit in the Eastern
District of New York.

Two securities class action complaints have been filed against the
company and certain of its former directors and current and former
executive officers in the Eastern District of New York during the
first quarter of 2017.  These complaints were consolidated into a
single class action. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
compliant on May 29, 2018.

Graña & Montero said "We believe that we have meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted, and we intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters."

Graña & Montero S.A.A. is the largest engineering and construction
company in Peru as measured by revenues during 2017, and one of the
largest publicly traded engineering and construction company in
Latin America as measured by market capitalization as of December
31, 2017, with strong complementary businesses in infrastructure
and real estate. The company is based in Lima, Peru.


GREENE CORRECTIONAL: Seelig Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Paul Seelig, the Plaintiff, v. Kenneth
Lassiter, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-ct-03189-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class of prisoners.

Seelig Says, "The size of the class will exceed 75 prisoners at
Greene Correctional Institution and may exceed 5000 prisoners in
the North Carolina Department of Public Safety State wide.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HALIFAX-YARMOUTH: Diocese Faces Sex Abuse Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Jack Julian, writing for CBC News, reports that a man who says he
was sexually abused by a priest as a boy in Halifax in the 1960s
has filed notice that he is planning a lawsuit against the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth.

His lawyer believes if certified by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court,
the class-action lawsuit could eventually involve many more sex
abuse claimants.

"It seems likely to me that there are hundreds, perhaps many
hundreds, of potential victims out there," lawyer John
McKiggan,Esq.-- john@mckigganhebert.com  -- of the Halifax law firm
McKiggan Hebert, said on August 2.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Douglas Champagne, who in court
documents claims he was abused by priest George G. Epoch while he
was an altar boy at Canadian Martyr's Church on Inglis Street.

Boy sought counselling after father left

The lawsuit says Champagne's father abandoned his family in 1960
and Douglas Champagne, then eight, was sent to Epoch for
counselling.

"He came from a vulnerable family -- single mom, a number of kids.
And his mom wanted him to join the church and become an altar boy
because she thought it would be good for him," McKiggan said.

In court documents, Champagne says he became a "knight of the
altar" in 1962 and that Epoch asked him to stay one day after the
other boys left. Champagne says Epoch told him he loved him and
sexually assaulted him in the garment room of the church, and in
Epoch's room at the priests' dormitory.

The alleged abuse went on for months, Champagne says. The lawsuit
says it often took place at the residence where all the priests
live.

"Other priests that lived at the residence looked at Douglas with a
combination of disgust and sympathy," the notice of action filed
with lawsuit claims. "They did not lift a finger to prevent the
abuse that they knew or ought to have known was taking place."

Epoch was eventually transferred, but Champagne says Epoch
continued to send him love letters. Champagne travelled around
Canada and returned to Nova Scotia in 1972 but left because of the
memories it brought up. He now lives in B.C.

Canadian Martyrs church has since merged with another congregation
and the church building has been torn down. Epoch died in Ontario
in 1986.

According to the Nova Scotia Justice Department's 2002 Kaufman
Report, Epoch sexually abused many male and female children on
First Nations reserves during his time in Ontario. The Jesuit
Fathers of Upper Canada, the order Epoch belonged to, found "an
extensive history of sexual abuse by the late priest" and offered a
public apology in 1992. They eventually reached a financial
settlement with those victims.

McKiggan acted on behalf of sex-abuse victims in a 2009 $16-million
settlement with the Diocese of Antigonish. He said 142 victims
received compensation for abuse by priests. That case began with a
single complainant but prompted dozens of people to come forward
with similar allegations against several priests, dating back 60
years.

'We know there are others'

Since the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese is twice the size of the
Antigonish diocese, he expects a proportionate number of victims to
step forward.

"There is no reason to believe that the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese
ran its affairs any differently than the Antigonish diocese did.
The policies were the same," he said.

"We already know that there have been a number of priests publicly
who have been convicted. We know there are others who have been
assaulted [and] not been made public."

Priests Angus McRae, Edouard Josepth Theriault, Robert MacDougall,
and Albert LeBlanc all pleaded guilty between 1980 and 2012 to
sexually abusing young parishioners while working in the
Halifax-Yarmouth diocese.

McKiggan said the decision to launch a class-action lawsuit is
linked to efforts by the Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth to allow
it to divide its assets among dozens of parish corporations.

McKiggan said that would possibly leave victims unable to collect
on judgments made against the archdiocese as a whole.

"It would mean quite possibly that they would have no means of
recovering compensation for the harms and losses that they suffered
at the hands of sexually abusive priests," he said.

McKiggan said the next step is to apply to the Nova Scotia Supreme
Court to certify the class-action lawsuit.

Archdiocese 'condemns sexual abuse'

He said litigation could drag on for years, depending on how the
Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth proceeds. The archdiocese learned
of the lawsuit on August2 afternoon and told CBC News it is
reviewing it with its legal advisers.

"The Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth condemns sexual abuse of all
forms," John Williams, vicar-general of the archdiocese, said in a
statement on August 2.

"The archdiocese has an established process in place to address
claims brought for any historic sexual abuse. The archdiocese makes
a sincere attempt to do the right thing by way of the victims and
achieve an appropriate and fair settlement for established
claims."

He said the bill to reorganize the archdiocese, which was
withdrawn, was not an attempt to avoid financial responsibility for
victims of sexual abuse. He called such claims "false, misleading
and irresponsible."

Williams said he could not speak about the specific allegations
while the matter was before the courts.[GN]

HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Coleman Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Malaika Coleman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05323 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 3, 2018).

Halsted Financial Services is a leading global financial services
firm, providing consumer and commercial solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.




HEALTH NET: Barkan Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ohad Barkan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Health
Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, Health
Net, Inc., and CENTENE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
BC711987, was removed from the U.S. District Court for Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles) on Aug. 3, 2018.  The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-06691
to the proceeding.

Health Net provides health insurance coverage for individuals,
families, small business, large groups and Medicare Advantage
recipients.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT: White Sues Over Storage of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
FALLON WHITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT CORP., EAST SIDE CHILD
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, LLC, NEAR THE PIER DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
PILL HILL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., WEST AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
INC., TAMERA FAIR, and MARKETSTAFF, INC., Case No. 2018CH09599
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), seeks to redress and
curtail the Defendants' alleged unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data, in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Hegewisch is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois.  East Side is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with
its principal place of business in Chicago.

Near the Pier is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business
in Chicago.  Pill Hill is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of
business in Chicago.  West Austin is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal
place of business in Chicago.

Hegewisch, East Side, Near the Pier, Pill Hill, and West Austin are
early childhood education centers operating under the collective
banner of The Premier Childcare Centers.  Premier is owned and
operated by Tamera Fair.

Marketstaff, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of
business in Chicago.  Marketstaff provides human resources support
to the Premier Childcare Centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOHLA & WYSS: Court Approves Notice of Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Ray Arp, On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hohla & Wyss Enterprises,
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-WHR (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Walter H. Rice entered an order on Aug. 1,
2018, granting a joint motion to approve stipulated form of notice
of collective action.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the
Court for an order approving a notice of
collective action to:

   "all current and former delivery drivers employed by any
   Defendant at any Jimmy John's location".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com
                  www.msdlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Timothy G. Pepper, Esq.
          Robert T. Dunlevey, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          40 North Main Street, Suite 1700
          Dayton, Ohio 45423
          Telephone: (937) 228 2838
          Facsimile: (937) 228 2816
          E-mail: pepper@taftlaw.com
                  rdunlevey@taftlaw.com


ILLINOIS: DOC Settles Deaf Prisoners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Windy City Times reports that a groundbreaking settlement has been
reached in a class action that will fundamentally improve the lives
of Illinois prisoners who are deaf and hard of hearing. The class
action was filed May 4, 2011 and alleged, among other things, that
the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC ) systematically
failed to provide American Sign Language interpreters and other
alternate forms of communication. Without these accommodations,
deaf and hard of hearing prisoners have been endangered and
deprived of meaningful access to religious services, healthcare,
educational and vocational programs, telephones, televisions,
library services, disciplinary proceedings, grievances, and
pre-release programs.  A fairness hearing, in which a judge must
find that a class action settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, was set to be held in Chicago on July 26, at 10:30 before
the Honorable Judge Marvin E. Aspen, 219 S. Dearborn Street,
Courtroom 2568.

The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Winston & Strawn LLP, serving
as lead counsel and providing representation on a pro bono basis;
two Illinois non-profit legal advocacy organizations, Equip for
Equality and Uptown People's Law Center; and the National
Association of the Deaf.

Terms under the far-reaching settlement include:

Hearing Tests: IDOC will provide enhanced screening to identify
which prisoners are deaf and hard of hearing.

Communication Specialists. IDOC will use specialists to test the
communication skills of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners,
identify necessary accommodations and develop a communication
plan.

Hearing Aids: IDOC will provide hearing aids when recommended by an
audiologist and provide timely replacement batteries and repairs.

Sign Language Interpreters: For prisoners who communicate in
American Sign Language ( ASL ), IDOC will provide sign language
interpreters for important programs.

Video Phones, TTYs, and Amplified Phones: Every Illinois prison
with a deaf or hard of hearing prisoner must have at least one
videophone, two TTYs, and two amplified telephones.

Communication Alerts: Every Illinois prison that has a deaf or hard
of hearing prisoner must have a safe way to provide accessible
notifications about fires, emergencies, evacuations, meals,
showers, yard time, doctor or counselor appointments, and
visitors.

VRI: Illinois prisons must provide Video Remote Interpreting ( VRI
) for doctor appointments when no sign language interpreter can
come to the prison for doctor appointments.

"It is fitting that the fairness hearing will take place on the
anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act,"
said Barry C. Taylor, vice president for Civil Rights and Systemic
Litigation, Equip for Equality. "One of the tenets of the ADA is to
provide effective communication for people with disabilities. This
settlement agreement will go a long way to ensure that the ADA's
promise becomes a reality for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners."

"Our goal in this case was to ensure that significant steps would
be taken within IDOC to enable deaf and hard of hearing prisoners
in Illinois to communicate effectively while in IDOC custody," said
Robert Michels, a partner with Winston & Strawn. "Allowing deaf and
hard of hearing prisoners to communicate effectively is critically
important for a variety of reasons, including so that they are
safe, they are able receive proper medical care, they are able to
participate in the programs and services available to them while in
custody, and they are not treated unfairly as a result of their
hearing impairment. We are glad that this settlement allows
substantial improvements to be made within IDOC that, if properly
implemented, should result in achieving our goal."

"Being in prison is an awful experience for anyone; being in prison
when you can't hear is terrifying. This settlement, when fully
implemented, ensures that no one will ever be left alone in silence
in Illinois prisons. These changes are vital—the Americans with
Disabilities Act applies to everyone in the United States,
including people in prison," said Alan Mills, executive director of
Uptown People's Law Center.

"On the 28th anniversary of the ADA and 45 years after passage of
the Rehabilitation Act, this fairness hearing is one step closer to
ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing people in Illinois prisons
have equal rights, particularly for communication and
telecommunication purposes," said Howard A., Rosenblum, CEO of the
National Association of the Deaf. "Although such basic rights are
overdue, there should be no further delay to ensuring that deaf and
hard of hearing prisoners have equal access to calling their
families and lawyers, and to being able to communicate with prison
staff for all programs and services."

Reference: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Holmes et al. v. Godinez et al. 11 C 2961

Organizations representing the plaintiffs:

Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with nearly 1,000
attorneys among 16 offices across North America, Europe, the Middle
East, and Asia. Formed in 1853, the firm not only represents
Fortune 500 companies and other clients on major business-related
matters, it also has a strong commitment to providing pro bono
representation, including in matters involving civil rights,
community economic development, criminal defense, First
Amendment/free speech, contested guardianship, landlord/tenant,
not-for-profit corporate organization, political asylum,
post-conviction relief in death penalty cases, and public
assistance.

Equip for Equality is a private, not-for-profit entity designated
in 1985 by the Governor of Illinois to administer the federally
mandated protection and advocacy system for safeguarding the rights
of people with physical and mental disabilities in Illinois.

Uptown People's Law Center is a nonprofit legal services
organization specializing in prisoners' rights, Social Security
disability, and tenants' rights and eviction defense. UPLC
currently has seven class action lawsuits regarding jail and prison
conditions.

National Association of the Deaf, established in 1880, is the
nation's premier organization safeguarding the civil, human and
linguistics rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the
USA. [GN]

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
hyper-aggressive campaign by Insys Therapeutics directors to get
doctors to push Subsys, a fentanyl sublingual spray, for off-label
uses, caused the share price to plummet by 75 percent, shareholders
say in a federal class action.




INTERSTATE REALTY: Brenda Jones Sues over Lease Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA JONES, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE REALTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, and BRINSHORE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH09886 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 3,
2018), alleges that Defendants violated the City of Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code Title 5,
Chapter 12, et seq., by failing to disclose the name and address of
the financial institution into which Plaintiff's and the class's
security deposits were deposited in the manner required by
5-12-080(a)(3) of the RLTO; giving the Plaintiff and the class a
security deposit receipt in the manner provided by Section
5-12-080(b) of the RLTO at the time of receiving a security deposit
payment; and attaching to Plaintiffs and the class's leases the
then current RLTO summary prepared by the City of Chicago,
including the separate summary describing the respective rights,
obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits required by Section 5-12-170 the RLTO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS Law 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company has reached
an agreement in principle to enter into a settlement agreement
which stipulates a payment of $42.5 million.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams
v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against
a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re Intuitive
Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013,
the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the State
of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on
August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their
complaint at that time.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015,
and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a
hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016. On November 2, 2016,
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On January 25,
2017, the court entered anorder granting plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to amend the complaint.

On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter was
fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The court denied the
motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the parties filed a
stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the court entered on
July 14, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court entered a new case
schedule, with trial set to begin on October 30, 2018.

On December 6, 2017, plaintiffs moved for approval of a proposed
notice to the class members; the Company partially opposed that
motion. The court held a hearing regarding the motion on March 8,
2018, and ordered the parties to edit the proposed notice and
submit it to the court for approval. On March 9, 2018, the parties
submitted a joint proposed notice, which the court approved on
March 12, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed on March 23, 2018.

On June 11, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of
$42.5 million by the Company, subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
agreement in principle is subject to certain conditions, including
court approval of a final settlement agreement.

Intuitive Surgical said "There can be no assurance that the parties
will enter into a final settlement agreement or that such agreement
will be approved by the court. During the three and six months
ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $42.5
million for this matter."

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets da
Vinci surgical systems, and related instruments and accessories.
The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


JESSICA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ning Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUN NING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. JESSICA HOLDING INC. d/b/a COTS Travel d/b/a Kingly
Tour, CHINA OVERSEAS TRAVEL SERVICE (U.S.A.), INC. d/b/a COTS
Travel, ANITA YIM KING LAI, BIANA NG, JESSICA WONG a/k/a Jessica
Astrup, and RONGHAI GAO a/k/a Billy Gao, the Defendants, Case No.
712081/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours pay and
tips; failed to provide meal periods; and failed to provide time
and hire notices and pay stubs, pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Amend Bid to Certify 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH
GATES, and LORI R SINGER f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK Medical Center,
NPAS, INC., HCA HOLDINGS, INC., PALMS WEST SURGERY CENTER, LTD.
d/b/a Palms West Surgicenter, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LTD. d/b/a
University Hospital & Medical Center, and MIAMI BEACH HEALTHCARE
GROUP, LTD. d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center, the
Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80866-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for
class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
and/or, alternatively 23(b)(3), and allow the Plaintiffs to pursue
the claims alleged in the second amended class action complaint as
Class Representatives on behalf of all those similarly situated.

   Class I - for the period from four years preceding the filing
   of this action through the date of the entry of judgment:

      "all patients for whom JFK or NPAS billed or collected for
      amounts in excess of that authorized under the PIP
      Statute"; and

   Class II - for the period from four years preceding the filing
   of the Second Amended Complaint through the date of the entry
   of judgment:

      "all patients for whom HCA's Florida Providers (excluding
      JFK) billed or collected for amounts in excess of that
      authorized under the PIP Statute".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          William J. Cornwell, Esq.
          Seth A. Kolton, Esq.
          WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, P.A.
          One Boca Place, Suite 218-A
          2255 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, Florida 33431
          Telephone: (561) 997 9995
          Facsimile: (561) 997 5280
          E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com
                  filings@whcfla.com
                  sak@whcfla.com
                  jh@whcfla.com

               - and -

          Bruce F. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER & SILVER, P.A.
          6100 Glades Road, Suite 201
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 488 3344
          Facsimile: (561) 488 5899
          E-mail: brucesilver@silverlawoffices.com


JIM GOLDEN: Schnaidt Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
LOREN SCHNAIDT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JIM GOLDEN FORD-LINCOLN LLC a/k/a JIM GOLDEN
FORD-LINCOLN, Case No. 3:18-cv-04602 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2018),
accuses the Defendant of negligently, knowingly and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff and class members on their telephones
using an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior
express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Jim Golden Ford-Lincoln LLC, also known as Jim Golden Ford-Lincoln,
is an Arkansas Limited Liability Company with a principal place of
business in Camden, Arkansas.  The Company sells new and pre-owned
cars and also provides car services from oil changes to
transmission replacements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Talcum Powder Cancer Link
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Ubelacker, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that baby
powder maker Johnson & Johnson has been the subject of a string of
lawsuits, including two pending class-action cases in Canada, over
allegations its product caused ovarian cancer in thousands of women
who used the sweet-smelling, moisture-reducing agent for feminine
hygiene.

While some suits already heard in the U.S. have resulted in juries
awarding massive amounts in compensation, studies on talcum
powder's potential link to the gynecological cancer have produced
often contrary conclusions, leaving women to wonder: is it safe to
use baby powder or not?

"The evidence that we have is mixed and has to be taken with a
little bit of skepticism," said Dr. James Bentley, a gynecological
oncologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

Though some studies have found what appears to be a link, others
have found no association, depending in part on their design, he
said.

There's also the issue of the way talc molecules interact with the
body, which researchers don't have a good handle on, said Bentley.

"This is chronic irritation of the ovary, and we do know that
chronic irritation is associated with some carcinomas," he said.
"Do we have really good evidence for that? The literature goes back
and forth on this all the time."

Dr. Daniel Cramer, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and
reproductive biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, was the first
to sound alarm bells with a 1982 study that drew a link between
long-term talc use on the genitals and the development of ovarian
cancer.

Then a 2016 study he led suggested women who routinely sprinkled
their vaginal area -- known medically as the perineum -- with
talcum powder had a one-third higher risk of getting ovarian
tumours than women who hadn't been longtime users of the product.

"I'm persuaded by the evidence that talc used in the genital area
will reach the ovaries and lymph nodes, and it creates an
inflammatory environment that could contribute to the development
of cancer," Dr. Cramer said from Boston.

"I've always felt the data was sufficient to warn women about using
talc in their feminine hygiene."

Baby powder is made from talc, a mined mineral that contains three
primary ingredients: magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. But talc can
be naturally contaminated with asbestos, which is known to cause
the deadly cancer mesothelioma.

The lawsuits brought against Johnson & Johnson have contended the
health and cosmetic giant -- along with the company that bought the
talc-based Shower to Shower from J & J in 2012, Valeant
Pharmaceuticals -- should have put warning labels on the powders.

The most recent judgment against Johnson & Johnson occurred earlier
in July, when a St. Louis jury awarded almost US$4.7 billion to 22
women, based on claims that decades of using talcum powder for
feminine hygiene caused their ovarian cancer.

But the company denies its baby powder, which has been on the
market since 1894, causes either mesothelioma or ovarian cancer.

"Johnson & Johnson remains confident that its products do not
contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to
pursue all available appellate remedies," the company said in
statement in the wake of the St. Louis case. "Every verdict against
Johnson & Johnson . . .  that has gone through the appeals process
has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial
were worse than those in the prior trials."

Rhonda Dobson isn't convinced.

She was just 23 when she developed ovarian cancer in 2004 -- a
disease for which there was no family history -- after lifelong use
of talcum powder that began with her mother using it on her as a
baby.

"That was part of my routine because you have a bath and then you
put powder on, or you have a shower and you put powder on," said
Ms. Dobson, who lives in rural New Brunswick about an hour's drive
from Moncton.

"I put it everywhere. I loved it. I thought it smelled pretty. It
makes your skin silky and soft."

While she has been cancer-free since 2009, the single 37-year-old
said she continues to pay a price for her cancer, which resulted in
the removal of her left ovary and fallopian tube, as well as
permanent hair loss from chemotherapy.

"Everybody who has suffered through this . . . if they used baby
powder the way I did and they got sick from it, Johnson & Johnson
needs to help us," she said.

"We trusted them and we believed in their product."

An estimated 2,800 Canadian women were diagnosed with ovarian
cancer in 2017 and about 1,800 died that year from the disease,
says the Canadian Cancer Society. Some cases arise because of an
inherited genetic mutation, while others occur for reasons that
aren't fully understood. There is no early-warning screening test
and symptoms -- which can mimic more benign conditions -- often
don't appear until a tumour is well advanced.

Mary Krpan, 60, of Hamilton was diagnosed with late-stage ovarian
cancer in 2014. Despite aggressive treatment, including a complete
hysterectomy and chemotherapy, the disease has now spread to her
lungs.

The mother of two daughters started using Johnson & Johnson baby
powder after the birth of her eldest child, who is now 31.

"So I used to use it on her, bathing her and putting powder on her.
It was always in my bathroom, so I used it," she said, adding that
she "flung it wherever," including on her genital area, a few times
a week.

"I'm a brand person. When I go in a store, I don't get the
knock-off . . . I always go for something that's a famous sort of
reliable product," said Ms. Krpan, who viewed the brand-name talc
as safe because it was intended for babies.

Both Ms. Dobson and Ms. Krpan are part of a yet-to-be-certified
national class-action lawsuit, filed by the Toronto law firms
Rochon-Genova and Howie, Sachs and Henry, which alleges their
cancers were caused by long-term use of talcum powder.

In May, a Quebec court gave the go-ahead for a class-action suit
filed by the Merchant Law Group, covering women in the province
with ovarian cancer who had long used Johnson & Johnson baby powder
or Valeant's Shower to Shower for personal hygiene; Merchant has
filed a second class-action in B.C. on behalf of women elsewhere in
Canada, which is awaiting certification.

Despite all the court cases and ongoing debate over the safety of
talcum powder, Bentley of Dalhousie doesn't think women who have
habitually dusted themselves with the product should panic,
especially given the inconsistency of research results.

"But should you use talc? Probably not," he said. "It would seem to
make sense that it isn't something people should be putting on the
perineum on a regular basis." [GN]

KITOV PHARMA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: KTOV; TASE: KTOV.TA), an innovative
biopharmaceutical company, on
July 30 disclosed that it has entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with  respect to the shareholder class action lawsuits
pending against it in Cohen v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings,
Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00917-LGS (District Court
for the Southern District of New York), and Ng, v. Kitov
Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No. 17CIV00620  and
Zulch v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No.
17CIV01173 (both in Superior Court for the State of California)
(collectively, the "Actions").  As previously disclosed, these
lawsuits were filed against the Company alleging violations of U.S.
federal securities laws.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the classes in all of
the Actions will receive aggregate consideration of $2.0 million.
The settlement consideration, as well as ancillary expenses, is
expected to be funded by Kitov's insurance carriers. The Company
expects that the proposed settlement will have no impact on the
Company's Statement of Operations.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing, and
reiterates that Kitov has always maintained, and continues to
believe, that it did not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise
commit any violation of federal or state securities laws or other
laws, including, vigorous denials that the Company's public
statements were misleading; that it failed to disclose any material
information from investors; or that it acted in any deceitful
manner. Kitov has agreed to the proposed settlement on the basis of
the advice and recommendations of its insurance carriers who are
indemnifying Kitov for the expenses of conducting a defense in the
Actions, as well as paying judgments which may be assessed as a
result of the Actions. As such, Kitov believes that further
litigation of the Actions would be protracted, burdensome, and
expensive for Kitov as well as its insurers, and that it is
desirable and beneficial that the claims asserted in the Actions be
fully and finally settled and terminated in the manner of the
proposed settlement, with no additional costs to Kitov.   

"We are pleased to have reached this settlement, which we believe
is beneficial to the Company and its shareholders, as it concludes
this matter expeditiously," said Isaac Israel, Kitov's Chief
Executive Officer.  "Kitov is focused on maximizing the global
commercial potential of CONSENSI™, which was recently approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the simultaneous
treatment of osteoarthritis pain and hypertension.  In addition, we
continue to advance our exciting investigational new drug
candidate, NT219, a first-in-class small molecule currently in
development for various oncology indications."

When the proposed settlement becomes effective, the Company and its
directors and officers will be released from the claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the Actions by class
members participating in the settlement.

The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final
documentation, preliminary and final Court approval by the District
Court for the Southern District of New York and dismissal by the
plaintiffs with prejudice of the Actions before the Superior Court
for the State of California, funding of the $2.0 million in cash by
the Company's insurance carriers, and other customary closing
conditions.

                  About Kitov Pharmaceuticals

Kitov Pharma (Kitov Pharma Ltd.; NASDAQ/TASE: KTOV) is an
innovative biopharmaceutical drug development company.  Leveraging
deep regulatory and clinical-trial expertise, Kitov's veteran team
of healthcare and business professionals maintains a proven track
record in streamlined end-to-end drug development and approval.
Kitov's flagship combination drug, Consensi™ achieved the primary
efficacy endpoints for its Phase III and Phase III/IV clinical
trials, and was approved by the FDA for patients suffering from
osteoarthritis pain and hypertension. NT219, which is developed by
its majority-owned subsidiary, TyrNovo Ltd., is a novel patented
small molecule designed to overcome cancer drug resistance that is
currently in pre-clinical development.  By lowering development
risk and cost through fast-track regulatory approval of novel
late-stage therapeutics, Kitov plans to deliver rapid ROI and
long-term potential to investors, while making a meaningful impact
on people's lives. [GN]

KOPPERSTON, WV: PSD Sued Over Failure to Monitor Water Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Combs, writing for Register-Herald, reports that after users
of the Kopperston Public Service District (PSD) were notified in
early June by a state-required letter that the PSD had failed to
monitor for harmful elements in the water that it distributed, a
class action lawsuit has been brought against the PSD.

According to court documents, the suit was filed in Wyoming County
Circuit Court on July 27 with Rodney Kirkendoll as the named
plaintiff.

The suit alleges that consumers of the PSD were exposed to an
increased risk of illness including kidney and liver disease,
failure and cancer, adding that Kirkendoll had himself developed
cancer.

The suit seeks damages, punitive costs, attorney's fees, other
relief and the establishment of a medical monitoring program for
PSD users.

The core of the suit is based upon the failure of the PSD between
2012 and 2017 to complete corrective actions by the state and to
monitor for haloacetic acids, trihalomethanes, lead and copper.

The plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury. [GN]

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Retirees
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
California appeals court found it improper on Aug. 1 that a judge
decertified a class of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory retirees who
claim the Regents of the University of California cheated them of
university-sponsored group health insurance.


LEGACY BULK TRUCKING: Dispatchers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dennis and Michelle Garrett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Legacy Bulk Trucking Co.,
LLC, John P. Plemon and Lora Plemons, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-01962 (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover
their unpaid overtime wages as well as other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are dispatchers who worked for Defendants' truck
dispatching and coordinating services and regularly worked well in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required, Defendants paid these workers primarily on an hourly
basis and improperly treated them as "exempt," notes the
complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane McGuire
     THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
     102 N. College St., Suite 1030
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: 903-630-7154
     Fax: 903-630-7173
     Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com

            - and -

     Jesse Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street #201
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com

MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN, INC., and AMERICAN WOODMARK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11439-VAR-MKM (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

   "all persons who were successfully sent one or more facsimiles
   promoting "Marblecast Kitchens & Baths" and "Waypoint
   Cabinetry" between November 2, 2015 and May 4, 2017."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649 5667

               - and -

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287 3664


MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DIANA RANDOLPH, DANA LIBERANTE and LISA
EWELL, and all other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM D. SNYDER, in his official capacity as
SHERIFF OF MARTIN COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14120-RLR
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former employees of Defendant who, at any
      time from January 1, 2018 to the present, worked as
      "officers" at MCSO and were not paid overtime for all hours
      worked over forty-three per week;

   2. authorizing notice to Class members;

   3. requiring Defendant to provide an expedited basis the
      names, last known addresses and social security number of
      all members of the certified class; and

   4. awarding other relief as is just and appropriate under
      the circumstances.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          www.ScottWagnerLaw.com
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  mail@scottwagnerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Luke Savage, Esq.
          York Flik, Esq.
          ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442 1578
          E-mail: lsavage@anblaw.com
                  yflik@anblaw.com


MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUTH ANN COOPER, D.P.M., individually and as
the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11987-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying a class, appointing Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

The class is defined as:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
   filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
   messages of material advertising the commercial availability
   or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf
   of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior
   express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements,
   or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established
   business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax advertisements
   did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R.
   section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)" and

   "all New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior
   to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone
   facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial
   availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by
   or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not
   obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
   advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an
   established business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax
   advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant
   with 47 C.F.R.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
          GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
          Red Bank, NJ 07701-6777
          Telephone: 732 741 3900
          Facsimile: 732 224 6599
          E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com
                  mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Matthew Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241 4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241 8775
          E-mail: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


MERCK CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Suit Over Propecia
------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News Montreal reports that Quebec's highest court has
authorized a class-action suit on behalf of men who took medication
for hair loss and then allegedly suffered various problems,
including erectile dysfunction.

The Quebec Court of Appeal gave the go-ahead on July 26, reversing
a lower court decision.

It covers Quebec men who took one of two drugs before Nov. 18,
2011, and then allegedly developed problems, including erectile
dysfunction, lower libido levels, ejaculation issues, shrinkage of
the genitals, and difficulty in having an orgasm.

The defendants are Merck Canada and Merck Frosst Canada, which sold
the Propecia and Proscar prescription drugs.

Propecia is used mainly to treat baldness, while Proscar is used
primarily for hypertrophy -- the enlargement of an organ or
tissue.

Quebec Superior Court turned down the request for the lawsuit in
2016.[GN]

MICHIGAN STATE: Insurers Fail to Reimburse Settlement Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Michigan State University
claims in Ingham County court that none of its insurers have
reimbursed it for costs in connection with the $500 million
settlement it agreed to pay hundreds of women and girls sexually
abused by former university and USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar.

MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Goodman Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN GOODMAN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. MID SOUTH WAFFLES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00705 (M.D.
Tenn., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover from the Defendant alleged
unpaid wages for the legally required amount of overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,
actual and liquidated damages, and any other required employment
taxes, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements of
the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mid South Waffles, Inc., is a corporate entity registered to do
business in Tennessee and maintaining a principal place of business
in Norcross, Georgia.  The Company is a Waffle House restaurant
franchise that operates at least 125 Waffle House locations in
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com



MITEL NETWORKS: Faces "Cuddihey"and "Witmer" Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018,
that the company is facing the cases captioned as, Cuddihey v.
Mitel Networks Corporation., et al., and Witmer v. Mitel Networks
Corporation, et al., respectively.

On June 8, 2018, Mitel filed and commenced mailing its definitive
proxy statement on Schedule 14A.  Following the filing of the Proxy
Statement, on June 21, 2018, purported shareholders of Mitel filed
putative class action lawsuits against Mitel and members of the
Mitel board of directors (the "Board") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Cuddihey v. Mitel Networks Corporation., et al., Case
1:18-cv-05561-LAP (S.D.N.Y.) and Witmer v. Mitel Networks
Corporation, et al., No 1:18-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y.), respectively.

The complaints are substantially identical and allege that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, because the Proxy Statement
allegedly omitted material information with respect to the
arrangement, thus rendering the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.  The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the arrangement and costs of
the applicable action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff
attorneys' and experts' fees.

Mitel Networks Corporation provides cloud and on-site business
communications and collaboration software, services, and solutions.
It operates in two segments, Enterprise and Cloud. The company is
based in Ontario, Canada.


MONSANTO CO: Farmers Sue in Missouri Over Ruined Crops
------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that Monsanto and
BASF Corp. face a  federal class action lawsuit alleging their
products have caused crop losses on millions of acres of farmland
across the U.S.

Several farmers filed the suit July 18 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri claiming the companies
conspired to "set in motion" a chain of events that has destroyed
crops in Scott, Stoddard, Cape Girardeau and Bollinger counties.

According to the complaint, Monsanto released its Xtend brand
cotton seeds in 2015 and Xtend soybeans in 2016 without an
effective and safe herbicide to use for those crops. In 2017, BASF
released their dicamba-based herbicides that are prone to drift.
The suit further claims that crops grown using Xtend seeds are
somewhat dicamba-tolerant, but crops from non-dicamba-tolerant
seeds are vulnerable to damage caused by the herbicide.

"Defendant Monsanto knew farmers would purchase and use other
dicamba herbicides to spray on its Xtend crops and defendants
encouraged farmers to do so, even though such spraying was not
legal," the complaint states.

The farmers allege off-label dicamba spraying over Xtend seeds
increased sales of the seeds and herbicides, creating a "modern-day
agricultural protection racket."

The plaintiffs say thousands of farmers could be affected.

They are represented by attorneys at Gray, Ritter and Graham in St.
Louis. [GN]

MONSANTO CO: Wildy Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Wildy, individually and as representative
of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Patty Wildy, individually and as
representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Tab Wildy,
individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms
Partnership, Bethany Harris, individually and as representative of
David Wildy Farms Partnership, Paul Harris, individually and as
representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Justin Wildy,
individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnersidp
And As Representative of Justin Wildy Farms Partnership, Kristi
Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms
partnership and as representative of Justin Wildy Farms
Partnership, David Wildy Farms Partnership, Justin Wildy Farms
Partnership, Earl H. Wildy Inc., Wildy Farms North, Inc., Wildy
Farms South, Inc., Wildy Farms East, LLC, Wildy Land Company, LLC,
v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and John Doe
Companies A-Z, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00127 (E.D. Ark., July
13, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau) on July 31, 2018,
under Case No. 18-cv-00188.

Plaintiffs seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Monsanto Company developed and released genetically modified
soybeans designed to combat problematic weeds that have become
resistant to certain herbicides over time where its most popular
herbicide are Roundup and Dicamba.  Monsanto partnered with BASF, a
German chemical company, a joint licensing agreement to accelerate
the development of dicamba-based weed control products. Monsanto
insists that dicamba-resistant seeds and the dicamba-based
herbicides should be used in tandem. However, Monsanto sold the
seeds before approval by the Environmental Protection Agency of its
partner herbicide. The farmers can no longer use the old herbicide
because of volatility issues, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don M. Downing, Esq.
     Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
     Jack A. Downing, Esq.
     Jason D. Sapp, Esq.
     GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.
     701 Market Street, Suite 800
     St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
     Tel: (314) 241-5620
     Fax: (314) 241-4140
     Email: ddowning@grgpc.com
            ggarrison@grgpc.com
            jdowning@grgpc.com
            jsapp@grgpc.com

            - and -

     John Paul Byrd, Esq.
     Joseph D. Gates, Esq.
     PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     415 N. McKinley St., Suite 210
     Little Rock, AR 72205
     Tel: (501) 420-3050
     Fax: (501) 420-3128
     Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
            joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Kaitlin Ann Bridges, Esq.
     GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM PC
     701 Market Street, Suite 800
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Tel: (314) 241-5620
     Email: kbridges@grgpc.com


MONSANTO CO: Wiseman Files Suit Over Roundup Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------
Patricia Wiseman, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01265 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys'
fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and
such other relief resulting from 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 (R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Wiseman claims she was exposed to glyphosate and surfactant POEA
while mixing and spraying Roundup and developed Non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma in 2015. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Jons' Product Liability Suit Transferred to Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kay Don Jons, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company,
Case No. 18-cv-03010 (D. S.D., July 11, 2018), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape
Girardeau) on July 31, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00192.

According to the complaint, Monsanto marketed its genetically
modified cotton and soybean Xtend seeds without a corollary
EPA-approved herbicide (together known as a "system"). Defendant's
premature commercialization of its defective cotton and soybean
Xtend seed system and its purchasers' inevitable and foreseeable
use of the alternative herbicide, dicamba, a drift-prone herbicide,
has wiped out crops on hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland
in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon R. Falon, Esq.
      Steven M. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON, JANKLOW, ABDALLAH & REITER, LLP
      101 South Main Avenue, Suite 100
      PO Box 2348
      Sioux Falls, SD 57104-5933
      Tel: (605) 338-4304
      Fax: (605) 338-4162
      Email: shannon@janklowabdallah.com
             steve@janklowabdallah.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH MAE YOUNG, and CHARLES W. YOUNG v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
3:18-cv-00502-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 30, 2018), is brought for damages
over injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) 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.  The
Plaintiffs contend that their injuries, like those striking
thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were
avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a
multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the
world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657-7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657-7111
          E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com
                  asmith@gminjurylaw.com


MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Seeks Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LAWRENCE WEINSTEIN, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE
CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
5:14-cv-02521-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on August 20, 2018, for an order approving final approval of class
settlement.

Defendant agreed to pay up to $4,000,000 in consideration for the
settlement and the releases provided therein. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement by Order dated February 8,
2018.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 773 0323
          Facsimile: (818) 963 5954
          E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel S. Deskin (SBN 216974)
          DESKIN LAW FIRM
          16944 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 8
          Encino, CA 91316
          Telephone: (818) 709 8978
          Facsimile: (818) 709 8971


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Carcamo Hits Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Nelsy Carcamo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04362 (E.D. N.Y., August 1, 2018), seeks
redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

National Enterprise Systems is a debt collection agency in Solon,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NCAA: Poppy Livers Has 2nd Chance to Pursue Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that
after fumbling in the first round of litigation, former Villanova
University football wide receiver Lawrence "Poppy" Livers has
scored a second chance to pursue his lawsuit against the NCAA and
dozens of colleges claiming he should have been paid for his time
as a scholarship athlete.

On July 27, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, who previously dismissed Livers' first
complaint for lack of standing, denied the NCAA and Villanova's
request to dismiss his refined lawsuit.

Baylson said that this time around, Livers made allegations
plausible enough that he could proceed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. In his amended complaint, Livers added the argument
that NCAA athletes are no different from work-study students,
except that the athletes do more arduous and time-consuming labor.

"These allegations permit the plausible inferences that scholarship
athletes, like their work study counterparts, fall within employee
status under the FLSA," Baylson wrote in his July 25 opinion, "and
that defendants Villanova and the NCAA were aware of this when they
chose not to pay them, suggesting reckless disregard of the alleged
duty."

The NCAA was quick to point out that Baylson's ruling did not spell
victory for Livers just yet.

"Today's limited ruling did not find student-athletes are
employees," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in an
email on July 27.

"Rather, it guided the NCAA to file a new motion in 75 days,
allowing the plaintiff time to gather any evidence to support his
claim," Remy continued. "As we previously have stated, we are
confident there is neither a legal nor factual basis to support the
idea that college athletics participation makes a student a
university employee."

Livers' lawyer, Paul I.
McDonald,Esq.--pmcdonald@bernsteinshur.com--did not respond to
multiple requests for comment.

Baylson had previously dismissed the case because at that time,
Livers did not show that the NCAA or Villanova exhibited "willful
disregard."

"Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding any school or the
NCAA having knowledge of any potential duty to compensate
plaintiff, or even disregarding such a duty," Baylson said in his
May 17 opinion. "Unless plaintiff can allege facts that if true
would be sufficient to establish that the defendants acted
intentionally or with reckless disregard to their obligations under
the FLSA, then his claim must be dismissed as time barred" under
the statute of limitations.

In response to Livers' amended complaint, Villanova and the NCAA
repeated the argument that the time limit to file the case had
expired. But this time Baylson disagreed, because showing that a
wage violation was "willfully" committed provides a time extension
to file claims, as Livers did in his most recent complaint. [GN]

NEW DOMINION: Central Oklahoma Residents Won't Get Sept. Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Terry-Cobo, writing for The Journal Record, reports that
Central Oklahoma residents won't get a trial in September in a case
against an oil company that allegedly triggered earthquakes,
damaging homes and buildings.

A Cleveland County judge outlined the rules for the class-action
case brought by Jennifer Lin Cooper against New Dominion LLC. Judge
Lori Walkley issued a journal entry on the limited class
certification on July 13, allowing the defendant to begin the
appeal process.

Surface and mineral owner attorney Terry Stowers, who is not
affiliated with the case, said it's a big deal any time a class is
certified at trial court level. It shows the plaintiffs' attorney
Scott Poynter can establish liability against New Dominion and
carry the burden of proof, Mr. Stowers said.

"A bunch of certified classes often settle because of the risk of
liability and the risk of exposure," he said.

Ms. Cooper's house rattled and shook in early November 2011, as a
swarm of strong earthquakes swept through nine counties over three
days. The strongest was a magnitude 5.7 temblor with its epicenter
in Prague, affecting 174 homes and destroying four.

That temblor series was the first sign of what would become a
regular occurrence in a state not previously familiar with
earthquakes.

Ms. Cooper alleged New Dominion, Spess Oil and 25 John Does
injected oil-field wastewater into underground disposal wells,
causing the Prague temblor swarm. New Dominion's wastewater
disposal activities are ultra-hazardous and come with strict
liability, court documents alleged. Disposing of wastewater and
triggering quakes is a private nuisance that interferes with
residents' ability to enjoy their homes, businesses and land,
according to her petition.

"Whether or not plaintiff 'has the science' to prove her case is a
question of fact for the jury," Judge Walkley wrote in a summary
order on May 18.

But if the jury agrees with New Dominion in the case's first phase,
then the trial is over, Mr. Stowers said. If they side with the
plaintiffs, then individual plaintiffs can proceed with damage
cases in a series of mini-trials. That's fairly common procedure,
he said.

"You've got a common set of facts that can be resolved for the
class as a whole easily," Mr. Stowers said. "But the other issues
can be resolved either on a class-wide or individual claims
procedures. There are a variety of different mechanisms the court
can employ."

Mr. Poynter negotiated a settlement with Spess Oil and several John
Does before the class was certified. A representative from Spess
Oil was not available for comment. New Dominion attorney Fred
Buxton said he will appeal the certification, but otherwise
declined to comment.

Oklahoma oil and gas operators rely on wastewater disposal wells as
part of hydrocarbon production. Extremely salty water resides
underground with oil and gas and is brought to the surface when
those commodities are produced. Injecting that briny, toxic
substance into deep disposal wells helps reduce the risk that the
fluid will contaminate surface water or underground aquifers.

Scientists established in the early 1970s that injecting fluid into
underground faults could lubricate those structures and trigger an
earthquake. A series of strong temblors outside Denver in the late
1960s were the result of a Department of Defense project that
injected waste chemicals into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well.

Former Oklahoma Geological Survey scientist Austin Holland said in
a 2017 deposition in the Cooper case that the cause of the Prague
swarm was the result of wastewater disposal in the region. New
Dominion operated high-volume disposal wells in the area. Oklahoma
Corporation Commission staff members have directed changes since
then, and the majority of the company's wells in the area have been
shut down or the approved injection volumes were lowered.

A trial in her case was initially scheduled for September.
Mr. Poynter told Judge Walkley in a hearing earlier this year that
he would agree to remove the trial from the court's calendar if it
was certified. In his last case, the appeal took nine months.

He said he expected to finish the settlement agreement documents
with Spess Oil and the other defendants soon.

Mr. Stowers is the executive director of the Coalition of Oklahoma
Surface and Mineral Owners and has settled class-action lawsuits on
royalty payment issues. His last class certification appeal lasted
nearly two years. He said the plaintiffs are likely to keep the
case certified, despite New Dominion's expected appeal.

"Both sides should want it certified for that purpose, so if the
defendant doesn't believe they caused the earthquakes, you want to
resolve it all at once," he said. "But it likely won't settle any
time soon. That's a typical response to settle in more than a
year." [GN]

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

Newell Brands Inc. (NYSE:NWL)
Class Period: February 6, 2017 - January 24, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2018
Join the action:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/newell-brands-inc?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Newell Brands Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's retail channel was loaded with extremely high levels
of unsold Newell product; (ii) contrary to defendants'
representations, the build-up of Newell inventory in the retail
channel was due to Company-specific rather than macroeconomic
reasons; (iii) as a result of the unusually high levels of unsold
inventory in the retail channel, Newell was exposed to a heightened
risk that it would experience slower sales growth in future
periods; and (iv) undisclosed managerial and cultural differences
in the legacy Newell and Jarden businesses had created significant
discord that was having a material adverse effect on the Company's
operating performance.

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Orbital ATK, Inc.
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming
Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers
of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of
false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that:
(i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting;
and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a
long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply
small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant.

On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting
claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the
Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital
ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger.

The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at
trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as
deemed appropriate by the Court.

Northrop Grumman said "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or
reasonably estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously
to defend the matter."

Northrop Grumman Corporation operates as a security company for
government and commercial customers worldwide. It provides
products, systems, and solutions in autonomous systems; cyber;
command, control, communications and computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); strike; and logistics and
modernization. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded in 1939 and
is based in Falls Church, Virginia.


NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Understaffing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Halstead, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports
that two Marin nursing homes in San Rafael and Novato are among 15
statewide that have been hit by class action lawsuits alleging that
their owner systematically understaffed them to increase his
profits.

"The elderly and infirm are one of the most important and yet
vulnerable segments of our society," said Stephen Garcia, one of
the attorneys representing the complainants. "To knowingly
understaff these facilities in violation of promised resident
rights so as to unlawfully maximize profit, victimizes our
important resource of elders and needs to end."

The Marin skilled nursing sites included in the suit are the
181-bed Novato Healthcare Center, the county's largest nursing
home, and San Rafael Healthcare and Wellness Center, which has 54
beds.

The suits allege that the owner of the centers concealed the fact
that the sites were not adequately staffed to meet the needs of its
residents during the admission process in violation of the state
Patients' Bill of Rights.

The suits, which were filed in Marin Superior Court and other
California courts in July, name Shlomo Rechnitz and a number of
other entities — Brius Management, ASRU, Rockport Administrative
Services, Novato Healthcare Center and San Rafael Wellness — as
defendants.

However, all of the entities named in the suits are effectively
controlled by Rechnitz, according to the two law firms that filed
the suits — Garcia, Artigliere & Medby and the Arns Law Firm.

Jill Basinger, a spokeswoman for Rechnitz, responded to the suits
in an email.

"As opposed to Mr. Garcia's serious allegations, these nursing
facilities not only maintain the state required 3.2 nursing hours
per patient day, they even exceed them," Ms. Basinger wrote. "There
is nothing new here. All of these lawsuits are completely
duplicative of an existing 4-year-old class action which Mr. Garcia
is desperately concerned he will lose. It is noteworthy that none
of these 'class action' lawsuits allege any harm to any resident in
any facility. It is evident that Mr. Garcia is using the court
system to attempt to harass, vex and annoy Mr. Rechnitz."

STATE AUDIT FINDINGS

Last year, at the request of Marin's representative in the state
Senate, Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and state Assemblyman Jim Wood,
D-Healdsburg, the California State Auditor looked into allegations
that Brius Healthcare Services, which Rechnitz controls, was
inflating prices to profit from Medi-Cal reimbursements.

At the time, the legislators said there was evidence that Brius
nursing homes were paying inflated prices to some of their related
businesses, with some prices exceeding 200 percent of the local
market average.

The auditor's report, released on May 1, looked at two other
nursing home companies in addition to Brius: Longwood Management
Corp., and Plum Healthcare Group. The three are the largest private
operators of nursing home companies in the state.

The report said, "All three companies made less than $10 million in
net income in 2006, but by 2015 their net incomes had increased to
between $35.2 million and $53.8 million."

The report, however, said the largest increases in the companies'
revenue during this period were Medicare and managed care. The
report said Medi-Cal likely did not contribute significantly to the
companies' net incomes because it does not fully cover nursing
facilities' costs per Medi-Cal patient.

EXTRA REVENUE

The report went on to say that the owners of all three companies
were able to earn income — separate from the revenue its nursing
facilities earned from Medicare, Medi-Cal, or managed care — when
its nursing facilities obtained goods and services from related
parties, or other businesses that they or their family members
owned or controlled.

The report stated, however, "We found that related-party
transactions are common in the industry and are legally allowable.
Medi-Cal takes several measures to limit the possibility that it
might pay for profits from related-party transactions."

The auditors report also found that state agencies doing too little
to maintain quality of care at nursing homes. According to the
report, from 2006 through 2015, the number of substandard care
deficiencies that nursing facilities received increased by 31
percent, while at the same time, the number of state citations from
the Department of Public Health decreased by 34 percent.

The audit found that Brius Healthcare had the most serious quality
of care deficiencies out of the three audited companies — more
than twice as high as the rate of all facilities in the industry.

Medicare.gov, the government website for Medicare, ranks both
Novato Healthcare Center and San Rafael Healthcare and Wellness
Center below average for every category it issues rankings: health
inspections, quality of care, staffing, fire safety and penalties.

In June 2015, the Sacramento Bee reported that between October 2014
and January 2015, three of Brius' facilities were decertified by
the federal government, preventing them from receiving Medicare and
Medi-Cal funding. [GN]

OCLARO INC: Lumentum Merger Deal Triggers Several Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018, that the company is
facing several putative class action suits in connection with the
company's announcement of its merger agreement with Lumentum.

Following Oclaro's and Lumentum's announcement of the execution of
the Merger Agreement on March 12, 2018, seven lawsuits have been
filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging the Merger.

The first suit, a putative class action styled as Nicholas Neinast
v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 24, 2018, and is against Oclaro, its directors,
Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Neinast Lawsuit").

Five additional suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), and Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03203 (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and Saisravan
Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the
"Karri Lawsuit") were also filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on, respectively, May
25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018 and June 9,
2018. Each of the lawsuits name Oclaro and its directors as
defendants.

The Ryan Lawsuit and the Karri Lawsuit, like the Neinast Lawsuit,
are putative class actions. A seventh suit, a putative class action
styled as Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., Case
1:18-cv-00817-GMS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2018, and is against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC
(the "Franchi Lawsuit" and, with the Neinast Lawsuit, the Wordehoff
Lawsuit, the Ryan Lawsuit, the Walker Lawsuit, the Garcia Lawsuit,
and the Karri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits allege that Oclaro and its directors violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was incomplete and
misleading. The Lawsuits further allege that Oclaro's directors
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise
proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Neinast Lawsuit additionally alleges that Oclaro's directors
breached fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, and also
names Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. The Franchi Lawsuit additionally names Lumentum, Merger
Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Oclaro believes that the claims asserted in the Lawsuits are
without merit and believes that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
disclosed all material information concerning the Merger and no
supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law.

However, in order to avoid the risk of the Lawsuits delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Oclaro has determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. To the contrary, Oclaro
specifically denies all allegations in the Lawsuits that any
additional disclosure was or is required.

A copy of the supplemental proxy statement/prospectus is available
at https://goo.gl/7rj3gc.

Oclaro, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets optical components,
modules, and subsystems for the long-haul, metro, and data center
markets worldwide. The company’s products generate, detect,
combine, and separate light signals in optical communications
networks. The company is based in San Jose, California.


PARAGONCOINS: Rapper Among Defendants in Weed Cryptocurrency Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Johnson, writing for Complex.com, reports that Viacom is
coming for The Game's pockets.

After winning a $20 million lawsuit against him, Viacom wants the
rapper to pay for the legal fees they had to shell out for the
case, according to court documents obtained by The Blast. Viacom's
legal bill is reportedly $35,729.50, and they're looking to get
reimbursed.

The original lawsuit happened when The Game sued the television
giant for negligence in bringing a woman with a criminal background
to join the cast for his VH1 dating show, She Got Game. The woman,
identified as Priscilla Rainey, later accused The Game of sexual
assault and won a $7.1 million in a lawsuit against him. The Game
later sued Viacom for the $7.1 million and an additional $20
million for damages and negligence mentioned above. However, the
case was dismissed and now Viacom is adding insult to injury by
asking him to pay for his loss.

These aren't the only legal troubles The Game is having lately
either. He's also being sued for promoting a cryptocurrency company
accused of failing to live up to the promise of revolutionizing the
weed industry. The multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit was
filed against the rapper and the crypto business, ParagonCoins. The
company reportedly promised to "track every stage of cannabis
cultivation, from the purchasing of seeds all the way down the line
to the dispensary selling the final product to consumers" but
failed to live up to the hype. Unfortunately for The Game, he used
his social media platform to promote the company. And now he may
have to pay for that as well. [GN]

PERDUE FOODS: Drew Seeks to Certify Class of Clerks
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WILL DREW, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERDUE FOODS LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00147-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective class defined as:

      "all individuals who work or have worked for Perdue Foods
      LLC at its facility in Accomack, Virginia, as clerks or
      backup clerks within three years of the date of the filing
      of this stipulation, or July 6, 2018, and from whom Perdue
      Foods LLC possibly took deductions from their pay in
      connection with meal periods in which these individuals
      continued to perform work";

   2. approving the form and substance of an agreed-upon notice
      of collective action lawsuit; and

   3. directing Defendant to provide name, last known mailing
      address, personal email address (if known), telephone
      number, and dates of employment for each putative
      collective class member in Microsoft Office Excel format to
      Plaintiff's Counsel no later than 14 days from the date
      this Stipulation is approved by the Court.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788 0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767 6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua L. Jewett, Esq.
          Brittany M. Wrigley, Esq.
          ERVIN JEWETT, P.C.
          2400 Dominion Tower
          999 Waterside Drive
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624 9323
          Facsimile: (757) 624 8414

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Kristina H. Vaquera, Esq.
          Milena Radovic, Esq.
          Keith D. Hudolin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          Main St., Ste. 800
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 648 1448
          Facsimile: (757) 648 1418
          E-mail: Kristina.Vaquera@jacksonlewis.com
                  Milena.Radovic@jacksonlewis.com
                  keith.hudolin@jacksonlewis.com


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Bid to Certify Class Okayed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD L. ALLEN, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., the Defendant, Case No.
17-00374-CV-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Gary A. Fenner entered
an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      conditional class certification; and

   2. granting Defendants' motion to strike declarations in part
      and denying in part.

The Court approves the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form
with the following changes:

   1. Delete all references to the Nationwide Tip Credit
      Notification Policy Collective and the Nationwide Table
      Games Supervisor Collective. This includes, but is not
      limited to, statements such as "you were a tipped
      employee"; "you were a Table Games Supervisor"; 'failing to
      properly inform tipped employees of the federal tip credit
      requirements"; "misclassifying Table Games Supervisors as
      exempt, and not paying overtime wages"; "you are or were an
      hourly, tipped employee who worked at Pinnacle or one of
      its subsidiary casinos in the United States at any time
      from three years prior to DATE, and were paid a direct
      hourly wage that was less than the federal minimum wage at
      that time"; "you are or were a Table Games Supervisor who
      worked at Pinnacle or one of its subsidiary casinos in the
      United States at any time from three years prior to DATE,
      and were classified as exempt and denied compensation at a
      rate of one and one-half times your regular rate of pay for
      all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek";
      "Pinnacle's records may have also show that you are or were
      a tipped employee"; Pinnacle's records

      may also have shown that you were a Table Games
      Supervisor"; "for tipped employees, Plaintiffs contend that
      Pinnacle and its subsidiary casinos violated the Fair Labor
      Standards act by not correctly notifying tipped employees
      that they were claiming part of the employees' tips as
      credits against their obligations to pay minimum wage"; and
      "for Table Games Supervisors, Plaintiffs contend that
      Pinnacle misclassified them as exempt employees, and as a
      result, failed to compensate them for all hours worked over
      40 in a workweek."

   2. The length of the collective period shall be from three
      years prior to the date of this Order until July 22, 2016.

   3. The length of the notice period shall be 60 days and shall
      commence with the mailing of the Notice, as described
      further below.

   4. The collective definition shall not include individuals who
      have released the same or similar claims as a result of any
      other litigation, including the Astarita case, and shall be
      altered accordingly.

   5. Edit Section 9 to read: "No. It is a violation of federal
      law for Pinnacle or its subsidiary casinos to retaliate
      against you for joining this case."

   6. Delete the following statement from the Consent to Join:
      "If this case does not proceed collectively, I also consent
      to join any subsequent action against Defendants for unpaid
      wages and/or overtime."

The Defendants shall produce the following information for each
putative collective member in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or
other format mutually agreed-to by the parties within 14 days of
the date of this Order: (a) full name; (b) last known address; (c)
last known email address; (d) date(s) of employment; (e)
location(s) of employment; and (f) job title(s) held during their
employment. Notice shall be disseminated through first class mail
and email to putative collective members within 45 days of the date
of this Order. Notice shall also be posted in conspicuous locations
at Pinnacle's subsidiary casinos and properties where putative
collective members are employed during the opt-in period. No
reminder mailing or email is necessary or allowed, the Court said.


PROLOGIS INC: Faces Class Suits Challenging DCT Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing
several putative class action suits related to the merger with DCT
Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating
Partnership LP ("DCT OP").

On April 29, 2018, the company entered into a definitive agreement
with DCT Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating
Partnership LP ("DCT OP"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms
and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) DCT will
merge with and into Prologis, with Prologis surviving the merger
(the "Company Merger") and (ii) immediately prior to the effective
time of the Company Merger, DCT OP will merge with and into the OP,
with the OP surviving the merger.

In connection with the Mergers, on July 2, 2018, DCT, DCT OP, DCT's
board of directors (the "DCT Board"), Prologis, and the OP were
sued in a putative class action lawsuit, the Rosenblatt Action,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis
and the related Form S-4.

The complaint in the Rosenblatt Action alleges that DCT, DCT OP,
the DCT Board, Prologis, and Prologis OP violated federal
securities laws by omitting material information from the Form S-4,
rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient.

On July 10, 2018, DCT and the DCT Board were sued in another
putative class action lawsuit, the Bushansky Action, also filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and
also in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the
related Form S-4.

On July 13, 2018, DCT, DCT OP and the DCT Board were sued in a
third putative class action lawsuit, the Aiken Action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, also in
connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related
Form S-4.

The complaints in the Bushansky Action and the Aiken Action allege
that DCT and the DCT Board violated federal securities laws by
omitting from the Form S-4, and/or misrepresenting in the Form S-4,
material information, rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient.


In all three actions, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, (i)
to enjoin the transaction (or rescind it to the extent it is
completed), and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs in connection with
these lawsuits.

Prologis said "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot
be predicted with certainty, we believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against these actions
vigorously."

Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with a
focus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.


QUALITY BEVERAGE: Teixeira Labor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Chad Teixeira, for himself and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quality Beverage LP, Defendant,
Case No. 1873-cv-00407 filed in the Bristol County Superior Court
in Massachusetts, was removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on July 30, 2018, under
Case No. 18-cv-11589.

Quality Beverage -- http://www.qblp.com-- is an independent beer
wholesaler in Taunton, MA where Teixeira worked as a driver and
warehouse worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alyssa M. Jankowski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD RAFFERTY PC
      238 Shrewsbury Street
      Worcester, MA 01604
      Tel: (508) 795-1601
      Email: ajankowski@edenrafferty.com

             - and -

      Gregory P. Benoit, Esq.
      Richard J. Rafferty, Jr., Esq.
      EDEN RAFFERTY TETREAU & ERLICH
      238 Shrewsbury Street
      Worcester, MA 01604
      Tel: (508) 795-1601
      Email: gbenoit@edenrafferty.com
             rrafferty@edenrafferty.com

Quality Beverage LP is represented by:

      Geoffrey P. Wermuth, Esq.
      MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & LEHANE, LLP
      300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 400
      Quincy, MA 02169
      Tel: (617) 691-1979
      Fax: (617) 479-6469
      Email: gwermuth@mhtl.com



RED ROBIN: Outlaw Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------
Eric Outlaw, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Red Robin International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-04357, (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress
for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Red Robin International operates as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and
Brews, or simply Red Robin, a chain of casual dining restaurants.
[BN]

Plaintiff appears pro se.

ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Rockwell Medical,
Inc. ("Rockwell" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RMTI) between March 16,
2018 and June 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover Rockwell shareholders' investment
losses.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Rockwell was aware that the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services will not pursue Rockwell's proposal for separate
reimbursement for Triferic; (2) the estimated reserves in
Rockwell's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 are
misstated; (3) there was a material weakness in Rockwell's internal
control over financial reporting; (4) consequently, Rockwell's
internal control over financial reporting was ineffective during
the Class Period; (5) Robert L. Chioini, former Chief Executive
Officer of Rockwell, withheld material information regarding
Triferic from Rockwell's auditor, corporate counsel and five
independent directors of Rockwell's Board; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Rockwell's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

The class action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under docket number
1:18-cv-04253. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than September 25, 2018. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

To join the Rockwell class action, and/or to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rockwell-medical-inc-rmti-class-action-lawsuit-72/


         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York
         New York 10016
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]

SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Wins Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH WARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENIOR CARE CENTERS,
LLC, a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00422-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Court granted in part
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

Notice shall be issued to this putative class:

   "all hourly-paid Direct-Care Staff who worked at the Mesa Visa
   Inn Health Center in San Antonio, Texas, during the period
   from May 11, 2014 to the present.


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Motion for Class Certification Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CURTIS JOHNSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley entered an order on August 1, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to
      all of Plaintiffs' claims against Serenity; and

   2. denying motion to certify claims against the SCI
      Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Serenity
Defendants, including David Friedel, is granted on the issues of
(1) misclassification, (2) whether on-call time is compensable, (3)
the expense reimbursement claim, and (4) and the wage statement,
waiting time penalty and unfair competition claims to the extent
they are derivative of any of these claims/issues. Should the trier
of fact find that the on-call time is compensable, the overtime,
minimum-wage, and meal and rest break claims (and any derivative
claims) may proceed on a class-wide basis as well. If the trier of
fact finds that it is not compensable, the drivers may still have
valid overtime, minimum-wage and meal and rest break claims, but
those claims must proceed on an individual basis, the Court said.


SILICON LABORATORIES: "Noyes" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Laboratories Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the purported class
action suit filed by Ann Noyes was voluntarily dismissed.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Ann Noyes on behalf of the stockholders of Sigma Designs, Inc. in
the United States District Court in the Northern District of
California against Sigma Designs, certain current and former Sigma
Designs board members and the Company (collectively, the
"Defendants").

The lawsuit alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 arising out of
Sigma Designs' attempt to sell its Z-Wave business to the Company.
The lawsuit claimed that the Defendants filed a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection
with the proposed sale of the Z-Wave business. The lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed on May 17, 2018.

Silicon Laboratories Inc., a fabless semiconductor company,
designs, develops, and markets mixed-signal integrated circuits
(ICs) in the United States, China, and internationally.  Silicon
Laboratories was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Austin,
Texas.


SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled P. STEVEN WAINESS, DDS, a Michigan
resident, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SMILEMAKERS, INC., a
South Carolina corporation, and BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12177-AC-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, 822
F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even
where "[t]he parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named
plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court
certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and
allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue
class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the
complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S.
326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent
with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put
defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


SONIC CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Malware-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2018, that a consolidated complaint was filed in the
Malware Attack-related suits.

On October 4, 2017, the Company issued a public statement notifying
guests that it had discovered that credit and debit card numbers
may have been acquired without authorization as part of a malware
attack experienced at certain Sonic Drive-In locations.

Sonic said "As we reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended August 31, 2017, the Company was named as a
defendant in five purported class action complaints."

The Company has since been named as a defendant in four additional
purported class action complaints filed on October 9, 2017, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on
November 3, 2017, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, on November 13, 2017, in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, and on December
17, 2017, in the Northern District of Illinois. Each of these
complaints asserted various claims related to the Company's alleged
failure to safeguard customer credit card information, and the
plaintiffs sought monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The cases were centralized in the Northern District of Ohio for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and a
consolidated complaint was filed.

Sonic said "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
litigation and intends to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in
the complaint. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential
losses that may be associated with the litigation because of the
early stage of the lawsuit. We also cannot provide assurance that
we will not become subject to other inquiries or claims relating to
the payment card breach in the future. Although we maintain cyber
liability insurance, we currently believe it is possible that the
ultimate amount paid by us, if we are unsuccessful in defending the
litigation, will be in excess of our cyber liability insurance
coverage applicable to claims of this nature. We are unable to
estimate the amount of any such excess."

Sonic Corp. operates and franchises a chain of quick-service
drive-in restaurants in the United States. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SPERIAN ENERGY: Corsale Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned John Corsale, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sperian Energy
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02194 (E.D. Pa., May 25,
2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on July 30, 2018 under Case
No. 2:19-cv-00996.

Sperian allegedly overpriced Corsale for his electricity
consumption from June 2015 to April 2018, and lured him with a low
teaser rate and offers of variable rates of electricity based on
market fluctuations. Corsale claims that when the market price goes
up, Sperian's rate spikes matching the going rate. But when prices
go down, its rate remains the same. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

            - and -

      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1000
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Email: klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

Sperian Energy Corporation is represented by:

      Charles A. Fitzpatrick, IV, Esq.
      Huaou Yan, Esq.
      Jason A. Snyderman, Esq.
      BLANK ROME LLP
      One Logan Square
      130 North 18th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 569-5608, 569-5449
      Fax: (215) 832-5608, 689-3884
      Email: fitzpatrick-c@blankrome.com
             hyan@blankrome.com
             snyderman@blankrome.com

             - and -

      Christopher A. Lewis, Esq.
      BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY LLP
      One Logan Square
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
      Tel: (215) 569-5793
      Fax: (215) 569-5555
      Email: lewis@blankrome.com


STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA De Minimis Doctrine Not in Cal. Statutes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upon a request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the Supreme Court of California, in the case captioned
DOUGLAS TROESTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. S234969 (Cal.), agreed
to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt.
Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 692, and Lindow v. United
States (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057, 1063, apply to claims for
unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and
1197?

Plaintiff Douglas Troester filed the original complaint in an
action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of himself
and a putative class of all non-managerial California employees of
defendant Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) who performed store
closing tasks from mid-2009 to October 2010. Troester worked for
Starbucks as a shift supervisor.

Troester worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. Starbucks
removed the action to federal district court and moved for summary
judgment on the ground that Troester's uncompensated time was so
minimal that Starbucks was not required to compensate him.

The district court granted Starbucks's motion for summary judgment.


On appeal, the Ninth Circuit recognized that although the de
minimis doctrine has long been a part of the FLSA, this court has
never addressed whether the doctrine applies to wage claims brought
under California law. The court further recognized that in some
instances California law has been interpreted to be more protective
of employee wage claims than federal law. Against this background,
the Ninth Circuit certified the question presented to this court.

In Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680
(Anderson), the high court considered whether certain types of
employee activity constituted compensable work time. The worksite
was a pottery plant covering eight acres, and the principal
question was whether the employees should be compensated for the
time spent walking to and from their workstations and engaging in
certain preliminary and postliminary activities.

The court held that generally such time is compensable: Since the
statutory workweek includes all time during which an employee is
necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or
at a prescribed workplace, the time spent in these activities must
be accorded appropriate compensation.

Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit in Lindow v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1984)
738 F.2d 1057 (Lindow) explained that in determining whether
otherwise compensable time is de minimis under the FLSA, the Court
will consider (1) the practical administrative difficulty of
recording the additional time; (2) the aggregate amount of
compensable time; and (3) the regularity of the additional work.

According to Starbucks, the de minimis rule is also a principle of
California law that is independently applicable to wage and hour
cases as a matter of state law.

Starbucks argues that even if the relevant Labor Code statutes and
wage order have not explicitly adopted the federal de minimis rule,
the de minimis principle is part of the established background of
legal principles against which the statutes and wage order have
been enacted.

Troester contends that the fact that the Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) has not adopted an explicit de minimis regulation
after it had been incorporated into federal law is a sign that the
IWC intended to preclude its application in wage cases. Troester
further contends that unlike the California Labor Code, the text of
the FLSA does not contain a blanket requirement to pay employees
for all hours worked, except in a regulation that postdated and
implicitly incorporated Anderson's de minimis rule.

In light of the Wage Order's remedial purpose requiring a liberal
construction, its directive to compensate employees for all time
worked, the evident priority it accorded that mandate
notwithstanding customary employment arrangements, and its concern
with small amounts of time, we conclude that the de minimis
doctrine has no application under the circumstances presented here.


An employer that requires its employees to work minutes off the
clock on a regular basis or as a regular feature of the job may not
evade the obligation to compensate the employee for that time by
invoking the de minimis doctrine.

As the facts here demonstrate, a few extra minutes of work each day
can add up. According to the Ninth Circuit, Troester is seeking
payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of compensable work over a
17-month period, which amounts to $102.67 at a wage of $8 per hour.
That is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or
cover a month of bus fares. What Starbucks calls de minimis is not
de minimis at all to many ordinary people who work for hourly
wages.

The Court recognizes that one of the main impetuses behind the de
minimis doctrine in wage cases is the practical administrative
difficulty of recording small amounts of time for payroll purposes.
But employers are in a better position than employees to devise
alternatives that would permit the tracking of small amounts of
regularly occurring work time. One such alternative, which it
appears Starbucks eventually resorted to here, was to restructure
the work so that employees would not have to work before or after
clocking out.

Moreover, technological advances may help with tracking small
amounts of time. An employer may be able to customize and adapt
available time tracking tools or develop new ones when no
off-the-shelf product meets its needs. And even when neither a
restructuring of work nor a technological fix is practical, it may
be possible to reasonably estimate work time for example, through
surveys, time studies, or, as See's Candy suggested, a fair
rounding policy  and to compensate employees for that time. Under
the circumstances of this case, we decline to adopt a rule that
would require the employee to bear the entire burden of any
difficulty in recording regularly occurring work time.

The Court holds that the relevant California statutes and wage
order have not incorporated the de minimis doctrine found in the
FLSA.

The Court further concludes that although California has a de
minimis rule that is a background principle of state law, the rule
is not applicable here. The relevant statutes and wage order do not
allow employers to require employees to routinely work for minutes
off-the-clock without compensation.  

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's July 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8jw3ao from Leagle.com.

Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh -shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Thomas
Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- H. Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, David Spivak --
david@spivaklaw.com -- Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, Louis
Benowitz ; Marlin & Saltzman and Stanley D. Saltzman for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Anna Kirsch -- akirsch@ggu.edu -- and Hina Shah for Women's
Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law,
Bet Tzedek, Centro Legal de la Raza, National Employment Law
Project and Legal Aid at Work as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Kralowec Law Group, Kimberly A. Kralowec --
kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley and Ari J. Stiller
-- ari@kingsleykingsley.com -- for Consumer Attorneys of California
and California Employment Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Rex S. Heinke --
rheinke@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com --
Mark R. Curiel -- mcuriel@akingump.com -- and Jonathan P. Slowik --
jpslowik@akingump.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.

Sidley Austin, David R. Carpenter -- DRCARPENTER@SIDLEY.COM -- and
Sonia A. Vucetic -- SVUCETIC@SIDLEY.COM -- for California Retailers
Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, Robert H. Wright -- rwright@horvitzlevy.com --
Felix Shafir -- fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- and Lacey L. Esudillo --
lestudillo@horvitzlevy.com -- for Association of Southern
California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent.

STARBUCKS CORP: Squire Pattons Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinal Patel, Esq., Karen E. Wentzel, Esq., and Michael W. Kelly,
Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that on July 26, 2018, the California
Supreme Court ruled in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation that the
federal de minimisdoctrine does not apply to a California
employee's class action wage claims.  This ruling will have
widespread impact, particularly on those employers with large
numbers of non-exempt employees such as retailers and food service
providers, as employers are now required to pay employees for even
the small amounts of time spent on incidental work that occurs
prior to clocking in or after clocking out.

The employee in Troester, a non-exempt Starbucks supervisor, argued
that Starbucks should pay him for the roughly 4 to 10 minutes each
day he spent on tasks related to closing the store after clocking
out.  These tasks included activating the alarm, exiting the store,
locking the front door, walking coworkers to their cars pursuant to
Starbucks' safety policy, and other occasional tasks such as
letting an employee back into the store to retrieve a forgotten
item.  The Court noted that over the 17 month period of employment,
Troester's time spent performing these unpaid tasks totaled
approximately 12 hours and 50 minutes or about $102.67 in lost
wages.

Starbucks argued that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de
minimis doctrine applied to this case and excused Starbucks'
nonpayment of wages for these small amounts of otherwise
compensable time.  The Court first rejected Starbucks' argument,
finding that the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's
(IWC) wage orders had not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine.
In support of its findings, the Court pointed to the language
contained in these statutes and regulations which emphasize that
hours worked includes "all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work."  By emphasizing that it includes "all" time,
the Court found that California law is more protective than federal
law when it comes to payment of wages.

Second, the Court rejected Starbucks' argument that the Court
should recognize the de minimis rule in light of the fact that it
is part of the "established background of legal principles" upon
which the Labor Code and IWC wage orders have been enacted.  In its
ruling, the Court found that the Labor Code and the IWC wage orders
are clearly concerned with small amounts of time given that
employees receive 10 minute rest breaks.  Along with this
observation, the Court noted that it implicitly rejected a de
minimum intrusion of such time in Augustus v. ABM Security
Services, Inc.  The Court also found support for its holding
because the IWC wage orders amended its language demonstrating an
intent to depart from the federal standard for waiting time and
other forms of travel time.  The federal Portal-to-Portal Act
relieves employers from paying minimum wages or overtime for
certain activities such as walking to the actual place of
performing the principal activity for the employer and other
preliminary or postliminary activities.  In response, the IWC
amended its wage orders such that hours worked included these
activities.  In doing so, the Court found that the IWC intended for
employers to pay employees for these small amounts of time.
Finally, the Court noted that the modern availability of class
action lawsuits and technology advances in employer timekeeping
methods both undermine the de minimis doctrine.

This case will spark a new wave of California class action lawsuits
focusing on those previously uncounted minutes and perhaps even
seconds of time worked by an employee.  With this risk of increased
exposure, employers should review their timekeeping policies and
procedures.  Employers should also analyze each non-exempt
employees' duties and responsibilities and minimize the risk of any
off-the-clock work. [GN]

STEADYMED LTD: "Scarantino" and "Hoover" Suits Balk at Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
SteadyMed Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018, that the company is
facing two class action lawsuits related to its proposed merger
with Daniel 24043 Acquisition Corp. Ltd.

On June 27, 2018, Richard Scarantino and Australia A. Hoover filed
separate putative class action lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, each
purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of SteadyMed Ltd.,
against SteadyMed and its directors, alleging, among other things,
violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

The complaints each seek, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the previously announced proposed merger
transaction by which Daniel 24043 Acquisition Corp. Ltd. will merge
with and into SteadyMed, making SteadyMed a wholly-owned subsidiary
of United Therapeutics Corporation.

SteadyMed and its directors believe that the suits lack merit and
intend to take all appropriate actions to defend against them.

SteadyMed said "It is possible that additional similar complaints
may be filed in the future. If this does occur, SteadyMed does not
intend to announce the filing of any similar complaints."

SteadyMed Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of drug product candidates for the treatment
of orphan and high-value diseases with unmet parenteral delivery
needs.


STEEL & TUBE: More Homeowners Join Suit Following Guilty Pleas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adina Thorn on July 18 disclosed that in November last year, Steel
& Tube pleaded guilty to 24 of 29 charges from the Commerce
Commission relating to false and misleading representations
concerning 500E Earthquake grade steel mesh. A sentencing hearing
was held in the District Court in May 2018 and the sentencing
judgment is awaited. This has led to further owners from across New
Zealand signing up for a proposed Steel Mesh class action against
Steel & Tube.

Lawyer Adina Thorn says the proposed class action is designed to
deliver compensation for the stress and uncertainty for property
owners who have ended up with non-compliant steel mesh in their
home and driveways. "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".

"This mesh was sold between approximately March 2012 and April 2016
and much of it was used in the rebuilding of Canterbury following
the earthquakes there. However, the mesh people were buying was
supposed to be earthquake-grade, when it wasn't.

"The existence of non-complaint steel 500E mesh is just another
slap in the face for many Cantabrians who have had their homes
rebuilt believing them to be fully compliant, only to learn there
are real issues with the mesh which was supposed to be "E"
(earthquake) grade.

"The 500E steel mesh standard was brought in by the Government
directly as a response to the earthquakes. It basically allows
movement of buildings in an earthquake, so that the foundations do
not break" says Ms Thorn.

"Although the District Court Judge is yet to deliver the final
judgment on sentencing, the Commerce Commission's successful
prosecution of Steel & Tube relates to false and misleading
representations that the 500E mesh had been independently tested
and certified, when it had not been".

"Our registrations of interest are currently running at a high
level and we expect that the sentencing itself will encourage more
owners to join the proposed class action against Steel & Tube.
Details can be found at: www.steelclassaction.co.nz

"The proposed action is funded, which means that while funding is
in place owners will face no out of pocket costs, as all the legal,
technical and Court costs involved in a claim of this scale will be
picked up by the funder in return for them receiving a share of any
proceeds of success." [GN]

SURFSTITCH: Shareholders to Pursue Class Action Against Ex-CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Mitchell, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
online retailer SurfStitch may have been "saved" by private equity
firm Alceon Group but its co-founder and former chief executive,
Justin Cameron, is not out of the woods just yet.

Shareholders of the surf wear and action sports e-tailer are
pressing ahead with an $85 million class action claim against
Mr Cameron, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct over
representations to shareholders and information in the company's
financial statements before the company's collapse in 2016.

Shareholders are pursuing the class action claim despite voting in
favour of a deed of company arrangement which saw SurfStitch's
Australian business sold to Alceon Group's EziBuy business in
April.

Gadens, the lawyers representing the class action group, have
issued subpoenas seeking access to transcripts of Australian
Securities and Investments Commission examinations of Mr Cameron
and other SurfStitch executives and directors under Section 19 of
the ASIC Act, which compels people to provide information.

However, Mr Cameron is fighting the release of the transcripts,
claiming privilege under self-incrimination provisions under
general law and section 68 of the ASIC Act.

Gadens is now challenging Mr Cameron's privilege claim in the NSW
Supreme Court. A judgment on the privilege claim is expected to be
delivered.

Mr Cameron said on July 25 he was "aggressively defending" the
claim but declined to comment on the ASIC investigation or the
transcripts.

Mr Cameron said he was also disappointed by the company's collapse
and the sale of SurfStitch to EziBuy.

Under the EziBuy DOCA, employee and ordinary creditors will receive
a cash dividend between $3.4 million and $4.3 million from
SurfStitch's funds and will be issued with a convertible note that
will convert to shares in EziBuy in three years. SurfStitch
shareholders will also receive a convertible note that converts
into shares in EziBuy/SurfStitch upon a liquidity event, such as an
IPO or trade sale.

SurfStitch's administrators recommended the EziBuy proposal, saying
it would deliver the best overall return to creditors and had less
execution risk than a rival offer.

Frustrated with the outcome
The administrators valued EziBuy, which Alceon acquired from
Woolworths in 2017 for $10 million, at between $188 million and
$293 million, based on sustainable earnings of around $22 million,
while SurfStitch was valued about $20 million.

"I was completely disappointed and surprised as a shareholder given
the valuation the administrators set on EziBuy and SurfStitch as
part of the acquisition, given Woolworths sold the Ezibuy business
for $10 million six months before," Mr Cameron said.

"They have in effect acquired SurfStitch for zero dollars, they
haven't paid a single cent for it," he said, as the proceeds came
from SurfStitch's cash holdings.

"So in fact Alceon haven't spent a cent acquiring SurfStitch, which
is just unbelievable and why a large number of shareholders in
SurfStitch are frustrated with the outcome of that process."

The class action shareholders are now fighting for proceeds from
the settlement to fund the claim against Mr Cameron.

Shareholders fear the settlement proceeds and funds that may be
available from SurfStitch's $15 million directors and officers
insurance policies are being whittled away by legal action.

Floated in December 2014 at $1 a share, SurfStitch shares reached
$2.12 in less than 12 months, valuing the company at more than $500
million, following a spate of acquisitions.

Mr Cameron wanted SurfStitch to become the Amazon Prime of the
action sports world, using surfing, skiing and music videos to
attract shoppers. The music stopped in March 2016, when Mr Cameron
resigned unexpectedly, purportedly to pursue a private-equity
backed privatisation.

After a series of profit downgrades the shares fell to 6.8¢ before
the company went into administration in August 2016. [GN]

SYNAPSE GROUP: Cruz False Advertising Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cathie Cruz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synapse Group, Inc. and
Synapseconnect, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00032240 (Cal.
Super., June 28, 2018), was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on August 1, 2018, under Case
No. 18-cv-01775.

Cruz filed a complaint alleging false advertising in violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law. Cruz bases her claims on Defendants' alleged
violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
     DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
     4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Tel: (858) 623-4200
     Fax: (858) 623-4299
     Email: zdostart@sdlaw.com

Synapse Group is represented by:

     Thomas David Warren, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
     PNC Center-1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200
     Cleveland, OH 44114-3482
     Tel: (216) 861-7528
     Fax: (216) 696-0740
     Email: twarren@bakerlaw.com


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended May 5, 2018, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action suit in the District of
New Jersey, is still pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between
February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. The consolidated amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it alleges, among other
things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of
material information concerning the Company's financial results,
business operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, fees, interest, and costs.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice,
which remains pending.

Synchronoss Technologies said, "We believe that the asserted claims
lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims
vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we
cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time, and we can
give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations."

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. is a global software and services
company that provides essential technologies for the mobile
transformation of business. The Company’s portfolio, which is
targeted at the Consumer and Enterprise markets, contains offerings
such as personal cloud, secure-mobility, identity management and
scalable messaging platforms, products and solutions. The company
is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VALERIE MCMULLEN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY
BANK, f/k/a GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, d/b/a CARECREDIT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-01983-JEB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving class action settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying a settlement class of:

      "all person who hold of the Synchrony CareCredit accounts
      identified by Synchrony from reasonably available
      information and records as having been opened through
      Bullen Wellness. Washington Chiropractic, Karim Steward
      and/or Dr. Wayne Bullen, at any time on or after October
      31, 2011, through the date of entry of the preliminary
      approval order. Excluded from the Settlement Class are all
      persons who validly exclude themselves from the Settlement
      Class"; and

   3. settling a hearing date to consider settlement approval.


T ROWE PRICE: Faces Class Suit over 401(k) Plan in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces a
putative class suit on 401 (k) Plan in Maryland.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and
prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan
from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are
seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. T. Rowe
Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously
defending the action.

T. Rowe Price Group said "This matter is in the early stages of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome or whether it
will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any
negative outcome."

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager.
The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional
investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and
institutions. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is
based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TACO BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Deabler, writing for Fox News, reports that California
Taco Bell employees may want to start bringing their lunch from
home.

A recently court-upheld decision allows the fast food chain to ban
customers that use their employee discount to purchase food from
eating off-site, Inc. reported.

The lunchtime restrictions only apply to employees who are using
their employee discount. Taco Bell employees that bring food from
home or purchase a meal from Taco Bell at full price are allowed to
leave and eat wherever they choose.

However, employees feel that limits their break time. In a
class-action lawsuit, Taco Bell workers argued that being forced to
remain in the building during their lunch entitled them to wages,
since they would be seen as on-call.

Taco Bell denied the claim, stating their employees are relieved of
all duties during their lunch break.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Taco Bell and upheld
the policy:

"The panel held that California law was not violated because Taco
Bell relieved their employees of all duties during the meal break
period and exercised no control over their activities, where
employees were free to use the thirty minutes in any way they
wished, subject only to the restriction that if they purchased a
discounted meal, they had to eat in the restaurant," Food & Wine
reported.

According to the company, the policy is used to prevent workers
from using their discount to purchase meals for friends and family
members. [GN]

TAURANGA CITY: More Homeowners Joining Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------
Scott Yeoman, writing for NZ Herald, reports that more Bella Vista
homeowners are considering joining a class action against the city
council in the wake of the buyout offer.

Auckland QC David Heaney, Esq. -- david@wmclaw.co.nz -- an
experienced local authority litigation lawyer, filed a class action
on behalf of Bella Vista residents in late May.

Tauranga City Council was served with the legal proceedings on June
1, and the class-action lawsuit is now due to have its first court
conference.

So far only two of the 21 Bella Vista households are named in the
proceedings.

But yesterday Heaney confirmed to the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend
that more residents were now considering joining.

When asked if there had been any correspondence between him and the
other residents or their lawyer about joining the class action in
the past week, Heaney said: "Yeah, they're thinking about it, and
they're having a meeting . . . I think to make a decision on
that."

The other 19 Bella Vista homeowners are represented by Tauranga
barrister Nathan Smith, Esq. -- Nathan@NathanSmith.co.nz

Smith told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend that there was no update
at the moment.

He said he was in discussions with his clients.

Asked specifically about the class action and the filing of legal
proceedings, Smith said: "There will be an update . . . ."[GN]

TEZOS: Judge Allows Cryptocurrency Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a case involving novel issues of whether digital currency
investments are subject to U.S. securities laws, a federal judge on
Aug. 7 advanced a class action against a husband and wife team that
raised $232 million for a new cryptocurrency.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg refused to dismiss lead
plaintiff Arman Anvari's class action against Tezos virtual
currency creators Arthur and Kathleen Brietman, their company
Dynamic Ledger Solutions (DLS) and Tezos Stiftung, the Swiss
foundation they set up to oversee an initial coin offering in July
2017.

After touting Tezos as the "solution" to shortcomings plaguing
other digital currencies, the Breitmans organized a "crowdsale" in
2017 to help finance the creation of a new blockchain, or secure
network for exchanging Tezos tokens.

Four class actions were filed and later consolidated after an
internal dispute delayed the launch of the new Tezos blockchain
last fall.

The defendants say the initial coin offering was merely a
fundraiser, not an investment scheme, and that they have no
obligation to provide Tezos tokens to contributors. The plaintiffs
say the contributions were investments, which means the defendants
were required to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission before accepting money.

The Breitmans argued they could not be liable for the sale of
unregistered securities because a separate Swiss entity, Tezos
Sitfung, oversaw the initial coin offering. Judge Seeborg rejected
that argument, finding the couple and the foundation were "deeply
intertwined, if not functionally interchangeable" throughout the
process.

Judge Seeborg found allegations the Breitmans developed websites
and applications used for the initial coin offering, and promoted
the fundraiser on popular online forums, adequately support a
conclusion that their involvement rose well above the level of
"collateral participation."

The judge also rejected claims the lawsuit seeks to apply U.S.
securities laws to conduct that occurred overseas. Although a Swiss
foundation oversaw the initial coin offering, Judge Seeborg found
the Breitmans' development of key elements for the project took
place in California, and that marketing for the offering almost
exclusively targeted U.S. investors.

In rejecting the extraterritorial argument, Judge Seeborg also
noted the lead plaintiff initiated his investment transaction on a
website hosted on a server in Arizona, and that his contribution of
the digital currency Ethereum was "validated by a network of global
'nodes' clustered more densely in the United States than in any
other country."

Judge Seeborg dismissed some defendants with leave to amend,
including American venture capitalist Tim Draper. Draper invested
$1.5 million in DLS, gaining a board seat and 10 percent ownership
stake in the company, and publicly touted Tezos. But Judge Seeborg
found Anvari failed to show he relied on anything Draper said when
he chose to invest in Tezos.

Additionally, Judge Seeborg dismissed the company Bitcoin Suisse as
a defendant, finding its role in providing virtual currency
conversion services for Tezos investors makes it "not appear to be
a key player in this action."

Anvari is represented by Hung Ta of New York, who did not return a
request for comment by press time.

The Breitmans are represented by Brian Klein --
bklein@bakermarquart.com -- of Baker Marquart in Los Angeles, who
said he believes his clients will eventually prevail.

"Although we are understandably disappointed by the ruling, this
was not a decision on the merits of the case," Mr. Klein said. "We
believe Kathleen, Arthur, and DLS will ultimately be fully
vindicated. They did not violate any laws and Tezos contributors
were not harmed."

In June, Tezos unveiled a test version of its blockchain, or
digital exchange system for Tezos tokens, after months of delay.

As of Aug. 7, a single Tezos unit was valued at $1.70, down 4.8
percent and dramatically lower than its all-time high of $10.39 in
mid-December 2017.

TOLL ROADS LITIG: Motion for Class Certification Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Civil Minutes dated July 31, 2018, in the lawsuit
In re: Toll Roads Litigation, Case No. 8:16-cv-00262-AG-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an order:

   1. denying, without prejudice, Defendants' motion to exclude;
      and

   2. denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification as modified.

The Court certifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3),
for the litigation of claims under California Streets and Highways
Code section 31490, a class defined as:

   "all consumers who used California Highway Routes 71, 133,
   241, 261 between April 13, 2015 and now, or who used the 91
   Express Lanes between June 29, 2015 and now, and:

   - Who had their travel pattern data (date and time of trip, or
     plaza and lane numeric identifiers) made available by
     Defendants to another transportation agency;

   - Who had the date of their toll transaction or violation sent
     to the California DMV;

   - Who had their license plate numbers sent by Defendants to
     the California DMV for a second inquiry, the Arizona DMV,
     DataTicket Incorporated, Law Enforcement Systems, LLC
     (Duncan Solutions);

   - Who had any personally identifiable information other than
     the amount of tolls and penalties owed, the violation
     number, or the violator's account number sent by Defendants
     to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP;

   - Who, without providing express written consent to receive
     communications about the products or services offered by a
     transportation agency or a transportation agency contractor,
     had any personally identifiable information sent by
     Defendants to Marshall Advertising; or

   - Who had any personally identifiable information sent by
     Defendants to a car rental company, LexisNexis, Julinne von
     KleinSmid, Microbilt, Experian, the California FTB, Rex L.
     Brady Attorney at Law, Judgment Recovery Assistance, or
     icontact.

The Court said, "Carpenter, Lori Myers, Dan Golka, and James
Watkins will serve as class representatives. Class counsel is Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Lindemann Law Firm, APC, and Coast Law Group,
LLP. Class counsel will ensure that a notice meeting the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) is
mailed, within 60 days of this order, to all class members
identified through reasonable efforts, by first class mail with
return postage prepaid. The notice will explain that class members
have 60 days from receipt of the notice to request in writing their
exclusion from the class. Class counsel should provide both a
postal and electronic address for exclusion requests. Within 14
days from the end of the opt-out period, class counsel will file a
status report with the Court, accompanied by a declaration or
affidavit about undeliverable notices and the number of requests
for exclusions. The Court sets a status conference in this case to
discuss notice and opt-out on Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9 a.m."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Rodent-Damaged Wiring Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly, citing for Carscoops.com, reports that a U.S. Federal
judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota Motor
Sales U.S.A over wiring damage caused by rodents. In the lawsuit
filed in August 2016, it was claimed that Toyota's decision to use
soy-based, rather than petroleum-based, insulation for engine
wiring had made the insulation more attractive to rodents. Those
behind the suit claimed that damages should be covered under
warranty. Toyota, obviously, disagreed.

In June, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford granted motions to
dismiss the lawsuit without leave to amend. In addition, the judge
dismissed claims of fraud and consumer protections, asserting that
the plaintiffs hadn't provided the necessary specificity to make
such claims.

The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Indiana resident
Albert Heber, who was forced to pay roughly $1,500 to fix the
wiring on his 2012 Toyota Tundra when it was chewed on three
occasions. A host of other owners came forward shortly after with
similar complaints. In the order issued by the judge, it was stated
that Toyota couldn't have known the soy-based insulation would
attract rodents.

Toyota said it was gratified with the judge's decision to dismiss
the class-action lawsuit [GN]

TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Court Strikes Conditional Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Monique Dudley, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
TrueCoverage LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-PA-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order striking Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action lawsuit, without prejudice to
the motion being re-filed in accordance with the Local Rules and
the Court's orders, according to the Civil Minutes.

The Court said, "Before the Court is a motion for conditional
Certification and Court-authorized notice to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (the "Motion")
filed by plaintiffs Monique Dudley and Noreen Costa. The Plaintiffs
filed and served the Motion on July 19, 2018, and they noticed a
hearing for September 24, 2018.

Under this Court's Standing Order, "[n]o motion shall be noticed
for hearing for more than 35 days after service of the motion
unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Because September 24, 2018
is more than 35 days after service of the Motion, Plaintiffs have
violated the Court's Standing Order. The Court therefore strikes
Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice to the Motion being re-filed
in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's orders.
Previously, when denying the parties' stipulation to extend the
Local Rule 23-3 deadline to file a motion for class certification,
the Court inadvertently granted TrueCoverage LLC an extension to
respond to the Motion to August 31, 2018. The Court withdraws and
strikes that portion of its prior order. If Plaintiff re-files its
Motion, the deadline for Defendant's opposition thereto shall be
determined in accordance with the Local Rules.


TRUGREEN LTD: Notice to Employees of Opt-in Rights Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GEORGE MORRIS, SHANNON BOYD, RYAN COLEMAN,
BARRY DAMICO and KELVIN CARTER, the Plaintiffs, v. TRUGREEN LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01465-PGB-GJK (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order on August 1,
2018:

   1. adopting, confirming and making part of the order,
      Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly's Report and
      Recommendation;

   2. overruling Plaintiffs' objections to report and
      recommendation;

   3. denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion for an order permitting
      court-supervised notice to employees of opt-in rights.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that more than 1,000 immigrant
detainees have been detained in a medium-security federal prison --
despite never being convicted of any crime -- in near solitary
confinement and are deprived of health care and adequate food and
water, according to a class action filed on Aug. 1 against the
Trump administration.

UNITED STATES: Father and Son Reunited Following Court Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Pauly, writing for Mother Jones, reports that after more
than 50 days apart, a migrant father known in legal documents as
"F.G.," was reunited with his 17-year-old son in Texas on July 25.
Guards loaded them onto a bus, where they were told they would be
taken to a shelter. But eight minutes down the road, the bus turned
around.

When they pulled back into the El Paso Service Processing Center,
uniformed officials allegedly distributed forms for the parents on
the bus to sign that meant they agreed to be deported with their
children. When F.G. refused, he was removed from the bus and
separated from his son a second time.

That's according to a heartbreaking declaration filed by F.G.'s
pro-bono lawyer on July 28 as part of the class-action lawsuit
overseeing the government's attempt to reunify the more than 2,500
families separated at the border this year. According to the
declaration, F.G. was not alone: At least four fathers were
reunited briefly with their kids, but were separated again when
they refused to sign the forms, which gave them three "choices":
agree to be deported with their children, agree to allow their
child to stay in the United States if the parent lost their
immigration case, or talk to a lawyer before deciding. According to
the lawyer, Laila Arand, F.G. and other fathers say the first
option on their forms was pre-selected in ink.

Dara Lind at Vox got a response to the allegations from a
Department of Homeland Security official:

"Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of
removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without
their children, is part of long-standing policy," the official
said. "ICE does not interfere in the parent's decision to allow the
child to remain in the U.S. to pursue his or her own legal claim."

But the July 28 filing offers evidence of ICE agents doing just
that. Either all four parents who spoke to the lawyer are lying, or
the lawyer's declaration shows that the choice isn't always being
freely offered -- and that parents who select the second option are
having their children summarily taken from them, with no chance to
say goodbye, for the second time in a matter of months.

As for F.G., after he was separated from his son for the second
time, "he then asked if he could at least go back to the bus to
retrieve his belongings from the storage area underneath the bus,
and was told he could do so quickly," Ms. Arand wrote. "When he
went to the bus to do so, his son attempted to come outside the bus
to see him, but was unable to do so…He watched the bus depart
with his son on board."

According to the declaration, F.G. was kept in El Paso for two
nights before being returned to an immigration detention detention
center in New Mexico, where he remained as of July 27. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Garfield County Joins PILT Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Webb, writing for The Daily Sentinel, reports that Garfield
County commissioners have decided to join a class-action lawsuit
with the goal of recovering underpayments by the federal government
under its Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, while Mesa County is
still considering the matter.

Garfield's decision means it could recover an estimated $122,000
minus attorney fees potentially amounting to about a third of that
amount. The recovery also is still subject to potential appeal by
the federal government.

Counties have until Sept. 14 to decide whether to join the suit,
brought by Kane County, Utah. A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge
ruled in the case that the government is liable for underpayments
between 2015-17 in connection with the program, which is intended
to help offset the lack of property tax collections involving
federal lands. The underpayments resulted from Congress
appropriating too little money for the Department of Interior to
make full payments under a formula that considers acres and
population variables.

Mesa County could be due $117,000 in the case, but again that would
likely be reduced by attorney fees.

The firm handling the suit has said it plans to seek court approval
for fees amounting to a third of the recovered amount, plus an
expected fraction of a percent to cover expenses.

Mesa County Administrator Frank Whidden said on July 27 that he
believes Mesa commissioners "are still assessing what other
counties are going to do."

"We all hate to lose 33 percent or more in attorneys' fees," he
said.

According to the website of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, the firm
handling the suit, 14 counties in Colorado are now among the
counties nationwide that have joined the suit. That's up from nine
counties in Colorado as of a few weeks ago.

Colorado Counties Inc. has said it doesn't think counties can
recover underpayments more cheaply than by joining the suit, given
the amount of underpayments involved.

Garfield County Attorney Tari Williams told Garfield commissioners
that while there have been other options discussed by counties,
"none of them seem to gain you anything, and (they) possibly create
additional hurdles and take longer."

Garfield commissioners had worried that joining the suit could
cause political backlash. Garfield Commissioner John Martin was
able to meet with representatives from Kane County and some other
participants in the suit and was assured there would be no adverse
effects.

"They say you're entitled to it, accept it, go on from there," he
said.

Garfield commissioners directed their staff to write Kane County a
letter of thanks for its leadership in the case.

The PILT program was fully funded this year, and under its formula
Mesa County received the largest payment of any government in
Colorado -- nearly $3.6 million, involving more than 1.5 million
acres of land. Garfield County received $3.2 million for nearly 1.2
million acres, the second-highest amount statewide. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Luna County May Join PILT Program Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deming Headlight, writing for Deming Headlight, reports that this
year Luna County will be seeing approximately two-million dollar
signs from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered
by the Department of Interior.

The program will be fully funding New Mexico counties $42.6 million
for over 22 million acres of nontaxable federal land. Luna County
will be receiving $1,999,158 to compensate it's 788,622 acres
within its county limits. A difference of nearly $38,000 since last
year's PILT payment.

For the past three years, PILT has failed to fully fund counties
across the U.S. Now, local governments are taking action against
the Federal government to get the rest of their money.

"Which opens up a new cans of worms," said Luna County Manager Ira
Pearson.

Counties in New Mexico are contemplating to partake in a class
action lawsuit against the federal government to recover the full
amount of past funds since 2015. State counties across the country
have decided to participate in the lawsuit this year after
following the precedent case of Kane County, Utah v. United
States.

Luna County will have to opt in the class action lawsuit by Sept.
14, 2018. The Luna County Board of Commissioners will make their
decision on Aug. 9 during a regular meeting.

"The laws, as they're written, require them to fully fund PILT. And
they didn't follow the rules -- they didn't follow laws," Pearson
said. "If they owe it to us, then they owe it to us."

It has been decided the payment will be included in this year's
$10.5 million general budget for essential operations such as
county government operations, administration, emergency dispatch,
public safety and public education.

But at some point, Ms. Pearson would like to use some of the funds
for the public.

"Ideally, if we can run county government off of not including that
money, then we can use that PILT for big capital projects."

Luna County isn't there yet, but if New Mexico counties decide to
opt in the class action lawsuit, Luna County could be receiving
approximately $60,000 to $70,000 before attorney fees.

"I'd say, if we recoup money like that, then we would probably ask
the commission to look at something specific so that it doesn't get
absorbed and put in there (budget)," Ms. Pearson said. "I would
take it before the commission and ask them to put it aside for a
community project."

Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Tom Udall (D-NM) released a
statement in June based on the importance of PILT funds. Udall is a
on Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies.

"Rural communities across New Mexico rely on PILT funds to provide
for emergency response, maintaining roads, and bridges and local
jobs," Sen. Heinrich said.

"We currently fund PILT year by year, but that isn't good enough,"
Mr. Udall said. "As a senior member of the Senate of Appropriations
committee, I'll continue to work for full, permanent funding to
ensure local communities have the economic security they need."
[GN]

UNITED STATES: Migrant Fathers Sue After Separation w/ Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Birnbaum, writing for The Hill, reports that a court filing
on July 28 alleges at least four migrant fathers were separated
from their children again after being reunited with them briefly.

The declaration, which was obtained by Mother Jones, was filed as
part of the class-action lawsuit on behalf of migrant parents who
wish to be reunited with their children. It alleges that the four
fathers were given three choices when the government reunited them
with their children: First, to be deported with their children;
second, agree for the children to stay in the U.S. if the parent
loses the immigration case; or third, to speak to a lawyer before
making the decision.

The fathers are claiming the first option was already selected for
them.

The allegation comes days after the government failed to meet a
court-ordered deadline to reunite families it separated at the
southern border. The government reported that it has reunited 1,442
children ages 5 and older with their parents who were detained by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 378 have been
"discharged in other appropriate circumstances," including to a
sponsor or to their parents in Department of Homeland Security
custody.

But more than 2,500 children were separated from their parents at
the border as part of the Trump administration's "zero tolerance"
immigration policy. Though President Trump in June signed an
executive order ending the policy, the federal government has
scrambled to reunite families separated during its enactment.  

The American Civil Liberties Union on July 26 said as many as 468
separated parents had been deported without their children, and
they are demanding the court reunite those families.

One migrant father represented in the July 28 court filing,
referred to as "F.G.," was allegedly reunited with his son in Texas
on July 25. But within hours, immigration officials reportedly
distributed the forms with three options.

When F.G. refused to agree to be deported with his son, he was
removed from the area and separated from his son a second time,
Mother Jones reported.

The testimony reports that ICE agents yelled at parents who tried
to choose the option that would allow their children to stay in the
U.S., or told them that they were not actually allowed to select
that option.

"Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of
removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without
their children, is part of long-standing policy," an ICE official
told Vox. "ICE does not interfere in the parent's decision to allow
the child to remain in the U.S. to pursue his or her own legal
claim."

Reports have emerged that parents who were deported without their
children were often misled or lied to by immigration officials.
Sometimes, officials presented deportation to parents as the only
option and other times, they gave the parents forms in English, a
language many of them do not speak. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Ordered to Follow Up on Missing Migrant Parents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Hartmann, writing for New York Magazine, reports that
after failing to return all of the youngest migrant children
separated from their parents at the southern border on July 10, the
Trump administration failed to meet a second deadline on July 26.
Though the administration claimed success -- and U.S. District
Judge Dana Sabraw even said they get "great credit" for reuniting
1,442 children 5 and older with their families -- on July 27 there
were 650 separated children still in government custody.

"The government is at fault for losing several hundred parents in
the process, and that's where we have to go next," said Judge
Sabraw.

In a ruling on July 27, Judge Sabraw said the government's
involvement with the "missing parents" isn't over. NBC News reports
that he ordered the Trump administration to provide a detailed list
by Aug. 1 of all the parents it had deemed "ineligible" for
reunification.

The administration said these parents fell into four categories.
More than 400 adults were deemed ineligible for reunification
because they've already been deported and U.S. officials can't find
them. Another 260 parents need "further evaluation," but the
administration was unclear on what that meant. Sixty-four parents
had a "prohibitive criminal record" so their children would not be
released to them.

The government claims another 127 waived reunification, but there
are allegations that that path isn't being presented fairly. Court
documents filed on July 28 in the class-action lawsuit over Trump's
family-separation policy allege that at least four fathers in Texas
were given forms with three choices -- be deported with children,
let child stay in U.S., or talk to a lawyer -- and the first option
was already selected for them in pen. Vox reports:

According to the testimony, parents who attempted to cross that out
and choose the second option -- being deported while allowing their
children to pursue their case and stay in the US -- were yelled at
by the ICE agents or told they simply were not allowed to select
another option. One was told that if he opted to be deported alone,
his son would still get deported -- and might be deported first.

One father claimed he was briefly reunited with his 17-year-old son
on July 25, only to be separated again. Minutes after they were
loaded onto a bus they were told was headed to a shelter, it turned
around. The father says that after refusing to sign the form
agreeing that his son should be deported with him, the bus turned
around and he was kicked off. His son was not allowed to get off
the bus to say good-bye to him.

The government said offering parents a choice is their standard
practice, but denied that they're ever coerced into making a
certain choice.

"Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of
removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without
their children, is part of long-standing policy," said a Department
of Homeland Security official.

The ACLU, which brought the suit, said it will provide pro bono
attorneys to help track down parents the government said it could
not locate.

"The judge's order requiring the government to provide us with
information about missing or deported parents leaves no doubt that
the court expects the remaining reunifications to get done
promptly," said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Victorville Detainees File Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephenson Awah Teneng, Marcel Ngwa and Noe Mauricio Granados
Aquino, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Donald J.
Trump, President of the United States, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary
Department of Homeland Security, Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting
Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, David Marin, Field
Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, U.S.
Attorney General, Hugh J. Hurwitz, Acting Director, Federal Bureau
of Prisons, David Shinn, Warden, FCI Victorville Medium Security
Prison I/II, in their official capacities only, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01609 (C.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate health care and
adequate nutrition, inhibiting detainees' free exercise of religion
by refusing to provide religious services or other adequate
opportunities for group prayer, congregate worship, or consultation
with clergy, ignoring religious dietary needs, severely impeding
the possession and wearing of religious headwear, jewelry and other
religious items, denying access to religious texts, restricting
detainees' ability to practice their religious beliefs and
confining detainees under conditions that are unnecessarily
restrictive and punitive in nature while detained at the
Victorville Medium Security Prison.

Plaintiffs are immigration detainees at Victorville, a medium
security prison operated by the Bureau of Prisons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Margot Knight Mendelson, Esq.
      Corene Kendrick, Esq.
      Donald Specter, Esq.
      PRISON LAW OFFICE
      1917 Fifth Street
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Tel: (510) 280-2621
      Fax: (510) 280-2704
      Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com
             ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
             dspecter@prisonlaw.com

             - and -

      Heather L. Weaver, Esq.
      Rekha Elaine Arulanantham, Esq.
      ACLU Foundation, ACLU National Prison Project
      915 15th Street NW Suite 600
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 548-6603, 548-6607
      Fax: (202) 393-4931
      Email: hweaver@aclu.org
             rarulanantham@aclu.org

             - and -

      Timothy P. Fox
      CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
      104 Broadway Suite 400
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303) 757-7901
      Fax: (303) 593-3339
      Email: tfox@creeclaw.org


UNITED STATES: Wazee Disputes Net Worth Sweep Dividend Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP, Douglas Whitley and Lisa
Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The United States of America, Case No. 18-cv-01124
filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims on August 2,
2018, challenges the imposition of the Net Worth Sweep dividend
payments implemented by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The complaint includes direct and derivative illegal exaction
claiming that the Net Worth Sweep was unauthorized because it was
adopted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and it was operating
in violation of constitutional separation of powers principles.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hamish Hume, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (DC)
      1401 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 237-2727
      Email: hhume@bsfllp.com


US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Suit Granted With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 24, 2018,
that the company's motion to dismiss a putative class action suit
has been granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court") against the Company and certain
officers, alleging that the defendants misstated or omitted to
state material information concerning the Company's historical
accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired
partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

On December 1, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and
subsequent filings by the parties related to the Motion to Dismiss
were completed on February 7, 2018.

On July 23, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting
the Company's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, with prejudice.

U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
outpatient physical therapy clinics that provide pre-and
post-operative care and treatment for orthopedic-related disorders,
sports-related injuries, preventative care, rehabilitation of
injured workers, and neurological-related injuries. The company was
founded in 1990 and is based in Houston, Texas.


WAL-MART STORES: Mays Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOE ONE through and including DOE
ONE-HUNDRED, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying these
classes:

The Wage Statement Class:

   "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one
   or more wage payments during the period from Friday, December
   16, 2016 to the date on which this Motion may be decided"; and

Former Employee Class:

   "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one
   or more wage payments during the period from December 18, 2014
   to the date on which this Motion may be decided whose employ
   by Defendant terminated on or after December 18, 2014, yet who
   were provided additional wages or vacation pay after their
   Statement of Final Wages was issued."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Stony Hollow Landfill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Stewart, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a
proposed settlement has been reached between neighbors of the Stony
Hollow Landfill and its owners over the alleged emission of foul
odors and contaminants dating back years and if you live nearby,
you might be owed money.

Property owners and renters at any time since Oct. 31, 2012 and
living within a roughly 2.5-mile radius of the landfill at 2460
South Gettysburg Rd. have until Sept. 9 to submit a claim. People
can exclude themselves, comment or object to the settlement on or
before Aug. 25.

In a tentative agreement, Stony Hollow, owned by Waste Management,
agreed to create a settlement fund of $1,875,000 and put another
$1,450,000 by the end of 2022 toward further improvement measures
to minimize the the impact of airborne emissions from the landfill.
Attorneys' fees could reach up to $795,000 of the settlement fund,
according to a court documents.

Moraine and Jefferson Twp. residents lodged hundreds of odor
complaints against the Dayton landfill, growing more frequent in
April 2016 and remaining persistent. Foul odors also spread as far
as Dayton, Jackson Twp., Kettering, Miamisburg, Oakwood and West
Carrollton. In November 2016, Moraine resident Carly Beck filed the
federal class-action suit joined by 100 others. Neither Moraine nor
other municipalities were part of the suit.

Related documents can be found on the Stony Hollow Settlement page
of the Liddle & Dubin, P.C. website.

The firm can also be reached by phone at 1-800-536-0045 or by
e-mail at info@ldclassaction.com [GN]

WITHCOIN: Faces Class Action in Japan Over Misleading Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Fenech, writing for CoinGeek, reports that Withcoin, a
cryptocurrency designed for casinos, has been accused of
propagating lies. The virtual currency, which has been listed on
the HitBTC exchange since May, used a promotional video that
allegedly showed misleading information, according to a class
action lawsuit in Japan.

An overview on the Enjin Class Action site identified Koichi
Matsuyama as the person responsible for spreading the video, which
lured investors into buying Withcoin with the sales pitch: "If you
buy it today you can become a millionaire."

It was later discovered that what Mr. Matsuyama promised was a lie,
according to the Enjin overview. In January, 1 Withcoin was valued
at JPY0.5 ($0.0045); however, investors were allowed to buy the
coins by large chunks of JPY10 million ($90,046). Mr. Matsuyama
also inexplicably changed Withcoin's exchange from Binance to
HitBTC, and claimed that the coin "can be used in Okada Manila." A
representative for Universal Entertainment Corporation, which
operates Okada Manila, told news.bitcoin.com that the
Philippine-based integrated resort "has never authorized or
partnered with anyone regarding the use of Bitcoin or other
cryptocurrency."

Its white paper described Withcoin as "an innovative money-transfer
and automatic foreign-exchange platform to transfer money to
land-based and online casinos through cryptocurrency." The team
behind the coin promised to "realize a digital currency platform
for anyone to easily participate in casinos," by automating
operational procedures using Ethereum smart contract functions.

Withcoin buyers said they suffered large losses after the coin fell
to about 1/10 of the ICO price. Then two weeks after being listed,
Withcoin crashed to JPY0.139 (0.0013). In June, 420 victims
gathered on Enjin to file a class-action lawsuit seeking damages of
over JPY1.3 billion ($12 million). According to the Enjin class
action page, because Matsuyama and his company provided false
information to sell Withcoin, this invalidated the sales contracts,
meaning the victims can claim full refund in Japanese yen at the
rate when the coins were sold. [GN]

YAYO RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Romeyra Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Yayo Restaurant Corp., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04310, (E.D. N.Y., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Yayo Restaurant Corp. and Destination Food Corp operates as El
Viejo Yayo, a latin restaurant located at 9712 101st Avenue, Ozone
Park, NY 11416 where Rodriguez was employed as an assistant to the
manager, waitress and cashier. She claims to have worked in excess
of forty hours a week without being paid time and a half their
regular rate of pay. [BN]

Plaintiff appears pro se.


YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Speed Enforcement Cameras May Spark Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WFMJ reports that the signs alerting drivers that speed enforcement
cameras could catch them traveling too fast have to be taken down
from state roads and highways in the Valley by Aug. 3.

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) sent out letters to
communities including Girard, Howland, Hubbard, Liberty, and
Youngstown earlier in July ordering speed enforcement cameras and
any mounted cameras on state routes and interstates be removed.

Youngstown Police Officers will continue to use handheld cameras
without those signs in place.

Youngstown Law Director Jeff Limbian joined WFMJ Weekend Today's
Press Pass to explain why the city believes its still within the
law to use the cameras and how it will move signs to meet
guidelines.

The city sign department will be told as early as this week to move
signs alerting drivers of speed enforcement cameras to roads that
lead to state routes and highways like Interstate 680.

Mr. Limbian says the way he interprets the law is that as long as
people are adequately notified that the city has traffic cameras
then moving the signs should be sufficient.

But drivers traveling from another highway merging onto 680 won't
see those signs since they have to be taken down from all
state-maintained roadways.

"You know it probably is not fair," Mr. Limbian said.

"If you have somebody who is passing through 680 from Akron and
maybe heading to somewhere in Western Pennsylvania, they're not
going to know and clearly I think we need to work with the state to
try to rectify that problem," Mr.Limbian said.

Just like the class action traffic ticket case in Girard, Mr.
Limbian is expecting a class action lawsuit targeting speed cameras
to eventually surface.  

Mr. Limbian says he's expecting and prepared for possible legal
challenges to the city's decision.

"I wouldn't be surprised if some thoughtful or aggressive lawyer
might do the same thing with Youngstown and we're prepared to fight
it, because the safety for the citizens of Youngstown and frankly
it's a financial issue too," he said. [GN]

[*] Bill Aims to Stop Student Loan Arbitration, Class Action Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public News Service reports that in Missouri, 70 percent of college
graduates leave school with debt, and navigating the payback
process for their loans isn't easy.

That could change with a bill introduced in Congress in July that
has gotten support from numerous higher education and consumer
groups.

The Aim High Act (HR 1772) is intended to make institutions more
accountable and transparent to the public.

"It's a comprehensive package that seeks to make college more
affordable, more accessible, and hold institutions more accountable
for the results that they achieve," explains Ashley Harrington, a
special assistant to the president of the Center for Responsible
Lending. "And so we think that it's a big, strong step in the right
direction."

The Aim High Act also would prohibit lenders from forcing students
to sign agreements at the beginning of their loan that ban them
from seeking arbitration or a class action lawsuit if they are
harmed in the process of the loan.

The average student loan debt per person in Missouri is $26,000,
according to LendEDU, an online marketplace for financial products.
Nationwide, 44 million consumers owe $1.5 trillion collectively.

If passed, the legislation also simplifies the loan repayment
system to include one standard plan and one income-based plan that
is accessible to all borrowers.

Ms. Harrington says the current system is confusing for borrowers.

"It's really hard to navigate which ones you qualify for," she
states. "You have to re-certify every year for an income-based
repayment plan, and if you forget to re-certify you will
automatically be transitioned from that income-based repayment play
to a standard plan."

There also is increased support for minority institutions and
others whose enrollment includes a large portion of low-income
students.

The Aim High Act currently is in a House committee for
consideration. [GN]

[*] Initial Coin Offering-Related Lawsuits Hit Record High in 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael del Castillo, writing for Forbes.com, reports that it's
been a record year for federal lawsuits related to initial coin
offerings, the new fundraising method that lets entrepreneurs raise
capital by selling tokens on a blockchain.

While 2017 saw the first five U.S. class action lawsuits related to
the technology, according to a report released on July 25 by the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and
Cornerstone Research, the first six months of 2018 alone had an
additional seven filings.

But the rise in class action lawsuits around ICOs coincides with a
larger, "historic" incidence of class action securities lawsuits
since 2016, with more than 750 federal securities class actions
having been filed since halfway through that year. That's the most
prolific 24-month period since the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 was enacted, according the the report.

Report coauthor Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford Law School professor
who is a former commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, described the findings in a statement:

"Class action securities fraud litigation continues to affect a
large percentage of publicly traded firms."

While ICOs aren't typically tied to public firms, they have
nevertheless raised $19.4 billion since 2014, according to CoinDesk
data, with the total amount raised in 2018 surpassing all of 2017
earlier this year. Six of the seven class actions filed this year
are still active, according to data from the Stanford Law School
Clearinghouse.

Notable ongoing lawsuits include one filed in June against San
Francisco-based Ripple Labs alleging that the defendants raised
"hundreds of millions of dollars" through the unregistered sale of
XRP to retail investors. Another suit, against U.K.-based
Bitconnect, alleges that the company "failed to disclose material
facts" that caused its value to drop.

Further ongoing cases filed this year are against Paragon Coin,
Latium Network, DRIP and Cloud With Me. A seventh case, against
cryptocurrency mining operation Mining Max, was dismissed in June.

In total, 12 ICO class actions are documented in the report, all of
which occurred in the past two years. Two of these ICOs have
parallel action in California state courts.

The new fundraising mechanism has been the target of frequent
accusations of abuse due to their perceived lack of accountability
and an early disregard for securities law. As a result, the SEC
earlier this year named the head of its distributed ledger
technology working group, Valerie Szczepanik, as the first senior
adviser for digital assets, tasked in part to look into the issue.


However, the Cornerstone report is interesting in that it also
highlights existing problems related to more traditional securities
issuances. While the total number of ICOs is on pace to more than
double in 2018, they represent just a tiny fraction of the total
class action lawsuits being filed.

Grundfest concluded:

"If the trends observed in the first half of the year continue to
year-end, approximately 8.5 percent of all companies listed on the
NYSE and NASDAQ markets will have been sued in these cases." [GN]

[*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half of 2018
------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the number of securities class-action filings and the average case
size increased in the first half of 2018, according to a
Cornerstone Research report released on July 25.

Plaintiffs filed 204 new federal securities class actions, which
combined with the previous 18-month figures, add up to 750 actions
that represent the most prolific 24-month period since enactment of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, aimed at
shifting control to investors with the largest losses, researchers
at Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse found.

The 204 class actions are up from 189 in the second half of 2017.

One difference over the first six months of 2018 was a return of
mega filings, instead of smaller cases in 2017.

Core filings -- those alleging stock price drops without merger and
acquisition claims -- rose to 111 from 87 in the second half of
2017. "We see persistently high volumes," Sasha Aganin, Cornerstone
Research vice president and a report co-author, said in an
interview.

Average case size, as measured by market capitalization losses,
rose to levels not seen since 2002, driven by mega filings
involving a dollar loss of at least $5 billion. Nine mega filings
in the first half of 2018 made up 69% of all disclosure dollar
losses, compared to 36% in the first half of 2017. Those nine mega
cases were more than three times higher than the historical
semiannual average. The previous year saw an unusual prevalence of
midsize cases, which could indicate more market volatility, Mr.
Aganin said. "We have seen a very long bull market, and stock
indices have not been very volatile, but my suspicion is volatility
might be picking up."

Alleged dollar losses related to disclosure issues rose to an
aggregate $157 billion, 162% higher than the historical semiannual
average of $60 billion. Alleged losses totaled $59 billion in the
last half of 2017.

Other trends noted so far in 2018 were a slight drop in the
percentage of core filings against non-U.S. issuers, which fell
slightly to 22%, and an increase of filings in the communications
sector, particularly internet companies, which increased to 17 from
six in the second half of 2017.

"If the trends observed in the first half of the year continue to
year-end, approximately 8.5% of all companies listed on the NYSE
and Nasdaq markets will have been sued in these cases," Stanford
Law School Professor Joseph A. Grundfest said in a news release.

The report is available on the Cornerstone Research website. [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 ***